UFO Conjectures

Friday, January 06, 2012

The Accursed ET/Other Theology of My Friends

Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.


I consider Nick Redfern and Jose Caravaca to be “colleagues” (of a kind) and friends, surely.

But when they both associate UFO encounters with an unknown but palpable presence as the instigator of UFOs and UFO events, generally, I am intellectually shocked.

While neither Nick nor Jose thinks that UFOs are vehicles belonging to extraterrestrial visitors – alien entities from outer space -- both do think that a psychically induced something is responsible for UFOs and the encounters that some humans have experienced.

This view, for me, is as tenuous as the ETH position of most ufologists and UFO mavens.

Jung deals with the psychological etiology of UFOs in his book, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies (R.F.C. Hull translater) [Princeton University Press, 1978].


Those who believe that UFOs are, indeed, space vehicles by extraterrestrials are not out on a limb necessarily. Visitors from space is a tenable idea. It’s just the magnitude of UFO sightings over the years that mitigates, for me, ET visitations: too many sightings, too many alleged visits, too improbable (mathematically or practical, as I’ve noted before).

But for all intents and purposes, the outside entity or entities favored by Jose and Nick is as iffy as the idea of God, which, for Nick, is anathema. Nick is an “atheist” or so I thought.

The need to have an external presence involved with humanity has been addressed by many thinkers, mostly about the belief in God, but the belief is applicable to a belief in an external presence and source for UFO events, which has, as Jose and Nick see it (without saying so exactly), god-like attributes

A concise rendition of the reality of God (for some) is found in Edward Glover’s “Freud or Jung?” [Meridian Books, NY, 1956, Page 156 ff.];


Adler’s view is that God (or the Other) is a combination of Jung’s Self and the idea of God; an archetype.

It’s the God within, not the God without.

The Self, in a fit neurotic imbalance, projects itself on to an entity called God (or the Other, as I see it).

My friends, Nick, Jose, Tony Bragalia, Lance Moody, Paul Kimball, et al., like me, have super-sized egos, otherwise we wouldn’t be pontificating so vividly here and elsewhere.

Extrapolating our egos to create God or, in this instance, a presence outside ourselves is a manifestation of neurotic hubris that is unconscious or semi-conscious.

It’s not serious, like a pathology; it’s merely a neurotic tic or quirk, but does allow for an unscientific position about UFOs that rankle me and others who find the ideas of Vallee, Tonnies, and my two friends to be equivalent to a belief in magic, witchcraft, and other elements of the arcane, and somewhat crazy.

UFOs are either tangible nuts and bolts craft from other reaches of the Universe or Time, as Frank Stalter would have it, or UFOs are the remnants of psychological machinations as yet unexplained or unexplored by qualified neurologists, psychologists (except for Jung), or science generally.

To persist in the idea that UFOs and UFO encounters are the products of an external, psychical or even material presence is a bit far-fetched for me, at the moment.

But I’m open to further discussion and evidence – even evidence that is circumstantial and/or hypothetical.



  • Rich:

    Yep, you have me correct: I do believe in the existence of an external sentient "thing" or "things" being behind the UFO phenomenon.

    And, yes, some of the manifestations and abilities do seem God-like.

    But, so there can be NO misunderstanding, here are my views:

    In terms of religion, God, the after-life etc:

    I am not a full-blown atheist. Rather, as with UFOs, Bigfoot and every other supernatural issue and phenomenon, I have total hatred, disdain and loathing of how belief systems have come to develop around thesee issues.

    I cannot say for sure that death is the end, any more than I can for sure that there is no Heaven and Hell. The reason: because I have no proof.

    But, I admit that I have no proof, and I also state unequivocally that no religion has proved its case that there are literal deities and literal after-life realms. It's all belief based.

    Now, in my view, there is nothing wrong with having a belief, providing it's recognized as a belief and not something that people demand we accept as fact.

    That's the issue of religion I have a deep hatred of - namely, the way it is presented as fact rather than belief, and as a tool of manipulation and control via instilling fear and guilt.

    And, it's the same with God - the image of this Jerry Garcia-looking character with robes, long hair and a beard, and a nice collection of clouds to sit on. PLEEEZ!!!

    So, I'm not what most people would call an atheist. Rather, I am a hater of organized religion and of the way in which the genuine mystery of life after death has been hijacked by religious zealots (of every persuasion), nuts in the government who take the Noah's Ark and Garden of Eden stories literally, etc etc, and who bully people into accepting their religion, rather than the "evil" religion of someone else.

    As for UFOs - it's the same for me. There's a real phenomenon, but I massively dislike the way it has become a belief-driven issue, and one where it's less about understanding the nature of the phenomenon and more about the simplistic issue of "I think they come from Zeta Reticuli and are friendly," vs. "No, you're wrong. They are from Sirius and they want to eat us."

    I could go on and on, but basically my UFO views and approach mirror my reigious views and approach.

    As for something sentient being behind the phenomena, well...I'll end this for now, and start on PART 2 as soon as I've submitted this, and will post 2 soon as completed...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • PART 2:


    When it comes to the nature of the UFO phenomenon and whether or not it displays evidence of sentience, intelligence, etc, etc.

    Yes, I truly do believe that. But, it's not what it appears to be.

    There are more than enough UFO encounters (I'm talking about very close and personal encounters here) where there has clearly been evidence of some sort of "altered state" interaction between the phenomenon and the participant.

    And these altered states are paralleled in such issues as religious conversion, ancient Babylonian encounters with demons, Middle Eastern Djinns, Middle Ages encounters in the woods with the "fairy folk."

    There's not much of a difference between (A) Moses - in a desert location - going up the mount, interacting with a higher entity (in this case, God) and receiving the ten Commandments, which provide guidelines on how we should live; (B) George Van Tassel - in a desert location interacting with a higher entity (in this case, a Space Brother), and recieving words of wisdom as to how we should disarm our nukes; (C) an abductee - late at night in bed - interacting with a higher entity (in this case a Gray), and recieving images of ecological destruction as a means to get us to change our destructive ways.

    Some people (the belief driven souls) would perhaps interpret such events literally.

    Skeptics might say the human mind craves answers to why we are here etc, and subconsciously provokes experiences that are purely internal, but which provide the person with some high degree of comfort and meaning.

    My view is neither. My view is that the very deep and close similarities between numerous Fortean phenomena across thousands of years are suggestive of (A) a genuine phenomenon at work; (B) a phenomenon that provokes contact with us, and perhaps even craves it; (C) has the ability to haul folkloric and pop-culture imagery out of the mind of the participant of the revelant era, and the manifest in archetypal forms and motifs that are mostly relevant to that era; and (D) has the ability, and perhaps a desire, to instil deep change in the individual.

    PART 3 to follow...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Being a pantheist, the monarchical model of the universe of supernatural hierarchies that runs like the gears of clock is a longing for predictability, that is a self comforting steady state made of arbitrary distinctions whose origins are found in our orientation and position as we define it in the natural world which requires one that is supernatural as in divorced from what is observable.A buffering utility which is understandable and yet is addictive in the face of not being able to predict what will happen in the next hour. To divide the prosaic consensus reality we share from the framework we use for the supernatural is an error in analysis of how extraterrestrials, demons, Gods, etc originate as explanatory myths that become pathological behaviorism. That is not to say our existence is not a enigma at present, nor the universe of which we are a miniscule portion is ultimately solvable by the intellect. This is a wondrous and transient state that does not require props to be recognized as such, inasmuch it is continually reinventing itself while we seek solace While our tools have become more sophisticated, our psyche as a consensus has not. Follow the path of what is observed in this phenomenon as it evolved, and you consistently find this hybridization is the reinvention of intermediaries, whereas,we are the intermediaries. Projection by denial.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • PART 3:


    The other reason why I feel there is a powerful sentient force behind the UFO phenomenon is Synchronicity.

    We have discussed this issue at this blog, and in email too, and I know you view this as largely a matter of people having coincidences and seeing something bigger in them.

    I do not. I see synchronicities as suggestive of something influencing us, guiding us, teaching us, and leading us.

    And, the more we pay attention to those synchronicities, the more the phenomenon pays attention to us, and the more the synchronicities occur, and the learning process develops and continues.

    Now, if the UFO phenomenon can interact deeply and intimately and provoke synchronicities that are sometimes of a truly bizarre nature, then my opinion (not proof, granted!) is that we are dealing with a phenomenon far, far stranger than simply some advcanced Zeta Reticuli-based equivalent of NASA's astronauts.

    Plus, there's the ability of psychedelics, altered states, trance meditation etc to provoke interactions with entities that seem curiously close to the Grays and Space Brothers of Ufology.

    Profound experiences involving higher beings that manifest for us in altered states (and, with most abductees's experiences, is there any more definitive altered state than being in bed asleep? No!), that have manifested while people are under the influence of psychedelics, and truly profound synchronicities are - for me - a good pointer that there is intelligence, intent and meaning behind the UFO phenomenon.

    But, the clearly visionary, altered state-driven aspects of so many supernatural encounters with fantastic beings leads me to consider the theory that angels, demons, gods, space brothers, grays, tricksters, MIB, etc are all different characters portrayed by one brilliant, shape-shifting actor, force, entity, call it what you will.

    Actually, we shouldn't call it anything or we fall into the belief trap.

    But, in my view, we should recognize that something, from somewhere is with us, and possibly always has been, and possibly always will be, as long as even just one human being still exists.

    And for reasons that elude us, it demands and provokes our attention.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Part 3 was the last part!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Another observation on consensus is the fear of being one who questions authority, supernatural or otherwise to which we position faith, and the irony of this is that if there is a God as a anthropomorphic, supernatural being, One has the zenith of intelligence, one would think this questioning we be the purpose otherwise we would be highly efficient amoebas.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • One other thing:

    I wouldn't say I have a super-sized ego. Rather, I find it interesting and informative to read and comment on blog posts where the subject-matter interests me, and where a good debate can be initiated. Nothing more, nothing less.

    That's why I also post to various UK football (no, it's not called soccer!) sites and blogs, because I'm a big football fan, and like to debate the games, strategies etc.

    Are there ego-driven types in Ufology? Hell, yes! (That's a theoretical Hell, by the way...).

    But, I think the number of ridiculous, self-important ego types is outeighed by those with just inquiring minds. I would hope so, anyway.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Thanks, Nick...

    While Bruce takes us into his brilliant but abstruse mental domain, I understand your position:
    you hate establishment religions and you think there is a meaningful, sentient something that is playing around with, and has been for some time, humanity.

    I call that "thing" God -- the malevolent one, as Melville had it in Moby Dick and Jung postulates in his Quaternity -- Satan being the fourth member of the God-head.

    But that aside, a God or thing that takes time to fool around with mankind here on Earth when there is a whole Universe or many Universes to play in begs intellectual credulity.

    That you and Paul Kimball place so much stock in synchronicity goes to the neurotic, mild form of hubris....human ego that thinks one is a focal point of a God or a something etheral and psychically attuned to an individual.

    It's too ego-centric for me.

    Ah, but the machinations of a brain, addled by environment, or input of natural kinds, that is acceptable, and reasonable.

    Let the dialogue continue however.

    And may Bruce stay within the parameters of cogent thought and expression.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Rich:

    You say:

    "That you and Paul Kimball place so much stock in synchronicity goes to the neurotic, mild form of hubris....human ego that thinks one is a focal point of a God or a something etheral and psychically attuned to an individual. It's too ego-centric for me."

    I would have to massively disagree with this, for one key reason: there is nothing at all special about anyone who experiences these things.

    It's not an elite thing (and certainly should not be perceived as such). Rather, the phenomenon interacts with all manner of people, from varying levels of society, of wildly different ages, backgrounds and cultures.

    I have no time for people who claim to have been contacted because they are "an artist," one of the chosen ones etc.

    Rather ironically, given your comment and view on this, one of the very specific reasons why I think the phenomenon remains so elusive is precisely because the people targeted are NOT special.

    They are chosen at random, thus helping to ensure we do not gain the ability to anticipate its movements, its actions, and those it may target in the future.

    So, even though I have had numerous synchronicities, I do not believe I am something special, or someone targeted who is somehow more worthy than the person next door.

    I view the choosing as Lottery-like, not importance-based, or (as I think you think I view it) as self-important based.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Rich:

    You also say: "...a God or thing that takes time to fool around with mankind here on Earth when there is a whole Universe or many Universes to play in begs intellectual credulity."

    I agree, which is why I don't think it is a literal god. I suspect it's something far closer to home, maybe even some sentient intelligence of unknown origins that originates right here - hence its on-going interaction with us.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Ah, the Mac Tonnies offering, Nick.

    It's a possibility.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Rich..Good and evil as only existent in the human realm versus your supernatural projection of it onto a monarchical universe with supernatural "rulers" strikes me as your own variant of a accursed theology can be defined in general terms as a pragmatic intellectual conceit of human existence in that it is a valuation of that which promotes awareness ( praiseworthy)that calls into question the nature of life and it's inherent value versus ( blameworthy) that which does not.
    You seem to leave out our own arbitration of these matters despite that you have made one, not the supernatural controllers.
    Most of this relates to denying our role and placing it in the hands of the ether. Perhaps the universe is highly ambivalent as to force our choices as a valuation ( Jung's individuation), a theological twist on the binary dualism of who throws the ball, a malevolent supernatural agent or ourselves? All of this strikes me as plausible deniabilty when faced with the ambivalent. The problem is in not in the stars, to paraphrase the Bard. To think otherwise implies to me a mindset that suggests that we have nothing to reconcile where the overwhelming evidence is that we do, more than a lifetime can accomplish.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Bruce;

    I think Melville had a profound epiphany (to accentuate the epiphany) and got it exactly right (in Moby Dick).

    God, if you persist in praying to Him or It or try to get His or Its attention, will Ahab you.

    God is part Evil.

    Even Thomas Aquinas couldn't dispel the notion in his Captain of the Ship analogy for Aristotle's view of God's evil ways.

    Taking God's Evil as a reality explains much about the woes of the world.

    But that is astray from the point of this posting, which I'd like to keep on point if possible.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Nick
    I think "that" is us in relation to our environment. Projecting self into non self versus the environment ( non self) into the self. It may be a reciprocal relationship wherein these two distinctions create a reconciling third. We assume from cognition, they do not meet.
    This, to me is where the inside becomes indistinguishable from the outside, the nexus where the NDE, UFO, PSI phenomenons exist as intermediary states.
    Inside into outside as conceptual modeling tool. Perhaps as Rich said, this is a obtuse distinction. What I am saying there is danger in this ontology of subdividing reality into simply inside versus outside.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • ‘But when they both associate UFO encounters with an unknown but palpable presence as the instigator of UFOs and UFO events, generally, I am intellectually shocked.’

    I think you’re being mischievous to stir the pot and it’s worked. ‘Intellectually shocked’ is an emotive statement designed to generate some opposition.

    Would you agree with an analogy that your blog, and the people who post, is like a small camp-fire surrounded by people who enjoy tales of the extraordinary? In that sense, we all sit around the flickering glow and bicker, amiably, about the substance and quality of anomalous accounts. Conclusions are rare and side-tracks frequent as ideas are pursued, defended or disputed.

    From my perspective, it seems like every contributor to the UFO Iconoclast(s) has entertained the idea that some ‘unknown presence’ might be at work. Whether it’s ET, human psychology or something else has crossed the minds of all. Rather than intellectually shocking, it’s a trait, or consideration, that features strongly in all participants.

    ‘To persist in the idea that UFOs and UFO encounters are the products of an external, psychical or even material presence is a bit far-fetched for me, at the moment.’

    To argue against the idea that UFOs are ‘the product of external, psychical (imaginary) or even material presence’ would make an interesting thesis. I can’t conceive of an explanation that doesn’t require one of these elements.

    ‘At the moment’ is something altogether different and we should all agree that our thoughts on whatever passes for ‘the subject’ changes all the time. To reanimate the poor camp-fire analogy, sensible folk would stop stirring the embers and go home. The neurotic tics and quirks will have us blowing in the ashes whilst disputing the best way to keep the fire going…

    An ironic tongue-in-cheek and a small smile accompanies this post. 

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Kandinsky,

    You are a perceptive, jolly bloke.

    I'm nitpicking surely, arguing how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

    But there is a palpable dichotomy between Nick/Jose and me, and it lies in their insistence [sic] that a real thing, a presence is working in the UFO trade, causing mischief, like the trickster thing that UFO tyros and amateurs keeping putting forth.

    UFOs can be anything, almost anything, as far as I'm concerned, but playthings or instruments of ghosties or impish entities that infect the pysche of humans?

    That harks back to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.

    Not for me such anachronistic thought.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Rich,

    That you and Paul Kimball place so much stock in synchronicity goes to the neurotic, mild form of hubris

    I wrote a series of a few posts about synchronicity / coincidences over the summer, and have mentioned it once or twice on radio programs. I stated that I found them interesting, which I do. That's it. I hardly place "so much stock" in it.

    You should endeavor to be more precise in your oftentimes loose characterizations of people, and the views that they hold. I don't mind people talking about me; I do mind people misrepresenting or exaggerating what I've said, or the opinions I hold, when they should know better.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • @Kandinsky

    Oh my goodness you so nailed it. I personally really like the way that Rich entices conversation here. I almost think of him as an artist in this sense because of how subtle he is. He really knows how to keep them embers glowing.

    I like your analogy Sir, and frankly, I think you're spot on. It's fun and quite intellectually challenging. (or at least the ego likes to think so)

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • @Rich
    Do you know what the hypothetical element is that makes the trickster/distortion a real theoretical campfire consideration for me?

    There is one piece to Jose's puzzle that I have been holding onto for about a week, contemplating and rolling it around. It's so simple, and I think that Nick might already have considered the notion. Most likely Jose too, but it makes the thing work in my mind from the stand point of commonality. It's a statistical element with respect to the external force. It hit me like a ton of bricks with respect to a logical speculation, but still there are elements from the reports he has been presenting that leave me scratching my head with respect for reconciling the element into place. The contradictions are tough for me to fathom without there being human motivation at the core of the trickery however. It's a very mysterious theory.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Paul:

    You've had a series of listings about Sychronicity and how it has affected you, at your blog(s), Facebook, and maybe even LinkedIn.

    I'm merely pointing that out.

    You can rewrite history as it's your history, but my observation stands, as that's the impression I got of your "reports" of synchronicity events.

    And I only stated that you put much stock in the confluence of coincidental events.

    If you want me to say you only have had a slight interest in synchronicity, I can do that, to keep our friendship intact.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Thanks, Jeff...

    You flatter and honor my skulduggery.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • And Jeff...

    The trickster/distortion agent is a human projection as I see it, an ephemeral mental quirk that has no outside reality.

    You refer to an external force.

    You like the Star Wars films?

    If Nick or Jose can get their hands on or a photo of that external force, I'll amend my consternation with their view(s).


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Dear Rich and friends....

    The debate is the only way we can find answers.

    Nobody can deny that abundant UFO casuistry is product we do not know its origin. The implication of the human psyche in the UFO experience is demonstrated in the variety and absurdity of the majority of close encounters. Everything seems to support the psychological theory, however, there are factors that support the existence of so-called "external agent".

    1 .- If it were purely mental phenomena, this would cause all kinds of anomalous experiences (without control of any kind); fantamas, UFOs, dragons, elves, flying cars, giant burgers, etc..
    But, inexplicably, UFOs appear in different parts of the world, and witnesses (some, without knowing of the thematic UFO) seen flying saucers, the crew collecting plants or "shooting" rays of light .

    2.- If only the effect of a psychological problem, would happen at any time and any place (meetings, theaters, stadiums, beach, etc).

    3.- It is difficult to explain the participation of other witnesses in the same experience (psychic contagion?)

    4.- Suddenly, UFOs do not land. The hundreds of close encounters fail to register. And no new psychological phenomenon replaces the "visitors from space."
    This means that existed an "external factor" that facilitated the apparition of such encounters and made them stop.

    5 .- No other mental phenomena (disease or disorder) has produced matter. Only those related to anomalous phenomena.

    The physical evidence are randomly deposited but controlled, to not define the phenomenon.

    6.- I do not know exactly what causes these phenomena. I could only detect the presence of distortion. The origin of many elements found in the UFO experiences are "provided" by the human mind (in a manner similar to dreams) and close encounters mixed in an absurd and complex. although these contagion inexplicably not so clearly documented in other mental processes. For example, in the incident "Sangonera la Verde" many neighbors observed the strange light in the forest.

    Not only "psychic contagion" occurred between 4 young people, the common people before knowing the story of the witnesses had seen the UFO also bright.

    Too much strange factors for, only, psychic phenomena ...

    we continue to discuss ...

    Nick and I will look for that photo...



    Pd: sorry my English

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • Jose:

    You make an impeccable case and have a good theory, a very good theory.

    I'm trying to keep UFO events inside human parameters but I think you and Nick are not as wrong as my posting would indicate.

    I'm playing devil's advocate, mostly, as Kandinsky and Jeff seem to know.

    Let the debate continue...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • "You know there are these peculiar faculties of the psyche, that it isn't entirely confined to space and time." -Carl Jung

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • *But, in my view, we should recognize that something, from somewhere is with us, and possibly always has been, and possibly always will be, as long as even just one human being still exists.

    And for reasons that elude us, it demands and provokes our attention.*

    Of course a parallel argument can be made for the unfolding program that is the archetypal collective unconscious. I speculate that this capacity may in fact have been erroneously observation based because of a real lack of available technology. It's my opinion that the observed collective unconscious may be a reflection caused by sentient evolution in process. We know that the greatest amount of currently defined dna evolution points directly to the brain as being it's most progressively developing target. Here's the thing, science does not know what it is about the brain that is changing. Since we have only had the ability to determine as much genetic information as we have for approximately the last 50-60 years, it's quite possible that dna contains the "drivers" for what is real and ongoing sentient evolution. The only difference here is that Jung postulated logically that The genetic memories represented in Jung's inherited CU make perfect sense in that these paranormal icons ARE culturally derived archetypal representations triggered in manifestation by specifically potential dna driven impulses that mankind has been receiving since his sentient mind was physically developed enough to trigger period evolutionary change. With respect to linear physical development, this could even be why some of homo sapiens prehistoric relatives are said to have had larger brains on average than modern man.

    This is my, as in my own up until recently, perspective deficiency with respect for the missing statistical element of which I referred to earlier. The Distortion Theory only seems to really work for me if the external force (forgive me Luke) or external agent is in fact represent by a monotypic agent. That's it. Obviously I agree with Nick on this monotypic matter right down the middle and I am pretty certain that Jose has pondered the same.

    Is this logical (in sequence of the theory) "external monotypic force" why John Keel resounded the opinion in later days that a specific demonic force or agent was responsible for the most widespread of the UFO phenomena?

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Friday, January 06, 2012  

  • @Jose,
    Personally, in my opinion, you are correct. There is most certainly an external agent in play here. You have done a wonderful job, and I do mean it Sir, of clearly elucidating the basic formal skeleton of your theory. I can see it standing study and tall on it's own. With it's entirety in the embryonic stages of our understanding, it begs to be fleshed out. I REALLY look forward to that process and am honored to witness it's unfolding.

    My personal take on the psychological explanation for UFOs is one that purchases wholesale the notion that such is nothing more than empirically established debris resulting from the pseudo inflated former status and significance of the institutionally enabled human ego. I see much of human authority in our social establishments the same precise way. Constantly looking back, never forward. In fact, other than this exceptionally inspiring network, and a few select others on the net, I can't stand these huge open public UFO related discourse forums because they don't forward understanding of the phenomena in the least. In typical kangaroo court fashion they forward faith based belief systems while pseudo skeptical hordes attempt to defeat as much in typical pre concluded fashion. All this just serves to completely cripple and confuse the search effort on the part of the intrigued, often leaving those that participate in a state of utter delusion. Can't be a good thing.

    The following are a few links that have inspired me to forward the notion (internally) that the observation of paranormal phenomena may in fact be the beckoning of a type of unseen evolutionary impetus based within the natural process of progressive sentient modeling. I don't feel this process is responsible psychologically for the external agent in the least, I do however feel that it's more than possible that this system is a very influential component that's in full play while the witness interacts with (possibly is even manipulated by) the external agent. As this interaction takes place our adjacent or parallel navigational faculties (the left half of our brains) are responsible for the Distortion or high strangeness attributes of experiential reports due to an immense temporary unbalance of the bi-hemispheric cradle of our conscious mind. This being because of memory contaminated perceptive account of the human sentient mind's bombardment which overloads the collective unconscious via it's subsequent dna driven impetus.




    Just thoughts Jose, but I believe you may find them pertinent to Distortion. Thank you SO MUCH for your inspiration.

    Bottom line, thank you Rich.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home