A lovely article, Chris, on a worthy subject. Thank you.

First, Karla believes herself ‘responsible’ for healing the pain of others. This is incorrect, individuals heal themselves.

Second, our beliefs have tremendous power in our lives, perhaps more power than anything else. Recognizing what those beliefs are, requires conscious discernment, which gives us the gift of the ability to make conscious choices, which in turn empowers us.

Third, Karla’s personal ‘fall off a cliff’ shock that people were being opiated, not helped–is a projection of her own switch in gears. Her intense awareness of other’s pain without the ability to separate from it creates a belief that her experience is also the truth of others. This is not the case, it is a blurring of boundaries between herself and others, a serious concern for empaths.

Fourth, Karla now focuses on polarity, which is unnecessary. Great scientists rely on their intuition: intuition and intellect work together very well. And as Einstein expressed, the more one learns, the more one is in awe of all creation.

Finally, research and common sense agree with Karla that connection to culture & community both strengthen our immunity, and increase our emotional well being.

Karla has moved from one position to it’s implied opposite, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, there are gullible people in this world. There are people practicing who have no business making the claims that they do. And there will always be people wanting a fix, needing hope, or desiring others to do their work for them.

The vast majority of so called ‘new age’ practitioners understand that what they offer has nothing to do with magic and does not involve pretense or dishonesty. They know that in truth, we are each doing our own work.

Karla’s beautiful words, “A best friend is someone who takes you by the hand and leads you back to yourself” are the very essence of healing. Although Karla may see her former work as fraudulent, her words have supported the the human community. Though she may choose to disown it, her work stands on it’s own.

I am sorry Karla passes judgment on the area from which she withdrew. Her current thinking implies an exclusivity of truth which is a disservice all around.

I just listened to the first side of the first tape of “Emotional Genius”. I don’t understand how someone with such incredible insight and compassion can think that this work wouldn’t help anyone, but then, I haven’t lived her life.

I’m going to attempt to contact her through one of her publishers (Sounds True is still selling her audio programs) and encourage her to allow us to continue to be helped by her unique genius.

I feel like I’ve lost a friend I never knew I had…

But, something in there must have turned up as “false” for Karla. False in a big way. I don’t know what, but I’d like to. I’d love to ask Karla which parts of Emotional Genius seem wrong to her now. I assume something in there seems way-wrong since (I’ve heard that) she is having it stay out-of-print on purpose. Or maybe it is somehow the association of the book’s ideas with other ideas — maybe it got to be too painful or too much of a challenge to be writing gentle dissent while living among those dissenting views. I can relate!

I’d like to ask her about what her thinking is now — some of the “I’m a skeptic” article comes across as pro-conventionality to me, but I don’t assume I know all there is to know. So, I’d like to ask her to tell me more. Conventionality makes no more sense that rebellion as criteria for what is best, or right, or useful (except in the limited contexts where we’re wanting to fit in or rebel.)

Take this statement (2008) “For instance, I’ve found in my research that the skills I and other psychics have ARE understandable from a scientific and rational standpoint. Intuition is real, and it doesn’t have to be paranormal in order to be fascinating and valid. ” Okay, this seems to say that someone (maybe new-agers or maybe a past Karla, or both?) finds psychic skills valid BECAUSE THEY ARE PARANORMAL. This leads to more good questions, which might lead to a useful deconstruction of what “new age” “paranormal” and “skeptic” mean — and possibly how these undefined concepts set us all us to see these as conflicting views.

She says (2008) “Many skeptics also understand that you can be skeptical and be a new ager or a religionist at the same time. For instance, I certainly was a skeptic in all of my books and tapes, and a dissenter from many new age tenets. Check out my work on judgment, which was heresy. But it made my work interesting and fresh, not to mention useful. I never walked the line with new age ideas, and I wasn’t anyone’s butt monkey. The cool skeptics I met did not look down on me for an instant, though some of them had to do some mental calisthenics to fit me into their worldviews. Bully for them that they did so. But I didn’t find a way to be comfortable in the straight-up skeptical world. I don’t feel comfortable with groups anyway. I am very skeptical, and I always have been, but I don’t need to be a skeptic. Do you know what I mean? ”

Yes, Karla, I do know what you mean, and I think I may even be able to help you pick out some the pieces of “skeptic” that make sense from some of those that don’t. I’ve found that people who talk about “science” often have some big (but simple) holes in their thinking, and I think I’d find it enjoyable to talk to someone with your background and thinking about it. All the argument you refer to (in skeptics circles) may be partly a result of some basic misunderstandings — but I’m not sure about that, and you are more familiar with that culture than I am.

Karla and I don’t agree on everything, but I am positive we share a similar underlying devotion and openness to truth, inquiry, critical thinking, experiment, observation, AND using information for good and balanced ends. In her current essay (2008) the part that challenges people to “do something to relieve pain” is a fine example of a thoughtful and whole-person response. Amen that we need more and better support of all kinds, and less of what-causes-pain.

I’d say the challenge is how to ask good (critical thinking) questions that contribute to finding useful answers. McLaren is an old pro at this, and I wish she were giving lessons, because I’m still trying to follow her lead, and I could make good use of help.

I am happy to read her latest essay and feel reasonably assured that she is continuing on her usual whole-self and deep way to sort things out, find meaning, and (I hope) find personal satisfaction. However, I don’t hear her calling out some of the problems that I see with “skepticism”. I hear her saying there are some problems — but I think she is missing some important ones, and I hope she doesn’t have to wrestle with it any longer than necessary. Well, I guess we all have to get there in our own ways. Still, I’d love to hear more from Karla, I’d love to get to talk to her about all this, I’m grateful for the writing she did do, and I wish her peace and happiness commensurate with the contribution she has made to the peace and happiness of others. This is one fierce big soul this Karla. I would vote for her, send her cookies, or give her aspirin.

Meanwhile, I’m keeping both my critical thinking and my magic slippers and I will continue to count Karla as a friend even though she doesn’t know me.