Ghostly Categories

Subject: Ghostly Categories Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:57 pm

Most natural things on Earth have been assigned into categories such as mineral, animal, vegetable and sub categorized further such as mamal, fish, amphibian and again and so on. Hence everything has a place in the order of things.

What about ghosts? We've mentioned Battlefield Ghosts, Phantom Hitchhikers, Road Ghosts and Poltergeists in other topics, but can ghosts be categorised, any families identified that share common traits.

If they are hallucinations this would be impossible, but there are distinct differances of appearance between black shadow ghosts, those that pass for living people and the grey mist form types. Have a think about and whether it may or may not be possible and how it put together.

Subject: Re: Ghostly Categories Sat 01 Mar 2008, 2:23 pm

This would be a huge task, and it needs to be remembered that minerals, animals, etc all exist. Whereas solid evidence for the paranormal is scant at the least.

Thinking about the lists of ghosts you mention, hitchikers, battlefield ghosts, etc - maybe we should be looking at what is seen and categorising them as oppose to grouping them by location.

Take for example, battlefield ghosts - these tend to be groups of people (for the sake of argument) so we could place them in such a category. Then we list all the common features for sitings of groups which could include; being viewed near/on battlesites, period they are from, any sounds. Once we have that information, we could then see if there are common features which would allow us to regroup ghosts into more useful categories as suggested above.

Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 163

Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 138

Just to confuse things further - how do we know that aliens and fairies don't have the same origins/causes as ghosts?

Subject: Re: Ghostly Categories Mon 03 Mar 2008, 1:09 pm

Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 138

For the sake of discussion, I'll suggest the definition that Spritualists use, where ghosts are non-sentient "recordings" of past events and spirits are sentient yet non-corporeal beings, as a decent starter.

Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 163

I would suggest "a ghost (or apparition) is a human figure witnessed by someone who has good reason to believe it is not physically present"

This definition contains no assumptions about the nature of ghosts and agrees with the evidence. People clearly see ghosts from time to time - no one could argue with that. Once you talk about spirits or recordings you are getting into interpretation. I don't think we yet have sufficient evidence to go that far.

As for categories, there is your 'standard' apparition - like the definition above. Then there is the 'road ghost' which is notably different because of its specific habit of hanging around roads and frequently getting run over. There are 'crisis apparitions', different because they are often of living people.

I would say poltergeists were something rather different. Many poltergeist outbreaks don't even involve an apparition.

Subject: Re: Ghostly Categories Tue 04 Mar 2008, 1:12 pm

I think the problem with categorising beyond a broad description such as Road Ghost is that we can only base it on observations provided by witnesses who, at the time of the experience are not looking too deeply for details about the appartion and thinking how it can be categorised.

Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 138

Ghosts aren't just human - apparitions of cats are more numerous than people may think.

Broadly, a ghost is an echo of the past, I suppose.

I wouldn't limit poltergeists to within the "ghost" definition - they're just as much to do with folkloric aspects like elementals and fairies as latter-day ghosts.

Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 163

Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 138

Hi mysteryshopper,

I would argue that the principal current definition of a "ghost" concerns the dead, and so is an echo of the past. This is evidenced by the use of the word "ghost" in literature as a metaphor for the past.

I'm not sure you could limit ghosts to just those that aren't physically present - amongst road ghost reports, for example, there are plenty where the witness has been certain they have hit something or someone.

Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 163

Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 138

Hi Mysteryshopper,

I agree that the "ghost-as-from-the-past" definition is flawed. I don't agree with it myself, but I feel that in terms of the current popular cultural perception, a ghost is a haunting from the past.

I'd argue that crisis apparitions and the like aren't ghosts at all, and need to be classed differently. I don't know how you'd do this, but then that was the problem Ian raised in the first place.

Perhaps the road ghosts angle wasn't the best to articulate what I meant about the physicality of ghosts. A better example may be how ghosts are said to be able to interact physically - hair pulling, doors opening, moving objects. In this respect, I'd say using a definition that includes an assertion of physicality is problematic.

Joined : 05 Feb 2008 Posts : 163

Joined : 30 Jan 2008 Posts : 138

I wasn't suggesting that there was any evidence to prove or disprove that ghosts cause physical activity, merely pointing out that this is one theory. Indeed, in the absence of any definite evidence either way surely it's best not to limit a defintion to either the physical or metaphysical? This was what I meant when I said it's problematic!

To be brutally honest, is chasing a definition of such a culturally loaded and apprently diverse word as "ghost" really the best way to categorise these phenomena?

I agree that there's little evidence to support traditional theories as to the cause behind "ghosts". My own opinion is that we as humans intepret paranormal phenomena through our own cultural perceptions, and I reckon that at some point we will find the mechanism behind ghosts, UFOs, fairies and the like to be strikingly similar.

Are we not better served accepting that "ghost" will always be a rather slippery concept and instead concentrate on classifying phenomena rather than the manifold intepretations of the causes behind them?