Dr.K.S.Rawat said:
Be sure he said "Many persons who attach no importance whatever to their dreams"
The criticism remains. I cannot imagine
anybody who values PL regression attaching "no importance whatever to their dreams."
Dr.K.S.Rawat said:
Pl.note,he wrote:"Although opposed to commercial exploitation of unwarranted claims for hypnotic regression, I am in favor of serious research with hypnotic regression.
And, as I mentioned in the previous post, who is to define what is or is not "serious research with hypnotic regression"? And how can one say whether a claim is or is not "unwarranted" until research is conducted into it? That is rather like me (a historian) saying I am only interested in "serious historical research"--a statement that says nothing whatsoever.
As for "commercial exploitation," another subjective term, it is equally unclear what Stevenson is trying to say. If a traditional secular psychotherapist is permitted to charge a fee without being accused of exploitation, is a PL regressionist in private practice supposed to do it for free?
To use another analogy, it's rather like me (a history professor) saying you should only be allowed to write history books if you're not paid for it. Otherwise you are just guilty of "commercial exploitation."
If what a regressionist does is of value his or her patients, he or she should by all means charge a fee. It's a service. If PL regression was proven to be harmful, or if it was shown to have cultic implications (i.e. people bequesting entire estates to would-be spirit guides) that would be another thing; but in the meantime, those who choose PL regression are adults and can presumably decide how to dispose of their money in a way meaningful to them.
Dr.K.S.Rawat said:
May be he is stating as a scientist.Is it necessory to put something he stated:"more crudely"(That way, we may condemn anybody).
Academics like me and Dr. Stevenson habitually state things in faux-respectable phraseology to cover up the implications of what we may actually be saying. Sometimes it's necessary to put things a little more bluntly.
My remark, "under the personal supervision of he or one of his associates" is prefaced by i.e.--in other words. What I am trying to say is that in condemning all regressions not conducted "scientifically," Stevenson is in effect saying that only he and his associates in the scientific community should conduct PL regression research--research that, incidentally, remains inaccessible to most of us.
Dr. Stevenson has for many years been fixated on gaining academic respectability for research in reincarnation, and one gathers that--with good reason--he sees the large number of cranks, frauds, and pop regressionists that circulate out there as potentially threatening to his life's work. Thus his vigor in disassociating himself from non-academic researchers.
Yet in this I think he falls into the same trap of academic snobbery that he has spent so many years trying to combat. No doubt he and his center at UVA are constantly besieged by a lot of well-meaning but silly requests. He has every right to ignore them. But I have to say I disapprove of his disapproval of those who conduct PL regressions without sanction from the academic or scientific community.
Again, it'd be like me saying I disapprove of anyone without a Ph.D. who writes about history. My opinion is that everyone should be active in exploring his or her universe. I'd hate to imagine a world where we left all knowledge-seeking to the academics. That would be a frightening 'Brave New World' indeed!!!!
Lonewolf