Andreas Buttler, the founder of Spiritologie said in his written statement which was published in January 2014.

“Anyone who has been extensively involved with Spiritologie knows the foundations, on which it is built. These fundamentals define why we do sessions why we look for considerations and why we want to gradually improve and perfect our thinking.

The most important foundation pillar can be found in the chapter “The Spiritual Being”:

All—and I really mean precisely what I am saying here, all– that you perceive and experience is exactly what you, out of yourself and through your own causal thinking, are creating – actually right now!…”

… What was worrying me was the fact that in the last two years I experienced different things, which contradicted the foundations as shown in the above statements; which meant that I did after all find exceptions to these basic statements….etc

Andreas then goes on and finally states:

“Since I can no longer with a clear conscience – from current view and state of knowledge represent the basic statements of the book as “demonstrably and without exception” true, I renounce my declarations in support of the fundamentals described in my book Spiritologie” and in various lectures!”

This ground pillar of Spiritologie is an interesting statement from a logical point of view. Read the statement in italics above again. First he believed it was true and now he says and believes it is false.

Logic 1: Andreas thinks the fundamental is false that means that Andreas experiences the statement as false and that this experience is not caused by his thinking right now.

Logic 2: By his causative thinking that the statement is false, he will experience that the statement is false. Thus the statement is true.

Do you follow?

If anyone for that matter thinks the fundamental tenet – the statement – is not true, they will experience exactly that. This confirms the statement.

So now we can all see this and recognize that the fundamental tenet of Spiritologie as stated by Andreas Buttler is and was a self-referential statement. So here we have the paradox all nicely laid out and we can stop worrying about it.

I have no doubt that Andreas was not aware of the full implications as we have sketched above. Once he does see that it may be a relief also for him

de Nada, 2014 March 13

*See here about Self-reference