Customer Reviews

Reincarnation: A Critical Examination

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

When I read this book, I understood why it took about three years for CSICOP to publish a favourable review of it. A typical case of tacit disowning...

Edwards devotes to much space to irrelevant issues, or to irrelevant authors. For example, he talks a lot about Near-Death Experiences. But instead of performing a deep analysis of the works of highly respected authors in the field, like Kenneth Ring and Michael Sabom, he prefers to make lots of jokes and fun of the works of Kübler Ross and Moody Jr., who are considered very weak even by their own peers. Susan Blackmore, in "Dying to Live" (1993), did exactly the opposite, performing high quality skeptical analysis of the works of these authors. An update on that would be highly informative, but Mr. Edwards decided to give us only laughs instead.

In fact, it seems that Edwards' phobia of analyzing empirical evidence is a long lasting illness. He was criticised by philosopher Robert Almeder for this in 1997, and had already received this very same criticism by Almeder in 1990. Another lingering disease of his is his "reluctance to engage primary source material" (that is, he doesn't read and cite scientific papers, but popular books mostly), as anthropologist James Matlock put it in 1997 and again back in 1990. Both these 1990 comments refer to Edwards' four-chapter article published in the "Free Inquirer" magazine, in 1986-87, on the reincarnation hypothesis. That is where his book came from, apparently with very few additions, and possibly with no improvements... (easy money, huh?).

Edwards' analysis of the works of Ian Stevenson is a complete failure. Actually, his analysis "seems" to have some basis. The first time I read chapter 16 (on Stevenson), I thought: "Wow, that's devastating!". By the fourth time I read it, I would be saying: "This man (i.e. Edwards) is a fake!". If you read it really carefully, you will notice that he doesn't actually analyze the cases, or their empirical content, or the arguments for and against them. Strangely enough, he does make some deeper analysis of the weakest case reports, which led me to the conclusion that his problem is not incompetence, but unwillingness.

Some specific points are especially revealing. On page 140, he makes some unrespectful and uninformed comments about Stevenson's research on birthmarks. If Edwards were really a scholar (or even a decent popular writer), he would have made a review of the bibliography instead, and would have found an introductory article on this issue by Stevenson (Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1993). There, he would really have spotted a very serious statistical mistake that Stevenson commited, and that seems to have remained uncriticized by skeptics until 2002 !!! (by Leonard Angel). Again, looking for information about reincarnation "researcher" Banerjee, I could only find jokes, laughs, and gossip in Edwards' book. But when I read Matlock's (supposedly a "believer") bibliography review of Past Life Memory Case Studies (1990), I found the following comment about Banerjee: "Banerjee...was caught tampering with experimental data, (and) must be considered unreliable...(and) he has been written out of serious parapsychology.". Wow! So, who is the "skeptic" and who is the "believer" after all?

And what has Edwards to say about the so called "best cases" studied by Stevenson and colaborators? Are they really good? What are their weaknesses and strengths? Did he read them? The "answer" is on page 277. There, Edwards says: "Better perhaps; but not good enough.". So that is all our "Awesome Scholar" (as Martin Gardner labelled him) has to say? "Perhaps"!!?? The man simply didn't even read the cases! Again, on page 256, where he comments on Leonard Angel's critique of the Imad Elawar case, he only says that he "does not have the space to comment much on it". Of course he does not. He used up all his space with gossips and jokes about Kübler Ross and etc! Even the apparently stronger arguments that he seems to have (from "insiders who have dissented", Barker and Ransom) turned out to be very weak and even imprecise in light of my further readings on the subject.

Edwards' main theoretical and logical objection to reincarnation is the "modus operandi" problem. "How could reincarnation possibly happen?" The answer is given by Edwards himself, when he confortably decides to throw away any "modi operandi" concerns when talking about his own philosophical persuasion, that is, materialism: "How could the brain create counsciousness?" "Why not?" he answers!!! (page 294). Possible "modi operandi" constraints is an intellectually stimulating and most relevant issue. But it has to be approached in an informed, coherent manner, and not a là "Jimmy Swaggert on the Pulpit".

To me, the most revealing (and shocking) passage in this book is when, on page 134, Edwards brutally disrespects Scott Rogo, in a rude comment about his murder in 1991, still unsolved then, saying how Rogo might solve it by calling the police station himself! Rogo was almost an informant of Edwards. Many of the gossips Edwards used in his book he learned from Rogo. And Rogo still had relatives alive that might feel hurt by these crude comments from Edwards. That is basically the mistake many skeptics-materialists commit. They get so desperate to wipe out the very idea of life after death that they end up forgetting that there is indeed life "before" death. And also, there are feelings and hearts that deserve to be respected and cared for.

This book, therefore, is very good if you want material for criticizing the pathological phenomenon of pseudo-skepticism. It is also of some value for giving a frame for criticism on reincarnation research, but then you will have to read much further if you really want to have a good idea of what are the strengths and weaknesses in the empirical evidence for reincarnation. I have done this. And I have concluded that the evidence seems to be weak. But it is certainly there!

If one has written a book entitled Reincarnation, even if only to discredit it, it would still be well to have a passing acquaintance with how it is supposed to work.
In chapter 16 of this book, author Edwards seeks to debunk Ian Stevenson. Here he informs us that most human lives are quite wretched, and that no one would want to incarnate into any such life. Since people are indeed born into such situations, he concludes that this refutes the notion of reincarnation, which Edwards declares straightaway to be "fantastic if not indeed pure nonsense".
Evidently, the author is assuming the act of reincarnation is voluntary.
Buddhists have been studying this "fantastic" idea of reincarnation for millennia, and their interest in this matter is well-known. The Tibetan Book of the Dead is essentially an instruction manual on how to avoid reincarnation. It describes death as something like the big sleep, and the bardo after death as a sort of dreamscape. According to this text, unless one has attained sufficient stability of mind through meditation and other practices, the process of reincarnation is INVOLUNTARY. And so, yes, people do get reincarnated into awful situations - because they have no more control over the process than most of us have over our dreams.
The idea that consciousness might exist independent of a physical body is also subject to Edwards' "fantastic if not indeed pure nonsense" dismissal. Apparently he belongs to the Alice in Wonderland school of investigation - first the verdict, then the evidence. Edwards is quite clear about this - he proudly parades his prejudice as a "presumption", and concludes, "EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC FLAWS, a rational person will conclude that Stevenson's reports are seriously defective" [emphasis added]. An odd notion of rationality.
According to some physicists, our reality may actually possess 12 dimensions (M-theory). This idea has been greeted with a bemused interest. However, woe unto anyone who dare propose that just one of those extra dimensions might be a home for the subtle energies of mind.
Well-reasoned skepticism is a good thing - it forces us to hone our thinking. However, as stated by Karl Popper, the eminent philosopher of science, if you set out to refute someone else's theory, you are obliged to first give that theory its best shot. This author doesn’t even come close.

Reincarnation is the belief that at some point after death we return to this world as a different person in another body. There are many variations on the theme. Some theories include animal life, even inanimate objects. So, if you are bad this time around, you might come back as a dog, or somebody's coffee pot. (On the other hand, if you are good, the possibilities are endless.) Some, like the philosopher Nietzsche, believed that the same events happen, over and over. In that case, I will have written this review, and you will have read it, countless times already - a wearying prospect at best. For millennia, belief in reincarnation, and its attendant notion of karma - the idea that our actions now will affect our future lives - has been a mainstay of Hindu thought. The idea has attracted many major league figures in western thought as well: Pythagoras, Plato, Swedenborg, Emerson, Goethe and Schopenhauer, to name a few. And it has, of course, received a great deal of attention from occultists, metaphysicians and students of what used to be called parapsychology.

Philosopher Paul Edwards, however, has taken stock of this situation and, out of the kindness of his heart, and what I can only surmise is a selfless devotion to rationality, has decided to disabuse anyone who will listen to him of this dangerous notion. The result is a tedious essay in pedantic nit-picking.

I am not a believer in, nor an apologist for, reincarnation. I am, I imagine, a sympathetic agnostic. When we get down to it, no one really knows what happens after death - no one, that is, who has yet to enjoy the experience. And those who have, ain't talking. So my displeasure in Edwards' grating text is not that of an adherent defending a sacred creed. What bothers me about this annoying book is the smug, complacent know-it-all manner in which he treats his subject. (Its tiresome attempts at what I can only assume is wit are bothersome too.)

The original edition appeared in 1996, and at that time, many of the characters and topics he addresses may have loomed larger in the public consciousness. (His initial knock-out punch was, evidently, not successful, and his publishers apparently feel a second dose is needed.) Kubler-Ross, Raymond Moody, Ian Stevenson and the psychedelic investigator Stanislav Grof come in for especially detailed dissection. It goes without saying that most, if not all, of the 'new age' advocates of reincarnation are out to lunch, and their ideas on the subject sport more holes than a bag of Hoola Hoops.

But the 'new age' has lost some of its blissful appeal by now, and after reading Edwards's 'devastating' critique of its mystic flapdoodle, I found myself cheering for the underdog. What is wrong with this book is that Edwards sets up his targets like clay pigeons and knocks them down, one by one. Or, mixing my metaphors, he gives himself high marks for shooting fish in a barrel. No one, I think, who takes the notion of reincarnation at all seriously believes Shirley MacLaine is a quotable authority on the subject. But by taking her down a peg Edwards, an unflappable devotee of strict scientific rationality, believes he has scored major points. Maybe he uses a flame thrower to rid himself of mosquitoes too.

Another annoying thing is Edwards' frequent remarks about the mental capacity of people who are interested in reincarnation, or other 'occult' ideas. They are, he tells us: "insane" or "semi-insane"; "under-educated"; "credulous"; "semi-literate"; "lunatics"; and, perhaps least offensive, "very average, middle-class Americans". They are also devoted readers of mind-numbing tabloids like the National Enquirer, The Midnight Globe, and the Star - all of which print columns of occult clap-trap that no "critically trained person" - like, we must imagine, himself - would be caught dead absorbing. Yet Edwards makes it clear that he too is among those many "under-educated" Americans who read this drivel, admitting that "for many years I have been an avid reader of assorted tabloids."

Research, of course. But I for one suspect that Edwards has a morbid love-hate relationship with the 'occult', a neurotic attachment to a collection of beliefs he finds infuriatingly and self-evidently absurd. If only we all just listened to the scientists and, we must assume, philosophers like himself. Then muddled questions about life, death and everything else would just evaporate. My own money, however, is on the muddlers. Yet, as I'm a semi-insane, credulous under-educated reader of occult drivel, what do you expect?
If you are interested in an objective, informative and engaging book on reincarnation, this isn't it. But if you think the whole idea is as barking as the dog next door and enjoy playing CSICOPS and robbers, be my guest.

He does not say it explicitly, but Edwards has a very simple theory about reincarnation. He thinks anyone who believes in reincarnation is stupid, ignorant, misinformed, delusional, or fraudulent. No other explanation is necessary. This is why Edwards hardly bothered to include other arguments in his book.

Edwards is primarily interested in attacking the most ineffective and unscientific advocates of reincarnation. Of these he gives the least effective advocates the most attention. Edwards says he finds the theories "quite fun" and amusing and spares no effort in trying to ridicule them.

Unfortunately, this leaves little room in his book for a serious critique of reincarnation theories. The entirety of what he offers reduces down to just six arguments.

-Why can't we remember past lives? If we can't remember past lives, those lives have no survival.
-Reincarnation is inconsistent with evolution.
-Life is a recent development in the universe, which contradicts souls living forever.
-The population has grown too much for there to be enough souls.
-If people reincarnate, why don't they keep mature egos?
-Consciousness cannot exist without a brain.

Only a sixth of his book focuses on these few arguments and I found that part quite disappointing because it rests on cocksure assumptions. The recency of life in the universe is a fine example of this. When was that proven? At this time, almost nothing is known about life out in the universe.

Edwards offers other arguments, but they're ridiculous and ineffective at best. An example; if souls exist as astral bodies - where do the clothes they wear come from? Who manufactures these garments? This fills space, but contributes nothing to the greater debate.

The debate about reincarnation has moved far beyond a place Edward's book could contribute. Honestly, I find it hard to imagine this was a genuine contribution to the discussion even at the time it was published. There is a need for critical examinations of reincarnation, but that isn't found here.

There is no reason to read this book. Save your time.

Few works can garner a worse review than Paul Edwards' "Reincarnation. A Critical Examination" which promises much but delivers precious little. A systematic refusal to engage primary source material in the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions and a steady reliance on quotes from the popular press (Mr. Edwards must subscribe to the "National Enquirer") to bolster at times grating sarcasm, belie the author's purported credentials as a professional philosopher. One keeps hoping Mr. Edwards will finally be able to rise to the level of abstract thought or a semblance thereof, merely to see such hopes dashed over and again. Moreover, as several reviewers have cogently pointed out, Paul Edwards' refusal or incapacity to engage critically Dr. Stevenson's research, specifically "Reincarnation and Biology" as well as repeated, facile, "ad hominem" critiques of all who do not subscribe to XIXth century materialism limit the scope of this work even more.

Last but not least, Paul Edwards demonstrates an almost complete lack of focus in his presentation and by the end of the first third of the book or so loses completely track of the topic he has set out to refute,viz. the theory of reincarnation, launching instead broadside after broadside against opponents of his choosing. One is left to wonder, for instance, what Elizabeth Kübler-Ross ever did to incur the spluttering ire of such a confused and meandering author as more than 54 pages are dedicated to confuting her analysis of Near Death Experiences (NDE) which are not the topic of Mr. Edwards' book in the first place. Regrettably, if there is a critical case to be made against reincarnation, the one thing this book has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt is that Mr. Edwards is not the one who can make it.

I am rather surprised at the quantity and inanity of bad reviews for this book. It is rather inexplicable to me - perhaps they read something else.

To me, this book is a very rigorous and entertaining voyage into the arguments, concepts and proponents of reincarnation. Paul Edwards dissects the reincarnation idea and discusses the idea of personal identity, the period that is supposed to lie "between lives", and various other problems of reincarnation. In Chapter 14, he notably discusses five powerful scientific arguments against reincarnation : Tertullian's Objection, Reincarnation and evolution, The recency of life, The population problem and the Absence of memories. He also argues against many aspects of reincationation, such as the idea of "karma" or of an "astral body", the Modus Operandi problem, the idea of conservation of mental energy which underpins the idea of reincarnation, and many others besides.

His book is written in a very intelligent and humorous way. It is also obvious that Edwards' knowledge on the various positions and arguments related to the subject is nothing less than breathtaking. His extensive lampooning of the "research" of the main proponents of reincarnation is entertaining as well as shocking.

No one should be without this book. I say this honestly and not lightly, since I think the question of death should concern everyone and this book is definitively a great reference on the subject of the doctrines of reincarnation.

As a recent convert to reincarnation, I approached Mr. Edward's book with more than a little trepidation. After all, I had just abandoned 20 years of traditional Christianity for my new belief system and I had been hoping to hold onto it for a little while. My fears proved to be unfounded, however, as Edwards quickly demonstrates himself to be but another arrogant debunker with a quick wit and a generally poor understanding of reincarnation. At least, I think his understanding of it is poor as there isn't much of the book devoted to discussing the mechanics of the idea; rather, Edwards spends the bulk of his time attacking various proponents of the concept. Two entire chapters are dedicated to Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, another to Dr. Stanislav Grof, and yet another to Dr. Ian Stevenson (other major proponents of the concept also receive considerable ink.) Obviously, Mr. Edwards has quite the ax to grind and grind away he does-with obvious pleasure and good humor. Unfortunately, this attempt to discredit the messenger does little to tarnish the message. Even the most flawed prophets can have their fingers on the pulse of truth, even if they prove themselves occasionally to be poor judges of character or prone to bouts of sensationalism. In those rare parts of the book where Edwards does attempt to deal with the mechanics of reincarnation, I found some of his objections to be thought provoking and clever, but I found most to be pedestrian at best, and a few to border on the childish (where do astral bodies get their clothes? C'mon, Paul, show some respect!) Additionally, his repudiation of karma as a purely punitive system of retribution demonstrates his simplistic understanding of the concept. He deals with only one concept-and the most primitive at that-of how karma works without bothering to explore more sophisticated ideas that perceive it as a largely self-imposed instructional system designed to further a soul's spiritual development. Considering Mr. Edwards fervent devotion to classical materialism, one could easily get the idea that Paul's chief problem is not that reincarnation isn't true, but that it mustn't be true. Oh, I almost forgot: he also tries to show us why there is no God either, just in case we suspected him of latent spirituality. Despite all these problems, however, I still give Paul Edwards' book three stars as it does attempt to address a few issues that need further thought and refining by reincarnationists, and is a good-if occasionally ponderous-read. I hope if anyone else ever decides to tackle the issue in the future, though, they will do so with less condescension and arrogance than does Mr. Edwards. Respect for anothers beliefs is an important requirement if any dialogue is to be fruitful, although I suspect Paul is far less interested in convincing reincarnationists to abandon their beliefs than he is in impressing his fellow skeptics at Prometheus Books.

Having read the favorable reviews to Edwards book,I would like to present the skeptical view of his book. The book is well written, but it offers poor arguments in refuting reincarnation. Edwards argues that reincarnation must be false, since where do all new souls come from? He fails to realize that reality is infinite, and hence the number of souls could also be infinite. He then writes that people have no memory of other lives,thus having no memory they have no identity. Are we to say then that since very few of us had memories as children that we were never children? Obviously not. All claims should be scrutinized from a skeptical viewpoint. This is also true of those of skeptics such as Kurtz. Far from presenting an irrefutable case against reincarnation, this book presents a very poor one. All of his arguments can be refuted. I do recommend the reading of this book to see how some skeptics think, but it does not mean that all skeptics agree with Kurtz, or that his book represents the views of all skeptics. It certainly does not. I am a skeptic but I don't agree with his arguments.

I have a disdain for the notion of reincarnation, and to my mind, others who are similarly skeptical, such as Paul Edwards, the author of this book, never propound the best arguments against it.

If we were ordained to live many times over, the friendships and loving relationships that we experience in any given lifetime would be rendered worthless by an eschatological process that usually erases our memories clean of them and sends us back into the world to acquire new ones.

Moreover, if our parents, siblings and descendants in one lifetime might be related to us in a different manner in another lifetime, the whole process of rebirth becomes somewhat incestuous, notwithstanding the transposition of bodies and the absence of memories. If there is a Supreme Being, he's surely restored more divine order to universal chaos than would actually exist if we really were to live again.

So I actually picked up Edwards's book as a member of the anti-reincarnation choir waiting to be preached to, but this book was only somewhat satisfying in that regard. He spends a lot of time inveighing against the methodology used by New Age gurus and parapsychologists, exposing the frauds and charlatans among them. This includes a re-examination of the famous "Bridey Murphy" case.

Otherwise, it seems to be a book meant primarily for philosophy students and teachers. Many of its arguments allude to terms and concepts that leave this political science major scratching my head.

Others will sound more familiar such as the "absence of justice" argument (those of us who don't remember our past incarnations won't remember why we are being rewarded or punished in our present ones) and the "population" argument (the amount of people who have ever lived is many times greater than those alive now - so in what sort of halfway house are unreincarnated souls waiting to be reborn in? And if we have all lived before, why is it that new souls are no longer being created?).

If it is intended as a scholarly work, it's a somewhat slipshod one. There are a number of occasions where the author is developing a line of thought and then breaks it off, promising to pick it up again in a later chapter.

Edwards's argument is largely an atheistic one against any sort of post-death survival whatsoever, relying largely upon what he sees as the inseparability of the mind and the body. However, he does concede the theoretical possibility of an apocalyptic resurrection and reconstruction of original body parts and a reconstitution of each original mind within. The mind/body issue is apparently an age-old philosophical dispute, and Edwards comes down squarely on the side that the mind cannot exist separate and apart from the body that it directs.

But however persuasive his argument against ANY sort of survival might be from an empirical point of view, it seems to largely ignore stories of Near-Death-Experiences (NDE's) in which an unconscious patient was later able to give accurate descriptions of what was going on around him.

Maybe these stories would also lose their credibility upon being subjected to the same rigorous academic scrutiny that Edwards and others subject Ian Wilson's cases of spontaneous memories of past lives, but that has never been done to my satisfaction, in this book or in any other skeptical work.

Edwards has a sardonic wit that I can especially appreciate, and he often interrupts his empirical analysis to skewer a number of targets, including religious fundamentalism. His disparagement of the divine in general may yet prove to be correct, but it is an undercurrent that runs through this work and sometimes detracts from it. At one point, he borrows from Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, to inveigh against theocracy as "the worst of all governments".

Both Edwards and Lewis seem oblivious to the truism that atheism can be as much of a religion as theism, and the destruction wrought during the 20th century by atheistic governments in Germany and Soviet Russia suggest that it can be just as deadly.

Regardless of the state of evidence concerning survival in general and reincarnation in particular or of the existence of a divine being, a little less trenchant agnosticism and awe towards the Unknown might suit Edwards better as a human being and as an academic.

I recently posted my review for the author's another book "Immortality (1997)" (first published in 1992). Almost the same review can be applied to this book, too. But I would like to make a little different point against the author's reasoning. These are as follows:
(1) In chap. 16 the author critically examined the reincarnation cases of Stevenson's and he seemed to conclude that no one authentic case was established, because "they all have big holes." His is one of the well-known patterns of arguments between skeptics and defenders over not-normal human experiences.
Long before the Stevenson's study, a similar official record about a Japanese boy (in ca 1810) exists in Japan, which was quoted by Lafcadio Hearn in his book "Gleanings in Buddha-Fields" in 1898 (Cosimo Classics, 2004, chap. X: The Rebirth of Katsugoro). This case study about Japanese farmer's boy, Katsugoro (9 years old when he started talking about his previous 6 year-life memory to his 15-year-old sister), was of course not conducted by a researcher of reincarnation but by Katsugoro's grandmother of 72 years old. The local official institution entered into the inquiry only after a rumor spread over the local. Please see the book if interested in the detail.
(2) The author referred to Dr. Eugene Brody, "who published several of Stevenson's articles in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases and who appears not to see any significant flaws in Stevenson's investigative procedures, nevertheless refuses to accept reincarnation because it cannot be reconciled with the body of scientific knowledge." "The problem lies less in the quality of the data Stevenson adduces," Brody writes (in 1979), than "in the body of knowledge and theory which must be abandoned or radically modified in order to accept reincarnation."
(3) Such a worry is not specific to the subject of "Reincarnation" alone. All the study results of the traditional Psychical Research since 1882 have been simply IGNORED all together by Scientific Community, which can be compared to an Organized Religion.
(4) Journalist and historian Brian Inglis' (1916-1993) extensive review of the history of psychical research "Science and Parascience: A history of the paranormal, 1914-1939" was published in 1984. He criticized the systematic neglect of psychical research by scientific community in chap. 10 of the book. There is a physicist's excuse of this act of neglect, saying "Unexplained cases are simply unexplained. They can never constitute evidence for any hypothesis" (as quoted in Martin Gardner's Science: Good, Bad and Bogus and Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic).
(5) However, the act of ignoring scientific facts surrounding paranormal phenomena, including Reincarnation, may be similar to the act of ignoring "systematic errors" in scientific experiments, and, in my opinion, the systematic neglect has been conducted intentionally without realizing, or with realizing the threat of, their possible impacts on successful science. Just as Eugene Brody says above (2), the problem lies in the body of knowledge and theory which must be abandoned or radically modified in order to accept psychical research or reincarnation. And the theories to be abandoned are, in my opinion, (a) the Big Bang theory for the origin of our material world (because of the materialization phenomenon in psychical research instead of pair productions of particle & antiparticle) and (b) the Darwinian theory of Evolution for the origin of human species (because of the living human-form materialization phenomenon in psychical research instead of yet-to-be-explained accidental origin of life on earth & Darwinian evolution all the way up to human species with ego-directed consciousness).
(6) The author referred in chap. 17: The Dependence of Consciousness on the Brain, to Stevenson's writing: "What we know of brains cannot explain consciousness. It would be more fitting to acknowledge the primacy of consciousness itself. We all experience it, and all our knowledge occurs in it."
(7) I would like to close this review (or rather counter opinion to the author Paul Edwards), quoting certain psychical knowledge, which tell us "Consciousness and matter and energy are one, but consciousness INITIATES the transformation of energy into matter" [i.e., not the other way around], and this is what Stevenson mentioned in (6) above. [Ref: Jane Roberts (1997). Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 (New Ed.), pp. 120-121. San Rafael, CA: Amber-Allen Publishing. Originally published in 1988, c1986; Prentice-Hall.]