• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What Does It Mean to Be a 'Fortean' ?

Greets

i'm not sure i have any need to either define "fortean" or subscribe to any particular way of looking at things just to participate on this board or post anything. we're here because we find stuff that interests us and people who are willing to discuss it. each participates in their own way and sometimes things get a little grumpy ;) but this is a social environment which means get many different people each with their own ways of going about hings.

those who really piss people off eventually get shown the door or ignored. those with interesting things to say will be listened to.

this thread is interesting and it's certainly a topic worth having but it's one thread among over 100 that are posted to each day. i doubt if anyone is aware iof the totality of the board - except perhaps those whose name is legion.

I was going to write piece suggesting metaphors suitable for understanding boards like this, but that's for anothetr thread another time.

mal
 
rjm said:
hurrah benign scepticism!!
Click to expand...

You rotter sir! You beat me to it. My favourite definition of Forteanism ever.

I was also going to state that some of the most intelligent people to ever leave a legacy with the *rest of us* have an innate grace, that seems to bleed through into all of their actions.

Funnily enough, I was going to mention Russell as being one in that fold, maybe Einstein as well. G H Hardy would never have worked with that most Fortean of Brahmins, Ramanujan if he wasn't prepared to "take a chance" on someone who could arguably have been an enormous fraud.

As for the point that we seem to discuss the same phenomena, around and around, ad vomitorium, to me that just smacks of archetypality. An interesting mental archipelago all of its own

Just one more thing, I think some of the comments made back to Alb, especially by cetain people in authority have been a bit heavy-handed. All-Father only knows i have logs in mine own eye in that respect, but still...
 
Greets

couple more points.

this MB functions more as a conversation than a peer-reviewed journal (although that hasn't stopped there being many excellent posts)

perhaps we should be thinking of putting together a more serious MB, perhaps a "Fortean Studies" MB which could be more for the more serious-minded items. this could be thoroughly moderated etc. or we could have a section of this board - which has the option of having usergroups ??

nb not as a replacement for, but in addition to, this place. and i'm not criticising this place either just saying another forum might be useful?

mal
 
Fortean, outside the boundaries of mainstream orthodox science. The first few paragraphs of Fort's Book of the Damned provide the best description of what's Fortean that you are likely to find.
 
Something I find interesting is the interplay between (in terms of what constitutes 'fortean') between the mindset of the person looking at the phenomena/experience/topic and the phenomena/topic/experience itself. I mean, UFOs, cryptozoology, ghosts (essentially the specialist fora here, though I've heard arguments that say, *Conspiracy* does NOT belong) aren't inherently 'fortean', are they? They may be riper for a fortean take than say, chickens, but it's not just the subject that dermines it. It's the approach one takes to looking at them. But by the same token, it's difficult for me to imagine taking a 'fortean' viewpoint into the question of "what should I have for breakfast today?"

I think asking the question (in terms of wanting a *real* answer, not for asking it), is a seeking a definition that the nature of the beast itself resists.
 
alb: We've been around the block a few times on this isue on all sorts of levels.

On the issues of Forteans, Forteana and Fortism:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3101

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13644

and I think the conclusion (it it can really be called that) is that there are at least as many ideas of what it is all about as there are Forteans.

And as I've said to you on a number of occasions (until you stopped posting a message on how crap the mag was and how you didn't buy it anymore everytime a new issue came out) if the magazine/message board doesn't live up to your expectations then start a new one - the Internet holds near infinitie possibilities for variety of opinion and expression.

I certainly am not interested in become a member of the Fort Police* measuring everyone's postings to see if they come up to some supposed level of Forteanism - even if we could ever agree on an good enough definition (which we can't). People come here and post for various reasons - some just want to share their experience and even if they were looking for an explanation they needn't have to accept any one person's explanaiton (very Fortean I would have thought ;) ).

Personally I'm very interested in the reasons people believe what they believe and the potential influences on Forteana (so I post a lot on mass hysteria, delusion, folklore, SP, etc.) - the important thing to do is avoid "explaining away" something and you also have to accept that no matter how convincing you might find your arguements even if something is clear cut (which it rarely is) some people will always chose to believe what they want to believe but that in itself is an intersting jumping off point in itself.

On broader points due to the very nature of message boards/forums there will be categorization and linearity - this is unavoidable. As is the fact that a community will grow - thats just what happens when people get together in one place (even if it is virtual).

* pun intended ;)
 
Exactly - the subject areas themselves are not inherently 'fortean'. I wish I could have written it so exactly, lopaka.

There is always a tendency for a fortean approach to be taken as an inherent interest in the esoteric. The FT would certainly seem to foster that perception. So the FT ends up being about specific subjects.

I very much agree with those who are saying that this isn't about reaching, or accepting, received opinions. I would also agree with the hint that it might be about redefining (and revising) the right set of questions to apply in all cases.

[like I'm reminded of Tony Benn's five questions to a stateman or politician: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?". I wonder whether anyone ever asked him those questions when he was Postmaster General]

This thread seems to have gone of rather half cocked and hence been misunderstood by some people. One of the points that I was trying to make is that sometimes it is impossible to ask questions without seeming rude. If you tell me a wild story - and I postulate that you may not be telling me the truth - - or that your memory may not be reliable .... then this may seem rude.

I'm not proposing that anyone sets out to be rude.

EDIT:OT/
I've said to you on a number of occasions (until you stopped posting a message on how crap the mag was and how you didn't buy it anymore everytime a new issue came out) if the magazine/message board doesn't live up to your expectations then start a new one
Click to expand...
Everytime ? I think it would have been about 3 consecutive issues. Maybe 4. And posted on the section of the bb which is designed for feedback and comments about the magazine. Seems like appropriate posting to me.

It was a silly point that you made at the time and it remains silly when repeated. With all due respect. If the magazine goes downmarket then sacking the readership is only one of a number of possible options.
 
alb said:
I'm not proposing that anyone sets out to be rude.
Click to expand...

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15989

If people are referring obiquely to this thread - then i do kind of appreciate Alb's point. It's difficult to say 'i don't believe what you claimed happened, actually happened' without it being construed as rude by most people but somewhere along the line it has to be considered as at least a posibility if one is to get anywhere beyond spooky storytime. Complete respect to all concerned - tricky not to offend in such situations.
 
alb said:
EDIT:OT/
I've said to you on a number of occasions (until you stopped posting a message on how crap the mag was and how you didn't buy it anymore everytime a new issue came out) if the magazine/message board doesn't live up to your expectations then start a new one
Click to expand...

Everytime ? I think it would have been about 3 consecutive issues. Maybe 4. And posted on the section of the bb which is designed for feedback and comments about the magazine. Seems like appropriate posting to me.

It was a silly point that you made at the time and it remains silly when repeated. With all due respect. If the magazine goes downmarket then sacking the readership is only one of a number of possible options.
Click to expand...

Well yes everytime (until you stopped) - you say as much your self: 3 possibly 4 consecutive issues.*

I'm unsure what point it was that you deem silly. I tended to make two points (the second more general whenever similar complaints come up):

1. If you think you can do better then do so (and that I'd be happy to help).

2. If you don't like the content then submit your own.

Just popping in and saying you don't like it, buy it or read it seemed (and still seems) a rather pointless exercise - why not direct your energies to making a positive difference?

[edit: Or would you prefer a clarification?

* You went through a pahse of posting such a message everytime a new issue came out.

Still a pointless exercise.]
 
alb said:
If the magazine goes downmarket then sacking the readership is only one of a number of possible options.
Click to expand...

And the one, definite way to make the publishers drop the title, consigning it to the list of "scrapped magazines a damn-sight more interesting than the mainstream dross".

If you don't like the FT and - by extension - the FTMB and want both to be discontinued, why not say so? The rush to eBay would be interesting.

Oh, and I don't wan't to be too pedantic but you can't "sack" a readership since the magazine doesn't pay us to read it. The publishers could, of course, stop printing it and sack the staff ... but this doesn't sound like a reasoned and intellectual discussion, does it?
 
Just referred to the link kindly provided by Yithian, in which I discovered Lobelia Overhill's post (in which she claimed she must have been abducted by aliens) and the initial response to it by Alb, in which Alb stated to the effect; ' I don't believe in alien abduction. I believe you are highly suggestible, etc' and in which Alb states he believes Overhill's claims are the result of suggestion imparted by her mother.

There are innumerable published claims of alien abduction. Does Alb contact the publishers of all such magazines, books, etc. to advise that he does not believe in alien-abduction? Alb is entitled to his beliefs, but so are self-described abductees. There may be numerous reasons for Lobelia Overhill's failing to include, within her initial post, other symptoms which may have led to her claim of possibly being abducted by aliens. Her post may have the first time she'd summoned the courage to reveal her suspicions to others.

In all probability, publishers of books featuring alien-abduction would ignore any communication from Alb re; his claim not to believe in such things. And if Alb does not believe in them, why did he respond at all to Lobelia Overhill's post? The fact Alb does not believe in alien abduction does not invalidate Lobelia Overhill's claims. What qualifies Alb to advise Overhill that she must be highly suggestible? Clearly he believes his is the final word on the subject. Final word, when some highly accomplished minds continue to research, debate and publish re: the topic?

What is Fortean? Anthing for which a 'final word' has not been set in stone by those qualified to conduct the carving of ... which translates to everything from birth all the way to death and after.

There is no-one, in Fortean Forums or elsewhere, qualified to describe anyone as a 'liar', be that via straightforward use of the term or less honestly; by stating ' I do not believe your claims, therefore you must have been hallucinating and/or be highly suggestible and/or ...'

The long respected theories of Einstein and Newton currently stand disproved; surely we can be forgiven for doubting Alb knows what he's talking about ?
 
It'd be best if people post their comments about the other thread there so we can try and keep this one from spinning off topic (this is the FTMB though but we might as well at least give it a shot ;) ).
 
On the other thread: To be fair, to me, I stated my own ideas up front and was straight about setting my questions in that context.

Taking a subject seriously, by being honest, can seem rude. Which is partly what this thread is about. I guess that the other thread is a good reference point. It's only rude if you see it as being rude. Otherwise (and IMO) it's just about raising alternative scenarios. Which seems properly fortean to me.

In all probability, publishers of books featuring alien-abduction would ignore any communication from Alb
Click to expand...
I don't read (or write to such publications). I also believe that the unquestioning belief in such ideas would be un - fortean.

The long respected theories of Einstein and Newton currently stand disproved
Click to expand...
No they don't. Absolutely not. They may have been expanded upon and revised to an extent.

If people were not sceptical then we'd still believe, without question, in fairies, dragons, a flat earth and 'bogus social workers'. Rather than taking these as examples of myths which people used to believe - and trying to understand, and set in context, the basis for these beliefs.

Imagine a different scenario. Imagine I had asked 'rude' questions of someone who was claiming evidence of the bogus 'international jewish conspiracy'.
 
alb said:
...we'd still believe, without question, in fairies, dragons, a flat earth and 'bogus social workers'.
Click to expand...

And what do you say to those people that do still believe? Are you the new authority on what to think and feel? Will you be out-lawing Santa soon?
 
alb wrote:
...we'd still believe, without question, in fairies, dragons, a flat earth and 'bogus social workers'.

And what do you say to those people that do still believe? Are you the new authority on what to think and feel? Will you be out-lawing Santa soon?
Click to expand...
Ho Ho Ho.
 
The 'Santa' story is a good example.

No adult seriously believes in 'Santa'. It's something formulated by adults which children gradually grow away from.

But how would you debate with someone who actually believed in 'Santa' ? Or fairies. Would it be 'rude' to question that belief.

[The development of the Father Christmas story is an interesting history. As are fairy myths and belief in UFOs, when set against social influences.]
 
Examples of 'rude' lines of inquiry, the drawing and inferring of insulting conclusions:

Ah! You almost sound so reasonably at the moment, Alb. Have you started taking your 'medicine' again?

But, here's why I suggest that what you consider 'reasonable' some might consider bullying.

source: http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15989&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180
alb said:
Anyone seen alb lately?
Click to expand...

Still here. I've been following the thread. I don't believe that I could have added anything useful over the past week. The debate would have followed the same pattern, with or without me. I don't believe that I would have contributed anything other than agro.

But a couple of points:

Lobelia wrote:

because alb asked ...

quote:
Did she just expect us to confirm it ?
Click to expand...

I didn't. You're confusing me with a different poster.Jack Ruby wrote that.

Melf wrote:

quote:Originally posted by alb
Kids are often scared of windows, mirrors, stair cases, corridors, passage ways etc. Routes are scary. It's generic stuff.

sorry alb.

but all of the above fasinated me and still does
Click to expand...

Me too. Why be sorry? Childhood fears (often influenced by fairy stories and television) are fascinating. I agree.


Filthy Le Dog wrote:

Your mother talked to you about "The Sandman".
Then we hear that your tormentors are "tan" coloured.

Anybody apart from me think there's a link here?
Click to expand...
Yes. I did. It was more or less my original point but not perhaps adequately or strongly enough expressed. The experience, as told, followed a suggestion. Like hypnotism or suggestion.

Lobelia - I remain absoultely certain that what you describe did not happen as you describe it. I am prepared to be open - minded ... but no so open minded that I abandon my belief in looking for patterns. The fortean angle for me is why you either believe or state your story. Your story is a generic alien - abduction - type experience. These stories are fascinating - partly because they are all so similar - and rooted in a 20th century and post war symbolism.


Another reason why I find this so fascinatingly obvious .. is your inclusion of the connection and significance connected with going to the lavatory. That is just so deeply Freudian - even for someone like me who is a Freud sceptic. It just screams of a childhood crisis.

Sorry.

Another reason why I don't believe a word of this is that I have known a very similar case:

[edit - who was once close to me] told little lies from as long as I knew her. She was always like that - an attention seeker - everything seemed to happen to her. She was apparently followed home by weirdos, abused (she claimed later) etc etc.

Later - compassionate daytime TV etc taught us to believe everything that children (and adult children) tell us. And I did. I was completely open minded at the start. But it was a mistake.

It took me a while to find out that she simply told lies (or imagined things) in order to make herself into a victim. Her ex husband (who was the real victim) finally confirmed this. By which point she had reached the 'alien abduction' stage. Typically she would magnify a real experience by adding some unbelievable angle. At the root of it all - there was always someone else to blame. Though she claimed to be happy.

It was never clear whether she really believed what she was saying. Under analysis (after she was 'sectioned') - much of it seemed ultimately to relate to her father's remarriage when she was a toddler.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Alb said:
Imagine a different scenario. Imagine I had asked 'rude' questions of someone who was claiming evidence of the bogus 'international jewish conspiracy'.
Click to expand...
Imagine I saw mummy kissing Santa Claus when I was a child. I honestly believed it, told my story here. Would you accuse me of being a compulsive liar and insane too?
 
Ah! You almost sound so reasonably at the moment, Alb. Have you started taking your 'medicine' again?
Click to expand...
How idiotic. Stop playing to the crowd. I am being reasonable. I always was.

Imagine I saw mummy kissing Santa Claus when I was a child. I honestly believed it, told my story here. Would you accuse me of being a compulsive liar and insane too?
Click to expand...
I rather doubt it. I might suggest an alternative scenario. As I did in the example which you have quoted.

You have quoted me, out of context, as if to skew the point of what I wrote and almost as if to deliberately make it seem unreasonable. The story I referenced is not un typical of cases relating to alien abduction. It was entirely reasonable to reference the story.
 
alb said:
Ah! You almost sound so reasonably at the moment, Alb. Have you started taking your 'medicine' again?
Click to expand...
How idiotic. Stop playing to the crowd. I am being reasonable. I always was.

Imagine I saw mummy kissing Santa Claus when I was a child. I honestly believed it, told my story here. Would you accuse me of being a compulsive liar and insane too?
Click to expand...
I rather doubt it. I might suggest an alternative scenario. As I did in the example which you have quoted.

You have quoted me, out of context, as if to skew the point of what I wrote and almost as if to deliberately make it seem unreasonable. The story I referenced is not un typical of cases relating to alien abduction. It was entirely reasonable to reference the story.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine

I quoted the entire post complete, in case you might make just such a suggestion.
 
I quoted the entire post complete, in case you might make just such a suggestion.
Click to expand...
You've lifted the quote from the thread. It doesn't stand, on it's own.

I believe that what I wrote was entirely justified within the context of the original thread. If it seems 'rude' - well this is exactly what I've been trying to talk about. Sometimes stating a contrary point of view or asking questions can seem 'rude'.

If you bring yourself right down and treat the matter as a debate then there would be no need for anyone to be offended.
 
alb said:
I quoted the entire post complete, in case you might make just such a suggestion.
Click to expand...
You've lifted the quote from the thread. It doesn't stand, on it's own.

I believe that what I wrote was entirely justified within the context of the original thread. If it seems 'rude' - well this is exactly what I've been trying to talk about. Sometimes stating a contrary point of view or asking questions can seem 'rude'.

If you bring yourself right down and treat the matter as a debate then there would be no need for anyone to be offended.
Click to expand...
People aren't just case studies Alb, people have feelings, and there's generally a nice way to state contrary points of view. Tact is a valuable life skill, very much worth learning.
 
But these are case studies. That's what this is about. They should be discussed dispassionately.

If a case seems like other cases (and many sensible people would argue that most abduction cases are essentially similar) then it is entirely proper to say so. I learned that from the old FT.

Trying to be too polite can be about fudging the issues. It should be entirely reasonable to say that you do not believe what someone is saying - or to say that it sound just like something else. And to postulate.
 
*Soong prods Alb forward in the line for cases to be studied*
 
*Soong prods Alb forward in the line for cases to be studied*
Click to expand...
pfft. But go ahead if you think it relevant. Start a new thread. But try to be dispassionate.

I would hope that any such analysis would not concentrate on belief vs scepticism because that really isn't the issue.
 
alb said:
But these are case studies. That's what this is about. They should be discussed dispassionately.

...
Click to expand...
Yes, Alb. But, your Post, quoted from the other Thread, shows quite clearly that there was nothing "dispassionate" about your treatment of that particuliar case of putative 'Alien Abduction'. There are two tales of highly personal and subjective experiences on display there. One, the childhood memories of possible 'Alien Abduction', the other your own, obviously painful, personal experiences.

Very little real objectivity to be seen, only evidence of one FT Board member treating another as a sort of 'Hostile Witness'.

:(
 
Beakboo mentioned one word that goes (metaphorically) hand in hand with politeness - tact.

Concedo albs point about 'honest' questioning of accounts by witnesses but there's a danger of 'honest' being confused, not only with rudeness, but bad interrogation.
If a witness describes a situation in which they feel defensive (such as participating in an event which sounds bizarre or unlikely), the questioner shouldn't just state their opinion (honesty) then analyse their statements taking the questioners own stance as a foundation. This makes the witness less likely to add more detail ("They don't believe me so why bother?") or become agressively defensive and reluctant to discuss other options("Well, that's what happened so there!").
It is polite and tactful and more revealing to ask questions from the standpoint of the witness. Thus they may recall further details and, as the debate continues, begin to find any flaw in their own perceptions.

Honest debate is all fine and good but tact oils it's wheels and makes it proceed. Blunt statement of ones own position shoves grit in the bearings. A contributors own postings should quietly indicate their standpoint. What is 'honest' to one person is 'rudeness' to others and there is nothing wrong or 'unscientific' with being tactful or polite.

I could question a devout Christians beliefs with politeness and tact, even though I - personally - do not believe in their God. Saying "Look, chum, I think it's all a load of twaddle, and you're all hypocritical and delusional - what d'you say to that?" is not honest, scientific debate!

Being rude or opinionated is fine - they're personality traits. But if you don't believe in something, be fair in your questioning or assessment. To take a dogmatic stance on anything is simply gagging for ridicule and disregard, not respect and consideration.
 
beakboo said:
People aren't just case studies Alb, people have feelings, and there's generally a nice way to state contrary points of view. Tact is a valuable life skill, very much worth learning.
Click to expand...
Well, quite.

This is an interesting thread, with important concepts being discussed - can't we please now leave the personal sniping behind? This is a board which encourages discussion of contrary views, not personal conflict.

No warnings or threats of closures yet, so please keep it civil.
 
Thanks for that - everyone.

Is there any way to create a standard? How about a set of standard opening questions which could be applied in all circumstances. (Like Tony Benn's questions to a politicians or statesman which I mentioned above.)

I have no idea what these opening questions might be. Or how they would exactly fit into a greater scheme. But I have a vague picture in my head of a sort schematic or flow diagram. Is it possible? Like those schematics found in forensics text books.

Years ago now there was talk of an FT Institute, or the like. For sure, the he said this - she said that approach is hopeless. And, though I originally raised the scenario, I would be nervous of any system which was inherently psychoanalyitical, in the first instance. One of my problems with the FT (at the centre of it's world) trying to become commercially viable (rather than ad hoc and / or subscription) - is that it seemed unlikely that such an institute would spring from it's page.

A systematic approach to a problem could remove any possibility of offence. Telling the story and taking questions would be part of a process.
 
:?
Would this involve changing the name of the "It Happened to Me" forum to something like the "Tell us your strange anecdote, so we can authoritatively inform you that you are delusional" forum?
Somehow I can't see that sort of thing actually working very well in practice, anyone thinking about posting an unusual account would quickly see the lay of the land, and think better of it.


--------------------
--------------------
(For the adventurous, some field notes from an unfluffy, peer moderated place that works really well)

http://www.mykeru.com/old_pages/dope/sdmb_p09.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top