SD: I was surprised to read Hammond's bio -- 25 years as successful corporate lawyer working on global mergers and acquisitions -- clearly an odd career culmination for the alleged soul of Brighu, Jacob, one of Jesus' apostles, Plato, Johnathan Swift and Mark Twain. Yet the career, and his nominal clarity as a speaker distinguishes him from babbling street person babbling and run-of-the-mill new-age crazy.
Sav: Alleged soul indeed. But I think you make an error in assuming that because someone is smart and has a successful career then they are more likely to be correct in their theological musings. SD: Actually, my point was only that such a career and speaking abilities can provide an initial screen, weeding out a certain class of crazy. It does not screen out high-functional delusionals. For example, John Nash (Nobel Prize winner, bio portrayed in Beautiful Mind) was clearly delusional -- but also able to excel in cutting edge mathematics. Nash (and Hammonds, yet I am not equating their professional skills) may have been quite competent in their professional work, yet delusional in their perceptions. A second point that I was attempting to convey is that even delusional or imaginary works can provide insights. Again, hardly a proof of validity of Hammond's experience. But it also does not shut the door on his talk providing useful insights -- even if only indirectly (e.g., stimulating ones thinking to induce some personal insights).
