Using the Cassiopean material in an exam?

[Timey]

With the questions that came up, Laura's material wouldn't really have been appropriate or relevant. I think Alada's point was very valid, and using the material would have been me stroking my ego.

I've got an exam coming up on life and life after death. I was wondering if it would be cool to use some of Laura's work in my answers; anything and everything is welcomed, pretty much, and our class studied spiritualism and the use of spirit boards.

It wont be marked by my teacher, but an independent marker who I have never met before. I won't be presenting the information in an in-depth way, but using it to provide argument and balance, as well as something a bit "different"; we can bring in all kinds of stuff: mysticism, Christianity, Buddhism, whatever! I thought it might be useful if a question came up concerning New Age beliefs or anything regarding channeling.
I would imagine that I would be marked based on the information I present and how I use it to argue, not on the markers personal biases and beliefs. I would also think that they would expect this kind of material to be presented based on the nature of the questions.

Well, i am curious about your class and study. If the exam is on life and life after death, it is either a magic school where you have been going to (who could try anyone over life after death in a common contemporary school?) or the particular exam tests your ability to express your point of view. In the latter case the teachers/exam professors can only examine your ability to understand various teachings and to derive your own point of view - in that case you just do what you do - it will be you telling them what you think about this and that, how you stand on it. Then, as others suggested, you can naturally use any of the materials from Laura without quoting her - write what you really think at present about the topic without trying to get marks. I think it might be a great opportunity to express your opinion about it. It is much more important to actually get it clear for yourself - never mind the test:) But, possibly, it will only be a fraction in a series of questions, depending on the type of test.

But it really excites me that you also studied using (or not?) spirit board... can you tell us more about it please? I mean about the school and the subject/s.

If you dont have time because you need to be preparing for that, do not worry and tell us later (or me if i am the only one interested here). And good luck!

It was an A Level Philosophy of Religion class, nothing magical. We learned about spiritualism and the use of spirit boards and how it can be used as evidence for a life beyond death; we didn't actually use spirit boards! The school would have gone ballistic! In the UK throughout higher schooling kids are taught about the different religions and their stance on life, and at A Level we do this more in-depth, learning a bit about mysticism and stuff.
My main idea of how to use Laura's material was to express the network's stance on the New Age, as that is something we studied. We needed to use the names of philosophers and thinkers in order to back up our statements. So it would go something like this: "However, Laura Knight-Jadczyk, author of The Wave series, would maintain that the New Age phenomena is...etc" Or, as you said later, to talk about channelling. But, yeah, strategic enclosure and all that. The test wasn't so much about expressing opinion, but exploring spiritual and secular ideas. Its over now anyway!

 

[anka]

With the questions that came up, Laura's material wouldn't really have been appropriate or relevant. I think Alada's point was very valid, and using the material would have been me stroking my ego.
It was an A Level Philosophy of Religion class, nothing magical. We learned about spiritualism and the use of spirit boards and how it can be used as evidence for a life beyond death;

I hope you have passed then. But the highlighted sentence shocks me once again. If some schools actually teach about methods which they consider as to be proving of life after death then the gap between philosophy and science nowadays looks even bigger than i thought. Mainstream science is really putting its head, along with neck and chest into sand. Mainly butt sticking out.

And yes, Alada made a very good, clear point on how to use all the information and resources from Laura's work.

 

[Timey]

With the questions that came up, Laura's material wouldn't really have been appropriate or relevant. I think Alada's point was very valid, and using the material would have been me stroking my ego.
It was an A Level Philosophy of Religion class, nothing magical. We learned about spiritualism and the use of spirit boards and how it can be used as evidence for a life beyond death;

I hope you have passed then. But the highlighted sentence shocks me once again. If some schools actually teach about methods which they consider as to be proving of life after death then the gap between philosophy and science nowadays looks even bigger than i thought. Mainstream science is really putting its head, along with neck and chest into sand. Mainly butt sticking out.

And yes, Alada made a very good, clear point on how to use all the information and resources from Laura's work.

I don't think I would go that far. It is how some people would consider it as proof, and it wasn't, by any mean, the central point of study. We also examined how easy it is to fake seances and all that jazz, as well as how the Fox Sisters, an important party involved in the foundation of spiritualism, were apparently frauds.