Hints of a greater reality, part 3 - Review, again

Don’t really need to say review since it is all review, or going over of what I have thought till now.  Feel a little jejune looking back.  This is because I have real/listened to more and got more and more perspective.  To sum up (and hopefully my summaries have remained or grown more concise – is that needed?): something greater is going on.  By greater I mean not necessarily better, just that something that is not commonly acknowledged is going on that that presents a form of knowledge that by simply existing makes our understanding of reality more complex. 

To naysay: there is no greater other form of consciousness.  So far anything such as exists outside our material worldview has gone unmeasured.  That some people do report such encounters and interactions are experiencing something confined to their minds.  And just because similar delusions occur amongst many folks does not mean these delusions come from an outside source.  No, it simply means that the common brain structures and operating means have become similarly altered.  There is no collective unconscious or the like only a similar physical, evolved mechanism – the brain – that we are share and subject to occasionally bizarre whims thereof.

 

This . . .
 

You have to acknowledge something like the psychology of Freud at the very least and at the very most must accept Jung.  Freud talked about events distant in humanities time on the planet.  Imprints of primal reactions.  Perhaps encounters with other forms of existence are simply these primal reactions manifesting in a idiosyncratic culture ways.  While strange these experiences are shared due to the experiencers shared culture.  Or generally are similar due to a shared humanity. 

 

. . . or this?

 

The collective unconscious that Jung describes takes things to another level.  If not a higher level, then a different level.  Something “out there” that we can tap into, access.  I’m not familiar enough with his thought as to whether the collective unconscious could, like, exist if not people existed.  And I don’t know if the idea of the collective unconscious wipes out the need for Freud’s theories.  More reading required.

The point here, to conclude, is to erase a bit of that jejune feeling.  To understand the most fundamental fundamentals.  To establish an epistemology.  To see what these far-out ideas bring to the table.  Are they exceptions that prove the rule, that confirm us in a Western worldview?  Is what I take for proof merely quirks of the brain, explainable within the framework of neurobiology?  Dammit, when I say that I consider how much religion is still so common alongside a materialistic world view.  People that believe in whatever faith (am I developing my own new faith?) already have this component included in their theories of what it is to know (to their detriment say/believe the Dawkins’ and Harris’). 

However much this seems like a needless retracing of the understanding of first principles I can at least say that I have taken maybe more than a few steps down the road paved with more, for lack of a better term, spiritual dimensions.

The Timothy Good stumbling block

Okay, I’ve come to realize (in good part due to this posting’s subject matter) that my focus has shifted in recent months from thing political to things more metaphysical.  The rich vein of researcher’s material that I have recently discovered crashed into a wall of a few days ago when I heard Timothy Good on Red Ice Radio.
 

 

Timothy Good

 

For full “disclosure” I must say that T-Good is someone that helped me secure my foothold in the topic albeit a foothold in the nuts-and-bolts end of the UFO spectrum.  Early lectures of his saw a self-effacing, eloquent Englishman presenting the results of research that were astonishing even to him.

I think I may have even heard T-Good on in the past Red Ice – a show I greatly admire.  Henrik Palmgren is a tireless interviewer with an intent to expose audiences to a wide breadth of alternative research.  He’ll have an obscure researcher into Illuminati-based global financial market manipulation on day and then later in the week have a solid analyst like James Bamford on – Henrik can talk to anyone.

 

Henrik Palmgren

 

 

But with Good’s latest appearance there was an added undertone, as though Henrik was trying to call out Good on his BS and Good almost acknowledging that his work is BS by giving obviously elusive answers.  Henrik really grilled him a few times.

Held up against the work/views of Vallee/Keel/Hopkins/Mack/Bishop/Clelland listing to the Red Ice Radio interview with T-Good makes me want to drop the subject entirely.  The just mentioned researchers actually want(ed) to find out about something that may fundamentally inform us about the human condition.  T-Good just seemed to be presenting material in a stylized way, his tropes equivalent to the white make-up on Kabuki performer’s face.

But good – it has instigated some soul-searching.  Is looking into the subject as important as looking at international relations and domestic policy, foci of past posts?  Well, politics are boring – is what I would be saying in a world without a looming government default.  I still must maintain/reaffirm that the work of (in the past) Vallee and (representing the present) Bishop and Clelland help to define what ultimate reality is.  And that is pretty important.

Hints of a greater reality - Part 2, Good directions

Already going in the direction that I was headed in my last post, I subsequently hit a rich vein of resonating material.  The writers and lecturers – if not legion – turn out to be rather numerous.  Jacques Vallee, Budd Hopkins, John E. Mack, Mike Clelland, Greg Bishop, Karla Turner, Peter Robbins – and more and more who I am discovering each day who usually are associated with those just mentioned.  What is it that these new folks resonate with/what was my last post about?  To sum up, I feel that events that run the gamut from ghosts to UFOs, from psychic phenomenon to angelic visitations are perhaps (gasp!) real.

Budd Hopkins

 

Thankfully the concern with which I entered into my recent post is still valid: there is no comprehensive/definitive theory about these phenomenon.  The question as to what it means and how it relates to us remains.  My recent searchings led me to the debate between Budd Hopkins and John E. Mack terrifically presented in this video – to a large extend this debate both presents and summarizes fundamental concerns in this area of thought.  Both men agree that something is going on.  However, on the one hand, Hopkins thought the interactions to be deceptive/malevolent while on the other hand Mack finds a source of enlightenment.

John E. Mack

 

Both Hopkins and Mack are eloquent and, more importantly, passionate – they involved themselves in the issue of abduction because that was the only thing that they could do. So too Peter Robbins, and Karla Turner, and, well and everyone else on the list of names above.  I said that there is no comprehensive/definitive theory: that is not true.  There are those that do present a narrative.  The listed folks above, however, are quite willing to go ahead and say “I don’t know.”

That is an important thing in research in this field.  Sure you have to talk about what is known but a line needs to be drawn at times.  You gotta have a good Hemingwayesqe bullshit detector and the folks above of mostly getting through unscathed.