Wow some interesting viewpoints.
Especially Simon, who likes to call people "an idiot", which is slightly amusing since I don't see him writing countless well respected books on any subject. It could be accurate to state that the author is mislead or deluded, but an idiot he is not.
The inference by extension is that I am also an idiot, for having any respect for the author. What a shame that Simon once again reduces himself to name calling to try and elevate his own opinion!
Many of the points made by Terry I would agree with. The difference is that, like Dion Fortune, I don't see the imagination as less "real". Therefore what I can imagine has some reality for me yet I know its of my own creation.
This use of the imagination is recognised by science as beneficial. In particular people are able to aid their own healing by "imagining" the body fighting the illness, for example. Our imagination directly affects our external reality.
As for mystical experiences not existing - I find it odd that scientific types deny this. "Mystical experiences" can be induced using chemicals. Hypnosis induces altered states of awareness. I'm simply asserting that in this altered state we are able to perceive things which we wouldn't perceive in our ordinary state of consciousness. Gill touched upon this with her comments regarding quantum physics. The world of the quantum is strange indeed and we know it exists despite the extreme difficulty of experiencing it for ourselves.
Occultists assert that their practice simply allows them to experience realms and phenomena which are not currently accepted by science. Most occultists would accept that eventually science will explain these things. Dion Fortune went into great detail regarding the "scientific" process of a soul inhabiting a human body, and what processes occur at death to eventually separate that consciousness from its physical body.
I have been involved in mediumship these past months - which of course involves communicating with those who have left their physical bodies. I am aware of the critisisms levelled at mediums. My experience has been one which has shocked me. Over and over again have I passed on messages which were very accurate, providing always a description of the deceased, what they died of, often their profession or hobbies, their personality and other information which proves to be correct, including names and other details. To do this once I could put down to chance guessing. To do this lots of times - well I have to accept that I'm "receiving" information.
I know that the "it has to be proven in a lab" brigade will jump on me for this assertion. I'm simply relaying what has happened and too many things have happened to me to put it down to imagination or chance.
Sirona