Forum

i Josh,

(I love your ‘snow’ metaphor! … Thanks …)

“Yes”, that is what I’m saying.

It might be of use here if I give you a rough outline of what I see as the major alternative to this viewpoint of mine, and the probable affect that I believe embracing it would have on me.

This alternative viewpoint would be that Eugene Halliday possessed ‘Special Powers’

In which case let me stress here, right away, that I would almost certainly have no interest in him – as he would be of no damn use to me…. because I would see myself, – if this in fact were the scenario – as attempting to relate to someone like ‘Spiderman’…

However, say I was to embrace this opposing viewpoint to mine … That is, that he did possess ‘Special Powers’.

In my case I can see that it would immediately provide me with an excellent excuse for not doing any work on myself that might result in ‘rocking my boat’.

Because I could now very easily navigate the major problem of working on those inertic qualities of mine that I am supposed to be doing battle with, and instead, immediately justifying any decision not to do so by claiming that , “Well it’s alright for Eugene Halliday to talk, because he’ a fully blah blah blah …. and also a Master …. etc etc etc. complete with an armory of ‘special powers’, and obviously I’m not, so I can’t … etc.”

The problem here is that I have now, by an act of will, self-defined myself in such a way that I am now in real danger of merely 'orbiting' the man for the rest of my life, like some sort sort psychophantic, mildly deranged ‘moon-wimp’.

And … providing I subsequently expend any free energy I do happen to possess: by doing impressions of Uriah Heap; spending most of the time engaging in a variety of ritualistic, diverse, cringings,; claim that I am, “Sitting at the feet of …. (some simulacrum or other – fill in the name here with your very favorite ‘spiritual figure’, such as Buddha, Moses, Billy Graham, etc… etc. etc)” Then I won’t ever have to get off my behind, and do any actual, real, work …Will I? … And a big plus for me here is that I’ve now managed to ingratiate myself into a situation where I probably don’t feel bad about it either!

Furthermore, I can still turn up at those ‘official meetings’ that Eugene Halliday happened to be presiding over in order to be superbly entertained, and to also mingle with a variety of similarly disposed beings in a pleasant social setting (some of whom might prove to be useful contacts for me out there in the market-place).

This mode of activity would also have the further advantage of allowing me to delude others (and myself of course) into believing that I was, “doing something ‘mysterious,” and that, “it was not for everyone.” ….Oooh!

To top it off, in order to put firmly into place that final nail in my self-constructed coffin, all I would then have to do, is engage in a variety of ‘pseudo-spiritual’ pursuits … preferably not too often, and ideally, only at week-ends (so that it didn’t interfere with my real job) … …. I mean … Let’s be sensible here!

And, on the positive side, with a bit of luck, I will have made it to the end of my life without ever having to actually get off the couch. … And if there did happen to be some sort of ‘accounting’ at the end … Well … I have a really splendid excuse for the way I’ve spent my allotted time!! … Don’t I?

The problem then though, is that very clear mirror I might subsequently be forced to gaze into … for ever …

Finally, I must add that it is important to bear in mind here that none of the above allows me to make any claim whatsoever that I am somehow privy to what it was that Eugene Halliday was ‘really about’ (luckily for me I am happy to leave that to others) .. The viewpoint that I considered, and then subsequently adopted, was put in place by me because I believe that it assists me to (what I maintain is) ‘work’.

Bob

Hi Josh

Yes, that all makes sense to me. I do think it's important to distinguish between extreme ability and 'special powers', however, the line is a bit blurred when someone is so far ahead of you in certain respects (for example, I'm never going to run as fast as Usain Bolt, no matter how much I train) that what they can do has, to all intents a purposes, become unattainable for you.

I’m not exactly sure that I understand what you mean here by ‘special powers’. But I assume that it’s something along the lines of ‘extraordinary natural ability’ or ‘extremely talented’. …. So, in the particular case of Eugene Halliday, what would be the criteria for a) comparing his ability in any one particular field (say ‘art’) with the work of others in the same field and, b) the qualifications required of the person(s) arriving at this conclusion?…

But I can still become a faster runner than I am now, and I can still do stuff I'm better suited to than running A LOT better than I do now. And, depending on one's view of what resec (and other abilities/learned qualities Halliday had) maybe it's always in principle possible to make significant progress in some areas.

I would say that believing you have the possibility of making progress in some area of your life is the only thing of real importance here anyway ☺

At some point I'll make a post assessing how much I've grappled with Halliday's ideas in terms of incorporating them into my life. I haven't done so AT ALL in any kind of very conscious, systematic, deliberate way like you

Well, if you mean that I initially took the idea of developing an ‘active’ language from the Rules of Ishval, then ‘yes’ I did; and did I bear this in mind when I subsequently listened to his talks and read his essays for more advice and information in this matter? Then the answer is also ‘yes’… But, as I have worked with this concept in a conscious, systematic, and deliberate way for some time now, it is important to also note here that I have incorporated this ‘idea’ into my life only in the sense that I took it as a point of departure. And where it concerns my own particular efforts here I take the full responsibility, as these attempts - in and of themselves - have little or nothing to do with Eugene Halliday …
I should also perhaps mention that there are other ‘ideas’ (systems), or ‘techniques’ of Eugene Haliday’s that I have found to be of little, or of no use at all, to me. … But of course that doesn’t mean they weren’t of prime importance, or use, to others …

I used to feel guilty about this but I don't any more. I get to choose what I'm interested in, not Eugene, not you, not anyone! (Or is that true? Sounds like denial doesn't it?). But I have grown up with some of these concepts 'in the background' as it were, and I haven't properly considered how much I embody them. It occurs to me that I do, to some small extent. But maybe I would have done naturally anyway.

I would agree - that you do get to choose ….
I understand that one consequence of your dad’s involvement with Eugene Halliday’s ideas was that you became exposed to them. But you would be the only one to know the extent to which you have subsequently embodied them, as far as I’m concerned (I take you to mean here, something like - “These ideas have, in some real sense (because I have embodied them) become, uniquely, also my ideas ” Rather than, say, “I’ve ‘sort of’ remembered some of these ideas and am regurgitating them now in order (hopefully) to impress you, or to manufacture some sort of affect.” … Or something like that.).

've also wanted to talk a bit about the 'inhibiting effect' Eugene has on people.

I can how you might have come to the view that others, having placed themselves ‘in the hands of’ Eugene Halliday, as a direct result appear to be ‘inhibited’ or ‘restrained’ as a consequence… Because I too have noticed this affect on many of those who I have spoken with who claim some affiliation with the man…
In my particular case, I see that the purpose of all ‘work’ is to obtain some degree (at the very least) of self-realization… But if you behave towards Eugene Halliday’s particular methodologies such that they become your only method for ‘tackling’ and/or ‘legitimizing’ this endeavor. That is, by a prior decision on your part to apply ‘only his ideas, or his methods, or with his approval’ (particularly before you have achieved any positive results here) then I would have to ask you why you have done so (and I would require a very detailed answer) – because I see that approach, frankly, as ridiculous.
To advice such as “Be as him,” - which was actually offered by one person, believe it or not - I would reply that the obvious danger here is that this approach invariably becomes a bizzare attempt at mere impersonation. Leading to the discovery that this is, in practice (and, I would argue, in principle) impossible, and will almost always result in the inevitable, self-condemnatory (but how convenient) “I am not worthy,” postscript. …My reply to this piece of advice is straightforward, “Sycophantic Rubbish! Strive to be as one is.”

People feel like 'candles in sunshine' next to him, so they stop attempting to shine. I remember my dad drawing a doodle of a tree (I was about 15 or so at the time), and I thought it was really good, and said so. Dad gave me a wry smile, screwed it up and threw it in the bin. "I'll never be as good as him," he said. I thought this was a bit silly of my dad.

So do I … And I would add, that in my opinion, Henry clearly’ doesn’t appear to know that much about graphic art … At least if that is what he thought…
By the way, I have no problem criticizing Eugene Halliday myself, but I also have no problem at all in defending my profound respect for him… All the difference in the world!

Eugene couldn't have drawn THAT picture that my dad drew.

Indeed!! …And that, surely, is precisely the point!

I don't know if this was true of my dad or not, but the achievements of others can be used as an excuse not to bother oneself.

I wouldn’t say that your dad couldn’t be bothered. But I would say that, from what I have heard about him and from what you’ve told me, he had an unhealthy admiration for Halliday that prevented him from discovering, and exploring (and being thankful for) his own unique abilities. … I have never made my mind up as to whether or not this (not uncommon situation) was a consequence of Eugene Halliday’s character itself, or of those who were attracted to him…. He must surely have been aware of his affect on others (?) …
I have never had this kind of problem myself. I treat all his texts (audio and written) in exactly the same way. They contain ideas, concepts, perhaps a ‘take’ on contemporary life sometimes etc. and, as I have made these freely available to one and all, I now find it relatively easy to focus on discussing just these; rather than discussing the ‘man himself’ – Although I did try to do just this during one period (between 2005-8). But I found the resulting ‘accounts’ far too sycophantic for my taste, and thus unreliable - at least where it came to helping me toward towards any real understanding of his material - which is where my real interests lie here.
Luckily for me (I believe) I have never wanted to be convinced about anything; neither was I ever looking for someone who could reinforce an opinion of mine in such a way that it lead me to place my unwavering trust in them; and I never wanted to ‘be’ right. What I wanted was to ‘do’ right; and to find practical material that I could use to help me towards some degree of ‘self-knowledge’.

Bob

Hi Josh
I’d like to reply to that first paragraph of yours in some detail.
I understand what your dad meant by ‘psyche’. However, I don’t see Eugene’s ‘uncanny ability’ here (or any of his abilities for that matter) containing any ‘slightly spooky’ component at all … But that’s because I don’t regard anyone’s abilities in that way, whoever they are, and whatever their abilities might be…
I too, think that this ‘psyching’ is a skill that anyone, in principle, can acquire, if they are prepared to devote themselves to working on it, that is. … And I do think that Eugene Halliday was very, very good at it …. So - ‘ok then’ - I might be tempted to loosely describe his level of ability as ‘a bit magic’- but only because I believe it’s not very common, and not in order to endorse some belief or other in a kind of ‘super, arcane, Rosicrucian, yogic, transcendental technique - requiring access to one’s specially refined or ‘spiritually-cleansed’ energy source’.. etc …
So it might be a good idea here, if I say what I mean by ‘spooky’ - and also to mention what I see are the dangers of believing in stuff like this
I’ll use a couple of examples….
1) Examining a mechanical device (such as a old watch), and a solid-state radio receiver, does not produce any ‘shivery feelings up and down my spine’ because – in the case of the watch, I can just examine it and ‘see the cogs, springs, and wheels going round’ (it’s purely mechanical); and - in the case of, say, a solid-state radio, I have the necessary technical background to understand how it is that the sound of Lady GaGa’s voice appears to be coming out of the front of the little green box that is standing on top of my kitchen table.
2) I am watching a line of crows on the telegraph wire. There is a loud bang, and they all fly away in alarm at the same time. Again I would not experience any feeling of ‘mysteriousness’ here – as I understand that the crows were sufficiently alarmed by the bang to all fly away suddenly in order to escape - what they experienced instinctively - as a possible danger.
3) I’m watching a nature program on TV about ‘underwater life’, and I see an enormous shoal of small fish in very tight formation. Suddenly they all execute a very tight turn at precisely the same moment. My reaction here is, “Wow!” … And at this point I would admit that I am now ‘ripe’ for being impressed by remarks about ‘biological magneto-fields’ and ‘animal telepathy’ – although I don’t have the faintest idea really about what these two subjects might be about …. In other words, this scenario has started to become ‘spooky’ for me!
Whatever my reaction is though… ‘It’ (that is - this reaction of mine) is really the only thing that I have ‘to work on’… And so I ‘flesh it out’, and exaggerate it, in my accounting of it to you. … So, instead of admitting that I haven’t the faintest idea ‘how the fish did it’, I resort to descriptions that include additional material along the lines of, “We mere mortals don’t know everything you know.” (I really mean here, of course, that it’s me that doesn’t know. You, on the other hand, might be a marine biologist who specializes in the behavior of shoals of fish, and so in fact you probably know a great deal here about why this is happening). … I might then continue on in the same vein, by adding, “In this wonderful world that we live in, there are more things we don’t know about, than we do know about.” - without stopping for a moment to imagine how I could possibly justify that statement. … … etc. … and so on …
The end result here will be, I imagine, that I eventually get to experience that ‘warm rosy glow’ which accompanies those states of ignorance that I cleverly manage to somehow convince myself are in the domain of ‘forbidden knowledge’. And that any ‘true’ answer here - to explain this natural event - is accessible only to those ‘special wise ones’ who have ‘received’ it from some benevolent cosmic overseer – a being who is far wiser, and kinder, and ethically perfect, than any human being I could ever imagine…. And whose ‘ways’ are not for us ‘mere mortal worms’ to know ….
The problem with this of course is that I, almost immediately, then have to filter out the fact that a huge whale has suddenly appeared on my TV screen, and is quite obviously about to decimate the shoal of fish in a couple of seconds or so, reducing it from its original thousand or so happy mums, dads, and fishlet toddlers, to around twenty-seven (and a half) hapless survivors …. And I also have to ignore the fact that a minute or so later, the fish survivors don’t really appear to be aware that anything untoward has happened, and don’t really seem to care – although I have already allowed that they might be ‘telepathic’, or able to ‘receive information’ from the ‘biological magneto-field’ – a field which, strangely enough, doesn’t appear to include information as to the expressed intentions of one of the largest living biological masses on the planet. A creature that would also surely be broadcasting its single-minded intentions ‘telepathically’; and that should also be the progenerator of a considerable amount of ‘waves’ of ‘information’ in the afore mentioned ‘biological magneto-field’ … But then, I suppose, on the other hand, the fishes might just be really dumb …
What I’m getting at here, is attempting to describe that if I simple inhibit my ability to reason, and don’t attempt to ‘join up the dots’ – I can, very quickly, lapse (yet again) into that pleasant, dreamy, twilight passive ‘member-of –the-audience-so-please-entertain-me-with-nice–shivery-ideas’ state …And I simply hang around and wait for the next ‘wow’ diversion… retaining my ‘rosy glow’ for as long as I can … by trying really hard not to think about anything of any consequence too much at all….

This brings me on to the issue of speed. My dad talked as if Eugene's 'psyching' of people was a very quick process, almost instant. Eugene would meet a complete stranger, engage his 'psyching' power and immediately just know all about that person's psychology, almost instantly.

While the ability to very quickly ‘size others up’ (if I can put it that way) can be remarkable (and by the way, I would question whether Eugene ever could know ‘all about’ a person’s psychology), it is by no means unique…. But I have no doubt that Eugene could very quickly ‘psyche’ the majority of people that he came into contact with….

How quick do you think it is possible, on meeting someone, to 'see' them,

Well, if you have them in a ‘space’ that you are familiar with…. Say the person involved has become a client of Eugene’s in his psychotherapeutic practice… Then I would say that Eugene probably could already ‘know’ a great deal about people like this - in a general sense at least - before they even walked through the door… The person wishing to be the client is already in an impressionable state (they want something positive to happen) …. And I would also imagine that he would have had a great deal of practice in this area … So I would say he would appear to be able to do this ‘seeing’ immediately… I would also include here, the ability to ‘psyche’ many of those people who turned up to hear him talk… ..
And where it concerns members of the general public at large? … I would say that he would also have a great deal of success … But then so would Darren Brown … or anyone else who had mastered the arts of ‘suggestion’ and ‘cold reading’, for that matter.

as you say Eugene did, by a process of application of general principles gained from working on ones own self and body?

I think this process was the one that really enhanced and augmented his abilities – and I am of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of those who ‘knew’ him had no real, experiential, idea of just what that actually involved. Although, I maintain, this was always reasonably easy to work out, simply by studying the man … I would also add here that I have experienced the overwhelming majority of his self-described ‘followers’ as being desperate to believe that any explanation here of Eugene Halliday’s abilities was (very conveniently for them) ‘supernatural’…

Can it be done with a look alone? Does a conversation have to happen? If Eugene did it as quickly as my dad seems to have thought (and you might disagree that he did do it that quickly), how do we plausibly account for the speed?

Well, if they turn up at one of his talks I think this makes it relatively easy. And as for the speed, I’m not so sure that it was, ‘instant’ ….Surely there would have to be some measure of social intercourse before Eugene demonstrated his ‘sight’ in any one particular instance. … Or do you mean perhaps that he could walk up to anyone at all - out of the blue as it were – and say ‘something… true’..? … Something, perhaps, along the lines of, “I know quite definitely that you’re not wearing any underwear,” or, “You are thinking of a tall dark stranger,” or, “You are feeling rather sad because I can ‘see’ that your pet hamster has just died.” …
I don’t believe this is what he did. I believe he was extremely perceptive, and to an extraordinary degree… Most people (men particularly) just ‘don’t listen’ to others (ask your wife!) … And any man who did so would already be seen as somewhat unusual … If you add in here Eugene Halliday’s interest in almost everything and anything, you can see (I think) that he would attend quite closely to others as a matter of course… And it’s also worth considering to ask … is the ‘average person’ really all that complicated? …

Was your use of 'uncanny' a reference to EH's speed of apprehension?

Yes it was. My impression of him was that he was very ‘aware’ of both his immediate surroundings (including people) and also his relative position in these surroundings – physically, mentally, and in his feeling….Although I would add that I believe he occasionally ‘lost it’ - and that in fact I maintain that I can hear him doing just that in recordings of his talks

Yes, I've used Halliday's stuff as a 'point of departure' too, quite extensively, particularly with regard to his philosophy, and especially his panpsychism.

His ideas on panpsychism have been crucial for me as well, not only as a point of departure, but I have also ‘appropriated’ a significant portion of what he has to say about the subject, and I still use this approach of his to inform my present position…

Indeed. I've stopped worrying about whether or not EH would have agreed with some of my developments/glosses of his ideas.

Good …. I’m sure he would wholeheartedly approved … and I am certain that he would also have encouraged you here

Yes. Well, I'm aware of my own views and attitudes to an extent, and I'm wondering to what extent I would have had these views and attitudes if it were not for EH's influence on me both directly (from reading his stuff) and via my dad.

In my own case I don’t think that I would have covered nearly as much ground without coming into contact with his ideas … I have a tendency to ‘specialize’ and I have found Eugene’s eclectic approach very helpful …

...but I do have sympathy with people who are not strongly individuated, and have no very strong 'centre' of their own that fixes them and stops them becoming a kind of satellite of someone else's strong 'centre' (this is metaphorical, but I hope you know what I mean). Assuredly, this can be a kind of failing, a sort of copping out, not taking responsibility for one's own person, but it can happen awfully easily if one's natural personality is somewhat, I don't know, 'passive', for want to a better word

.
I do know what you mean, and I do have some sympathy here myself …

Someone once said to me, regarding EH, something like "Anyone who surrounds himself with a bunch of admirers must be a bit of an egotistical twat, and therefore not worth bothering with." My opinion is that EH had no choice. He could have told people to go away and leave him alone, but that wouldn't have helped them, it would have just upset them. So EH used them, to an extent, instead. They wanted to be used, so EH accepted the sacrificial offering in as gentle a way he could, and giving in return what he could.

I almost agree with you 100% here. But I have heard others claim that he gave advice re major life decisions (such as whether or not to have children) to members of Ishval… and this I find vaguely disturbing … If in fact these accounts are true, in the sense that I understood them as they were presented to me ….

Yes, it was a kind of abuse, but what can you do when people are throwing themselves at your feet, except kick them a little bit? He did say, explicitly, over and over again, 'Don't place the means of salvation outside of yourself" or words to that effect. What the hell else could he do?

It seems to me that the people who sought him out did so to ask him questions of major importance to them. But I think it is crucial here to point out that there are many, many, people in the world who do not consider these questions to be of fundamental importance in their lives at all – they rather, ‘get on with the business of living’. So I see that we have to regard those who do find these issues of major importance (life after death; the mind/body question; etc etc) as in some way at least, vulnerable to ideas here – particularly if these ideas are attractive, presented very well, and don’t require any real specialist knowledge…
With me it was somewhat different … After I’d been to Ken’s for a while it wasn’t only the things Eugene Halliday spoke about in the particular way that he did that captured my attention,.. I was extremely interested in attempting to understand, and so formulate, his methodology. And this has been my major area of concern here now for a very long time … What were the actual techniques he developed, and subsequently employed, in order to come to see things in the way that he did?…. And please .. don’t give me any of that, “He was in the field,” nonsense…

Luckily for me (I believe) I have never wanted to be convinced about anything;
Cor, you're a braver man than I am, Bob! I'd never dare say that, even if I suspected it were true of me!

Thanks Josh, but It isn’t really bravery … I find the alternative – that I have placed my ‘raison d’etre’ - to any significant extent whatsoever - in the hands of someone else, to be totally unacceptable to me… As I am certain that in my case, if I did, this would just be a ‘cop-out’ by me…

Thanks again for your critical engagement in all things Halliday. I'm very much enjoying reading your reflections.

I have to say that I am really enjoying this exchange too…
Bob

Hi Josh

OK, I think I agree with you that EH's abilities were basically the same kind of thing that anyone does when they 'size up' each other, only developed to a high degree. It's still interesting, though, exactly how people do this 'sizing up' and how quickly some people can get a very accurate 'read' on what's going on. And I think it perhaps has something to do with self-honesty, and a loss of distorting filters (wanting to see the world a certain way)

I agree with you here – I also believe that the only way to develop these abilities (remove those ‘distorting filters’) is by a ruthless ‘self-honest’ examination of one’s own psyche… But I would also add here that in my experience at least, there’s quite a bit more needs to be put in place first …

I believe that to do this work seriously, you must first carefully construct your own ‘system’ - in EH’s sense of that word – one that allows you to work relatively easily within its ‘typological’ and ‘topological’ structure, and that - more importantly – you are both very comfortable, and extremely familiar with. This system of yours must also function in such a way that it allows you to deal with any rational, or irrational, material that might surface; it must be resonant with your geographical, cultural, and historical, ancestral inheritance; and it must not be used to further your ambitions to, say, try to turn yourself into a ‘spiritual master’ with your own personal ‘flock’’… By the way, attempting to do that would be a complete waste of time anyway, because you will almost certainly have one of those fanciful impressions of yourself in place in your egoic consciousness already (although you may not realize that until you start this work) and the idea here, initially at least, is to drag this imago of yourself that you’ve already lumbered yourself with into conscious focus, and then attempt to ‘dispense with it’ (as much as you are able, that is) … That is, the idea here is not go about constructing another one! ..

Ideally, you should work with your partner, but if that’s not possible then my advice is to work alone, although working with a very close friend is also OK …. Be extremely wary of working with groups… Why? …. Because if the person running the group - no matter how ‘well intentioned’ they are - doesn’t really know how this all ‘works’, then what will almost certainly be produced by the group will be their very own ‘consensus reality’ – which will bind them all together in one massive ‘tacit conspiracy’. This is really very easy to do, once you succeed in isolating people from their ‘day to day’ world, and start giving them special names; special words; special exercises; special ways of viewing things; etc etc. etc,.. … That’s how cults get off the ground (that’s my ethnographer’s head speaking, by the way)… I would also add here, that I believe, despite the fact that Eugene Halliday wanted nothing to do with this sort of cheap behavior, I saw him as being surrounded by people who placed him continually under enormous pressure to do exactly that… It was like watching a real, live, ‘Life of Brian’ at times 😀

as well as a gain of special ability ...

Perhaps if I can put this another way, it might help here. Do you believe that there was any sense in which Eugene Halliday thought of himself, or of anything that he did, that would have seen him applying the adjective ‘special’ to it …?

Anyway, I consider my initial query pretty much answered in this thread, in the sense that we seem to agree that EH's ability to 'see others' is not fundamentally different from anyone else's ability to 'see others'. Exactly how anyone can 'see others' at all, is an interesting, and different, question.

Well in my view, this has more to do with evolutionary ‘panpsychism’.

I'd like to ask you about something my dad said. There is a story my dad told me about EH wanting to go and see someone, but EH didn't know their address either by name or 'mental map'. So EH gets into a TAXI and somehow 'feels' where this person is, and gives the taxi driver instructions about which way to go depending on his 'feelings' about there whereabouts of this person. Then, outside a house, Eugene says 'stop', gets out and knocks on the door and, abracadabra, the person he was looking for opens the door. I don't know if my dad was with EH at the time, or not, or heard the story second-hand from Ken, or what. What are we to do with stories like this? Is there anything we can do with them? Presumably we can't reliably investigate their veracity in any journalistic kind of way.

I’ve heard this before and frankly I don’t believe it… Was it a ‘one off’? …

What would really do it for me here is if he wanted to meet with someone in Germany, say, and simply ‘felt’ his way to them …. But that doesn’t sound nearly as believable, does it? (You know….getting on the correct plane – "Can you ‘feel’ the nearest airport in Germany to where you want to go Eugene? Is it Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich, or Berlin?") Then ‘feeling for’ the correct town to go to from that airport; then getting the right train by ‘feel’, followed by the taxi business, etc.) ... Because ... surely if he has this ‘ability’, he wouldn’t have a problem here …If he could do the one in NW England, obviously he could do the other… But if not, why not? … And even if we then allowed that this ‘ability’ only functioned ‘locally … in the field (!)’ for reasons that we don’t quite understand, wouldn’t there then be loads of these stories about him in the North West ….

It’s like when people claim that, at a talk of his they attended, Eugene answered questions for them that they hadn’t asked out loud … But surely, if there are 150 plus audience members present at this talk, who are all interested in the material that he speaks about, isn’t that going to happen time and again? ….When I was lecturing, it happened to me all the time (“Thanks …I was just about to ask you about that Bob!”)…. Again, I would only be intrigued here if he answered a question that someone was going to ask him that had nothing to do with anything he had ever talked about …. But that would be really silly wouldn’t it? …

I didn't really mean a 'point of departure'. I agree with his panpsychism. What I meant was that I have gone on to think about it independently of Halliday.

As indeed have I

What I want to know is "What did EH do in order to allow him to comment so confidently on subject matters which are not matter of common sense, nor obviously matters of a priori logic, nor, currently, matters readily amenable to the scientific method?" An answer to this question might then allow us to actually check for ourselves to see if what he said was right. Shall I ask you that in another thread?

Yes. Another thread would be a good idea I think.

Best regards
Bob

.....There's a lot to ask you about in this kind of system, but I suspect you might come to that in your main blog entries at some point. If you aren't going to talk about it in the main blog, I'll ask you in another thread.

Well, my intention is 'to talk about it later in the main blog' ... eventually! ...
But to give you a brief idea here, the system I eventually used evolved from my attempts to involve those ideas and concepts I had clobbered together and that included a number of those 'significant' words I had 'worked on' (such as 'form', 'function', 'feeling', 'emotion' etc) into a variety of subjects that were of interest to me.... Because - over the long haul - I believe that 'the proof of the pudding' here resides solely in your ability to contextualize this active language that you claim you've been working on...
So, I began by attempting to involve newly acquired components of my active language in the development of a structured hermeneutic re what I saw as Halliday's basic material. For example, the taxonomic and topological features of his ideas on 'being' that are contained in his collection of essays 'The Four-Part Man'..... Later on I went on to tackle material from other sources, such as the symbology contained in, say, a particular translation of a Medieval alchemical text; or in the ideas of Post-Structuralists such as Jean Baudrillard etc. etc.
Involving the words I was working on in a variety of subjects that I was particularly interested in then, became an essential part of my system, and the feedback I obtained here I was able to use to further modify the system.

Perhaps if I can put this another way, it might help here. Do you believe that there was any sense in which Eugene Halliday thought of himself, or of anything that he did, that would have seen him applying the adjective ‘special’ to it .... Probably not, although I think he comes a bit close to it very occasionally. I'm thinking of his earlier more self-conscious writing (rather than his talks) in which he comes across as a bit pretentious in his phrasing, but it's a fairly minor thing. Anyway, I didn't really mean 'special ability'. I should have said something like 'advanced skill'. Sorry for the confusion.

I tend to agree with you... Because I do experience, for example, Eugene Halliday's early work 'Defense of the Devil', as being stylistically contrived somewhat. Particularly as this text claims to be 'autobiographical' in some sense .....
It comes over to me as a somewhat artificial 'exegesis' - as opposed to, say, 'a spontaneous outpouring of the heart'.... It also has a slightly 'pretentious' air about it for me, but I feel that, as it seems to also contain an (interesting) component of artifice, maybe the choice of this style by Eugene Halliday was deliberate 'all the way down'; that it was a 'a sprat to catch a mackerel' perhaps?
....And of course, once again, I must stress that I'm obviously not claiming that the perspective I offer here is anything more than a personal one..

I’ve heard this before and frankly I don’t believe it… Was it a ‘one off’? …
The alleged event? Yes, as far as I know. There are lots of other stories my dad told, though, involving various feats of Halliday's. I'll make a list of them at some point and maybe get you to comment. I know this seems a bit frivolous, but this stuff is out there and I'd prefer to see it examined rather than left alone to grow into a mythology. I said to someone who knew Halliday "My dad told me lots of stories about Halliday, but I don't really know what to make of them," and she replied instantly "They're all true." She didn't even ask me what the stories were. One of them might have been a story about someone asking EH for a light, and EH breathing green fire out of his nostrils to light his cigarette. Presumably she wouldn't have wanted to endorse that story, as I've just made it up.

This is essentially my position here also.

EDIT: While I am pretty skeptical as well about this, I do wonder what actually did happen, to give rise to this story. Stories like this are unlikely, I imagine, to be completely and utterly made up from scratch. I know my dad wouldn't have done so anyway, but he might well have believed someone who did make it up. Is there a kind of gradual embellishment thing going on, where the story grows at each successive telling? In which case I'd like to know what the actual event was that happened which inspired the story in the first place. Any guesses? I don't think it's quite intellectually satisfactory to simply dismiss it out of hand without giving some consideration as to how such a story came about. I'm not sure I can think of a sufficiently similar, but more plausible, event that may have actually happened......

....... Well, indeed. A whole load of questions jump to mind. I could even make up some possible answers but what would be the point without a METHOD by which to determine if they have any truth to them?

As I see it, if a significant number of those people who were attracted to Eugene Halliday were somewhat desperate for 'additional material' here, in the form of (what shall I call them) 'signs and portents', then I can see that the eventual circulation of a collection of stories like this was almost inevitable ... Because, by simply biasing, or distorting, various (what were originally) normal events, in such a way that they would now appear - in and of themselves - to contain a vaguely 'supernatural' element, this would then allow those who were subsequently involved in the re-telling of these accounts to ('innocently') embellish them still further with elements of their own favorite esoteric 'perspectives', such as 'synchronicity', or 'telepathy', or 'avatar-ism' etc. etc. The ultimate aim here is not, I believe, based on any attempt to illuminate 'the truth'; but is instead a way of justifying the collusion of those who are intent on promoting these fictions.
The 'why' of all this (why do some people feel compelled to do this) is, I believe, relatively simple to understand. Nonetheless - and for a very long period in my case - it made me angry... I saw it as demeaning to Eugene Halliday ... However I have come to appreciate that that all this was, by and large, inevitable (that it 'goes with the territory' you might say) and so, happily, I have discovered that - particularly during the past two years or so - I am becoming increasingly indifferent here... However, I do appreciate your fascination with all this 🙂

Perhaps it might be prudent to bear in mind a maxim of the late C G Jung's here when tackling a subject like this: "A million zero's still add up to zero."

Bob