UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, August 19, 2013

Jose Caravaca's "Distortion Theory"

eiffel.jpg
Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca enlightened me with this succinct explanation of his “Distortion Theory”:

According to my theory of distortion, [one will find] a direct and binding connection between the witness (his or her psyche) and their UFO experience (especially with close [UFO] encounters).

Knowing information from the parties [an external agent] "guess[es]" the other parties [the witnesses] elements (in a close UFO encounter) or vice versa. This shows that it is a phenomenon of "shared mental creation" between the human mind and unknown external agent.

Gestation process depends on the ability of [a] "creativity onieric" of each witness. A similar process of dreams, where logic [and] absurdity intermingle. Where the imaginative capacity of each witness, and information database (the unconscious) can enrich the content of [the] close encounter....

The bracketed material is mine, to help clarify Señor Caravaca’s points. (He allows me the honor to amplify his offerings as English is not his first language.)

As I understand the “theory,” an “external agent” (more on this in a moment) incorporates and interacts with a UFO witnesses unconscious thought processes and memories to create a scenario that has meaning of some kind.

Researchers then need to analyze that scenario to find the meaning.

Separating the materials from the witness’s unconscious that are his or her unique memories and thoughts comes first. Then a scrutiny of the “external agents” input has to be discerned, if one wants to understand the “message” being induced or proffered.

For me, the problem lies in the introduction of an “external agent.” What is the nature of that “agent”?

Where does it come from? Is it an archetype of the unconscious, à la Jung? Or is it an actual paranormal being or divinity that intrudes?

Or is it the intangible mental interaction, made manifest by the witness opening his or her mind (or being) to the foreign intruder?

That is, is the “external agent” created from the UFO witness’s opening his or herself to the dream content that Señor Caravaca says is present during the UFO encounter?

What is the purpose of the exchange; what is the message being provided?

Paul Kimball wrote this in a comment to the previous item here about Surrealism:

“ … our gods seem to fit our preconceptions as eras change, and my rejoinder that it could be the other way around, when we look at art it is the artists (i.e. the gods) who are always leading the way - the rest of us follow (the Beatles are a perfect example, but so is Picasso). 

Of course, the third option is that we're all doing it together. And therein lies the co-creative aspect.”

That strikes me as something similar to what Señor Caravaca is presenting.

So, we have a co-created scenario, whose meaning is not clear but important in some way.

Some transcendent way? Or just nonsense, to throw us off, as the Gnostics told us the demi-urgos (Yahweh) did to the Hebrews?

Jose clarifies further, per my request:

Dear Rich...

I think it might have some connection with the collective unconscious, but has some kind of independence, but also is parasitic.

I am convinced that the most prominent components of close encounters, those not found in other incidents, if we work hard and we find the psychological (in the unconscious of the witness) cause that occurs in the process of "SHARED MENTAL CREATION" by the process of the "CREATIVITY ONEIRIC.”

For example, in these three incidents (Cennina, Villares de Sanz and Macerata), the external agent uses the same concept, small craft and small humanoids, but each witness distorted the elements (provided by the external agent) with his own unconscious content.

One of the most important conclusions of my theory is that the witness is not independent or exclusionary or not a casual mere observer of experience; their participation is vital and can be found represented in the encounter (absurd details, exclusive elements, et cetera).
  
Some examples;

1. - UFO SHAPE. Tad Jones (West Virginia, 1967) observed UFO antennae, spherical metal
 legs and wheels = the witness works in an electronics store.

2. - STAR MAP. Betty Hill (1961) observed inside of an alleged alien craft star map = In the workplace the witness is a map very similar.

3. - SHAPED UFO. Juan Rodríguez Domínguez (Sevilla, Spain, 1977) keeping the estate of a soldier and is used to seeing a large bus carrying many people to his people = bus-shaped UFO with a multitude of crew, like military.

4. - REPAIR. Ms Marianne (New Berlin, New York, 1964) Repairmen aliens "spaceship" with the help of the crew of other artifact = When the witness lived on the farm of his father, watched the repair of machinery, sometimes helping neighbors.

5. - SYMBOL AND SHIP. Juan Gonzales Santos (Algeciras, Cadiz, Spain, 1981) observed a UFO as NASA space module with a swastika as insignia = Weeks before the witness had seen a documentary of the arrival of man on the moon and was an amateur the issues of the Second World War and specifically the German side.

6. - UFO SHAPE AND DRIVE. Pilots Captain Clarence S. Chiles, and co-pilot John B. Whitted (1948) = observed a UFO in elongated divided into sections such as aircraft and rockets of the time, and it is powered by flames.

Seven. - HUMANOIDE CLOTHES AND PROPULSION. Oskar Linke (East Germany, 1950)observed a UFO manned by humanoid dressed in coats and powered by flames = the witness thinks that it is a Soviet secret experiment.

JAC/RR 

25 Comments:

  • Rich, as you know from my past comments, Jose's theory has caught my interest.

    It's the allusive external agent that perplexes me, as I still (for now) that it is a subtle assault neuro-cognitive-wise on the individual(s), yet self-limiting leaving no discernible trace evidence in psychological sense.

    The current case that I diligently working on may provide a subset of the external agent and I may be able to correlate such, but will be presented later.

    I hope that I may be able to present my findings to Jose at a later date.

    Tim H.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • To say there is an singular external agent strikes me as animism or the varied theologies of the paranormal. There is no indication of this in nature, and this phenomenon cannot create it's own rules, whereas there are natural causes that are unknown. To say there is a single root of this phenomenon is to state the same for jellyfish or a human being and the implications of a singular agent lead us back to the dark anthropomorphism of myth....
    There must be a cyclic, rare form of localised environmental energy whose signature distorts space time as it is measured in cognition through quantum processes. These are contingencies not intelligible in of themselves.Rain is not intelligent.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    This is a little vague, to me.

    Can you clarify? Would you?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Bruce,

    I don't necessarily think that there is a singularity description for the "agent(s)" to the distortion theory (Jose's).

    What could cause, on a cognitive level, visual distortions, or better yet, visual agnosia? Are you hinting at Persinger's theories? That would require an extremely localized EMP field...almost targeted.

    Perhaps it's more of a combination of outside factors that only a small percentage of individuals meet a certain cognitive make up that are effected.

    What ever it is, the physiological path way must lead to the amygdala, which has been shown will induce visual distortions under certain neurological insults.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • It is called systems science, the study of complex phenomenon. A system is self organised.If one contingent variable changes, alters, the system mutates to accommodate the change. Has the nature of this phenomenon mutated over time? Is it evolving rather than being in a steady state? This is the whole issue of ufology in a nutshell. It cannot think it's way out of the paper bags it has placed itself in, whether it is nuts and bolts or neurology. For a human being, we require water, nearly every category of nutritional intake, we need atmosphere, we need this our that. Metaphysics would call this a state of poverty, but nothing that is complex has a singular cause.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • I should have put it his way..instead of the stupid term UFO, the best moniker for this phenomenon is a complex adaptive system. It has learning strategies. It is evolving. It is not an one agent pulling levers and pulleys, nor is it extraterrestrial.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    I think you and Paul Kimball see the "thing" interacting with us, especially UFO spotters, as adaptive or evolving, taking the mechanism of it evolution from its interacting with humans.

    The same "theology" as that of some believers in an Evolving Divinity.

    But if one takes that which Ezekiel experienced...his angelic/divine chariot....one see almost exactly the same kind of machinations as those inside Caravaca's encounters.

    There is no adaptive process going on, just the same kind of foolishness.

    What I find disturbing is that you and Paul, among others, impart an entity in this.

    There is no entity, just a neurological action that afflicts and has afflicted humankind since time immemorial.

    Learning strategies? How? What?

    Yes, there is a "singular cause" but it is psychological or neurological, that's all.

    UFOs and its seeming vicissitudes have remained, in essence, the same since way back when.

    Maybe the observational details have changed, but not the intrinsic qualities.

    You've read, I hope, the litany of accounts in the Vallee/Aubeck book
    I keep touting.

    That shows the immutable stability of the phenomenon.

    You fellows have created a deus et machina as the culprit in Jose's scenarios.

    That is just nutty, as I see it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • I don't impart an entity to this. You read that into what I said. What I have said that it has cellular intelligence. Example: a plant evolves but it does not make choices.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Just remember, Rich, that I don't believe or assert anything as being true. I'm a happy (and hopeful) agnostic. All that I do is look for possible explanations / interpretations that make some sort of sense given the reported behaviour over the years.

    You write: Maybe the observational details have changed, but not the intrinsic qualities.

    I think that the intrinsic qualities have changed in the sense that the intrinsic qualities of art change - I just think you're looking at it in the wrong way (a non artistic way), and that you're too focused on UFOs, which are only a small part of a much broader interactive experience. But at it's core, a story is a story, whether told by an ancient Greek playwright or by a modern screenwriter... a painting is a painting, whether done by a Renaissance master or a modern surrealist... and music is music, whether composed by Mozart or McCartney. It's the presentation that changes, but the themes are eternal.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Cellular intelligence? You mean genomic coding?

    The "thing" interacting evolves but without sentience?

    You are making this stuff up, right?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Do we see today agricultural sickles in the sky, chariots? This phenomenon adapts to context, culturally and individually,by quantum engendered anticipation entangled with the observer. It depends on whom is watching. An animal can lose legs or gain them as well as other attributes by evolution, and yet the process is consistent by building upon transients in transient forms in what is essentially an exchange of energy. What do you eat versus an invertebrate and yet it works as a system that is adapted to the environment that seeks balance between what is eaten and what eats what. There is no deciding individual in choosing, the system seeks balance. This is our current issue.This phenomenon put simply is an energy exchange on a quantum level. You could say it has a transient stability, otherwise our skies would be full of them and we would be bumping into odd mutated humanoid characters every day. Waves of activity and wave energy..cyclic... thats about as close as I can get to this having any "stability".

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Paul,

    I can agree with you about this:

    "It's the presentation that changes, but the themes are eternal."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Well there you go! That gives us the place from which to start, which is - what is the nature of the themes? I don't really care who is playing the tunes, or when, or what they look or sound like - I'm more interested in what it all means, or is meant to mean. And therein lies the philosophical conversation that ufology (and all of the crazy paranormal stuff) has been missing, as does most modern formalized religion. But it's the only part of this puzzle that really matters, at least to me.

    Having said that, I aim to please, so my next podcast episode is with Kevin Randle talking about Roswell. ;-)

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    You are not reading into Caravaca's "theory" something that is there, the implication of thought -- created as it is ex nihilo.

    Your adaptive process is devoid of thought ,and doesn't represent the phenomenon as it exists or as it is reported.

    Does the reporting add thought? Or is thought there in the first place?

    And does that thought originate with the projective mechanism of the observer?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Microbial intelligence is a good example of an adaptive complex system. Cellular intelligence has learning strategies. I am not making this up. Look it up.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • I am so taken aback, Paul, by the idea that you'll be discussing Roswell, I don't think I can go on with this debate!

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • I am so taken aback, Paul, by the idea that you'll be discussing Roswell

    I was inspired by you! And I think you might hear something new...

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Rich
    You need to read up on self organising systems, systems theory etc. Energy is information, any first year physics student will tell you that. Your definition of intelligence confuses self organisation of systems with human sentience. Thought is referential based on semiotics, it has no existence in of itself. It is only a measuring device to make computations that are self referential to the user.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Bruce:

    You're giving cellular intelligence a status that it doesn't deserve.

    The Caravaca interactions are not cellular or even infantile; they are sophisticated.

    Cellular mechanisms [sic] are, according to Darwin primitive and according to Freud, instinctual.

    Adding "intelligence" to the word cellular doesn't make it so.

    It's as if you think a baby's thought processes are the same as yours or mine.

    It's ludicrous.

    You have me arguing a point that I find silly or irrational.

    (I'm planning on writing something on how these discussions are prone to ADD.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Well between Paul's upcoming interview with whats his face and your shoot from the hip dismissal of science, I am taking a break from adding my comments, and getting back to my other hobbies. It's getting turgid.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Phew!

    I appreciate the break...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Lest this get further off course for Rich, I leave you with this, from one of my favourite artists:

    "Art is creative for the sake of realization, not for amusement: for transfiguration, not for the sake of play. It is the quest of our self that drives us along the eternal and never-ending journey we must all make." - Max Beckmann

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • From Paul Kimball...

    http://redstarfilms.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-transfiguration-of-paranormal.html

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Thanks, Rich. I didn't think you would post the link - just thought you would find it interesting. To save people the trouble of copying and pasting, here's what I wrote:

    "Apropos of the general theme discussed in my book The Other Side of Truth: The Paranormal, The Art of the Imagination, and The Human Condition (namely, that the 'paranormal' is an artistic presentation to us by an advanced non-human intelligence), as well as some ongoing discussions in the comments section on various posts at Rich Reynolds' UFO Iconoclasts blog about the nature of our possible interaction with this advanced non-human intelligence, I think this quote by one of my favourite painters, Max Beckmann, is apropos:

    'Art is creative for the sake of realization, not for amusement: for transfiguration, not for the sake of play. It is the quest of our self that drives us along the eternal and never-ending journey we must all make.'

    As I wrote at Rich's blog, I don't really care who is caressing the canvas with the brush, or when, or what it looks like - I'm more interested in what it all means, or is meant to mean. And therein lies the philosophical conversation that ufology (and all of the crazy paranormal stuff) has been missing, as does most modern formalized religion. But it's the only part of the puzzle that really matters, at least to me.

    In the quest for meaning we find ourselves, and are transfigured in the process.

    But why would an advanced non-human intelligence engage in all of this, often in what seems to the modern rationalist / materialist to be the most obtuse and in many cases ridiculous ways? I quote again from Beckmann, who stated:

    'Imagination is perhaps the most decisive characteristic of mankind. My dream is the imagination of space – to change the optical impression of the world of objects by a transcendental arithmetic progression of the inner being. That is the precept. In principal any alteration of the object is allowed which has a sufficiently strong creative power behind it. Whether such alteration causes excitement or boredom in the spectator is for you to decide.'

    In order to understand 'the other' (whatever that 'other' may be), we must first think like an artist, whether a painter, a musician, a poet, an actor, a magician, a dancer... whatever. We must use our imagination, and try to imagine what it is like to be a creator and a performer.

    In short, we must think like them... and only then can we begin to understand them, and appreciate the works that they are creating.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • For me, the problem lies in the introduction of an “external agent.” What is the nature of that “agent”?

    While I am certainly no expert on this matter, I would ask what the external agent of a snowflake's formation is? An elaborate snowflake forms from the smallest specks of indiscernable dust particles. Will you always get exactly similar snowflakes from exactly identical specks of dust?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Tuesday, August 20, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home