Humanity Unconsciously Creates Thought-Forms (tulpas) and then Projects Them "Out There": UFOs

Originally posted by mbkennel
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

In a nutshell: geophysically induced hallucination. A 100% materialist explanation.

Pfft.

“We have to get over the idea that hallucination is a private matter.” -Phillip K. Dick

www.realitysandwich.com...

Originally posted by Baddogma
The odd, evil seeming thing I once (or thrice) ran into was scary as hell, but in it's "defense" I was in a poor mind state at the time, so I don't know which of us to blame, really. Chicken or egg?

I just think it's way, way more complex than white hat black hat. Maybe on some levels the exorcists are spot on, in that positing incorporeal life, there must be all sorts of it... and some nasty beasties for sure... but there must be more to it is all I'm saying -like the gentleman says in that clip you provided.

Yeah, that makes sense and must be taken into consideration. I always listen to what you have to say.

It is worthy of note, I think, that a sole explanation from a "collective unconscious" standpoint begs some serious philosophical questions, however.

The "collective unconscious" must needs suggest the theory that we are "God experiencing himself' as far as I can see. And that, then, would suggest an "override" that would negate the "experiencing itself" theory. Does that make sense?

Plus, as a few folk here have noted; Why don't we experience a broader range of phenomenon if these experiences stem from one place?

Anyhoo: Respect, sir.

reply to post by The GUT


Well, good Gut,I don't even listen to half the crap that spills from my fingers... just sayin'.

And if I get the meaning to that "heavy" sentence of yours above, I have to agree that the same has occurred to me.

If this stuff is amorphous and wedded to our "selves" (whatever they may be) then it doesn't really answer much when left at that, just begs way more questions.

Like if we are god experiencing itself from myriad perspectives, then is god (I, we) a masochist?!

The implications are tome worthy in themselves, and snippets like this don't do this (possibly all important) subject justice... and it all begins to sound like a conversation between precocious kids after the herbs have burnt but before the decision is made to grab some late night snacks.

I do like those conversations, though.

Oh, and if these phenom originate in our heads, then why so many varied forms? Conversely, why are they thematically similar? It works both ways, actually... and if we go back to the origin of thought and awareness, then it follows that all we experience forms there, too, so we're limited only by what can occur to us... if that makes any sense at all.

In short, it might speak to the phenomenological universes' nature and ours and the possibility there is no demarcation between the two... or one... whew.

And talk about mind blown, I thought I heard the narrator, in the below clip from animal house, say it was "Animal House for Deaf People" instead of blind, and it was funnier that way... but not ironic, unless in the new Alanis sense of faux ironic.

Originally posted by Baddogma
Like if we are god experiencing itself from myriad perspectives, then is god (I, we) a masochist?!

Masochist...or "Psychotic" comes to my mind, if we are indeed all splinters of the same personality.

"So that means our whole solar system could be one tiny atom in my fingernail."~ Pinto from Animal House

In addition, if we totally ascribe it all to the "collective unconscious," then that just makes it all, virtually, in our head, right??!

Originally posted by The GUT

Plus, as a few folk here have noted; Why don't we experience a broader range of phenomenon if these experiences stem from one place?

I did address that thought earlier by invoking the Jungian principle of enantiodromia. Basically, it's a yin-yang kind of thing. You can't have an age of yin without an age of yang.

In the distant past there was a broader range of phenomenon. The gods walked among us.

So, because of enantiodromia, there must be a period of time when there is a narrower range. That period is now. The gods aren't among us the way they once were. I believe that period is slowly coming to an end.

Originally posted by Baddogma
Conversely, why are they thematically similar?

That reminds me of Campbell's work in comparative mythology. In a nutshell, his groundbreaking work is very strong evidence in favor of the collective unconscious. The similarities are too strong, too deep to be mere chance. Comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism tri-angulate to show that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

World religion and myth is a single unit... it's the language of the collective unconscious.

"Language is originally and essentially nothing but a system of signs or symbols, which denote real occurrences, or their echo in the human soul."

-Carl Jung

Originally posted by BlueMule
In the distant past there was a broader range of phenomenon. The gods walked among us.

So, because of enantiodromia, there must be a period of time when there is a narrower range. That period is now. The gods aren't among us the way they once were. I believe that period is slowly coming to an end.

But, how can we make references to "gods" in the plural and yet assert a "collective unconscious?" And, further, state that "we"--in the dichotomous and paradoxical "singular," as in the case of a collective unconscious--are creating, in substance, all of our anomalous phenomena?

Don't get me wrong: "Mind Substance" most probably exists. I've seen evidence, imo, of such. I just don't think we are alone in all this and the paradoxical questions seem to support the theory.

Originally posted by The GUT

But, how can we make references to "gods" in the plural and yet assert a "collective unconscious?"

Because there are numerous archetypes of the collective unconscious, and each has a positive and a negative aspect.

And there have been numerous people throughout history who have achieved apotheosis.

reply to post by The GUT


And you're ignoring the Harpur hypothesis that "collective unconscious" doesn't mean it doesn't have an independent reality, just a symbiotic one where we and "it" are mutually dependent in that both may bleed into the separate realms.... like Siamese twins where one is usually immaterial and invisible... yet exists and shows up sometimes, for reasons obtuse.

And now, if this hypothesis has any validity, I will find myself in a confusing reality with nonsensical cartoonish denizens as to reflect my state of mind... and voila'... I just checked the realm out my front door and it's just as I thought!

Originally posted by BlueMule
Because there are numerous archetypes of the collective unconscious, and each has a positive and a negative aspect.

What does that really mean? Sure, the concept of opposites is valid in many ways, but in the way you--and Jung proffer--it's double-speak and has no basis. It's like the alleged "God of the Gaps." Jung himself, as I pointed out earlier, had very conflicting beliefs. I guess we can say his beliefs were "yin & yang" but where would that leave us philosophically? Double-speak, that's where.

And there have been numerous people throughout history who have achieved apotheosis.

Who have "reported" apotheosis you mean. That includes many divergent viewpoints from Muhammad to Crowley and everywhere in between. Where's the true synthesis?

Originally posted by mbkennel
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

In a nutshell: geophysically induced hallucination. A 100% materialist explanation.

That was Persinger's working theory at the time. Though McKenna was trying to use it to show how people deal with something they don't understand. They project cultural baggage into the experience. What I'm talking about has more to do with category theory. I believe there are whole classes and categories of phenomena we may not have a box for yet. Automating the analysis (multisensor data fusion) and the reporting process using standard measurement and instrumentation (google glasses, mobile platforms, up to satellites, etc.) is what will eventually turn the UFO subject into an actual scientific discipline. The UFO subject is basically the early stage of what will eventually be a science to directly study the unknown using a computational system to crowd-source every sensor network on the planet. Think "big data" meets "watson" meets "waze" and you'll see what I am getting at.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by BlueMule
Because there are numerous archetypes of the collective unconscious, and each has a positive and a negative aspect.

What does that really mean? Sure, the concept of opposites is valid in many ways, but in the way you--and Jung proffer--it's double-speak and has no basis. Jung himself, as I pointed out earlier, had very conflicting beliefs. I guess we can say his beliefs were "yin & yang" but where would that leave us philosophically? Double-speak, that's where.

It means that there is a central archetype, the archetype of wholeness (or Self). In alchemical terms its the lapis philosophorum... basically its the Christ. The fish.

Ambiguity can't be avoided... we have no way of knowing if the Christ is a symbol of the archetype of wholeness, or vice-versa.

But we can approach the ET culture using the tools of comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparative mysticism... and by that approach we can see the exact same archetypes operating in the ET culture as they always have throughout world religion and myth, just in different costumes for our modern age.

Who have "reported" apotheosis you mean. That includes everyone, including, Muhammad to Crowley. Where's the true synthesis?

If I take your meaning correctly, the synthesis is the transpersonal experience of pure consciousness.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

That was Persinger's working theory at the time.

It's worth noting that Persinger advocates psychic ability... and therefore it would take quite a bit of gymnastics to fit anything he has to say into a "100% materialistic explanation".

reply to post by BlueMule
If "they" are "us" then,

1.) We wouldn't be supposed to be worried with it but, rather, just exist as is, therefore,

2.) Why bother? And, further,

3.) How would we use the alleged knowledge?

We are one? That's cool, but that's both philosophy and spirituality 101. Some get it, some don't. The percentages have never seemed to change.

I like this discussion, but any pretension other than the admission that it's "guesserology" and opinion only reflects on the the perceived status of the "guru" who states it as fact.

What we are talking about here, and it's fairly indisputable, is Jung's interpretation of--and fascination with--Eastern religious concepts.

That's where we basically come into contact with the "Tulpa" theory. The anima/animus theory of Jung is a mixture of Freud and the Yin-Yan to boot. Has that been mentioned or referenced? If not, then the picture and information here is incomplete.

Have I seen Tulpa? Maybe. Hard for me to say what I saw. Can I create Tulpa? Not intentionally as far as I can gather. Can you?

Like I said: Great discussion, but anyone speaking on 'tulpas" or the "collective unconscious" as if from "fact" should probably rephrase themselves in a manner that supports discussion…not as a "lesson" for those perceived as less informed than the claimant.

In addition: You do realize that McKenna and Jung weren't exactly on the same page, right? There might be some agreement, but they definitely aren't making the exact same argument.

reply to post by BlueMule


Hey BlueMule . Persinger published something like 20 papers in Perceptual and Motor Skills in a series called Geophysical Variables and Behavior in the early 80's. Back in the 70's when he wrote the 'Space Time Transients and Unusual Events' book. It's obvious he was a little reticent to discuss certain topics that would get him labeled as "too out there." Though he was pretty bold for his time (the book was already pretty crazy as is)! I think he made the jump to more psychical explanations after writing, "Intense Paranormal Experiences Occur During Days of Quiet, Global, Geomagnetic Activity" in '85 or when he started to toy around with the god helmet. I have nothing against concepts of nonphysical phenomena. Frankly I think the most atomic unit of reality isn't strings — it is not math. It is raw, unadulterated information.

reply to post by The GUT
You might consider the theory that "they" are us, but not in a subconscious telepathic manifestation of the human collective but rather the possibility that we are not "whole" and exist in different dimensions and timelines simultaneously and yet all occupying the same physical space that under the right circumstances can "bleed" into each other. Just something I was discussing with a friend hypothetically a few nights ago, but an interesting angle none the less.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by The GUT

 

You might consider the theory that "they" are us, but not in a subconscious telepathic manifestation of the human collective but rather the possibility that we are not "whole" and exist in different dimensions and timelines simultaneously and yet all occupying the same physical space that under the right circumstances can "bleed" into each other. Just something I was discussing with a friend hypothetically a few nights ago, but an interesting angle none the less.

Yeah, that might be a good way of putting it.

There are definitely parts of us that we don't recognize as parts of us. Parts that are not the ego-self. Parts that are "alien" to the ego-self. Whether they exist in different states of mystical consciousness or different dimensions depends on what angle one approaches them from.

We are bleeding into the universe all the time, our minds are bleeding out of our skulls every moment of every day and into each other, into the "outer" world, into the past and future, into any and all dimensions, and into the collective unconscious, and that's what psychic ability is. It's always on. It's not like in the movies where its a super-power possessed by a few, where it's turned on and off like a light switch.

reply to post by BlueMule
BlueMule I think you would have loved to be in on the conversation. We discussed the possibilities of linear time being non-existent with all time occurring simultaneously. We pondered not only if such was possible as a theory for explaining otherworldly type experiences (along with multiple dimensions occupying a single space) but as a possible explanation as to how God can see and know all things from beginning to end thousands of human years before they occur and how God's timetable relates to ours. Interestingly enough this conversation was had with an Atheist, but one who is willing to take on any and all topics.

Conversations during bouts of insomnia tend to bring about some of the most interesting subject matter, and fortunately for me I have friends for whom my night time hours are their day time!

Originally posted by The GUT

Like I said: Great discussion, but anyone speaking on 'tulpas" or the "collective unconscious" as if from "fact" should probably rephrase themselves in a manner that supports discussion…not as a "lesson" for those perceived as less informed than the claimant.

Well, I feel frustrated every time someone jumps to the conclusion that a UFO is ET, as if it's a "fact" that Hollywood style face-value aliens come here in nuts n' bolts technology that an alien civilization developed. But I don't get in their face about it, because that's just the way people are. I just let them talk how they talk and I try to present an alternative approach which the evidence supports, and which I accept as true. So I say it's true. That's what people do.

Have you read anything by Jeffrey Kripal?

"What do superheroes like Superman, X-Men and Fantastic 4 have in common with the paranormal,
Jacques Vallee, Whitley Streiber, Charles Fort, et.al. ? EVERYTHING . . .according to Jeffrey
Kripal. WOW . .. what a cool book. Mutants and Mystics helps to bridge the gap between
spiritually and pop culture with an exciting and thought provoking read, so much so, I had to put it
down frequently to let his ideas just "soak in". Like many baby boomers, I've always been
interested in comic books, super heros, sci-fi movies and paranormal phenomenea. This scholary
and fun to read book focuses on how the paranormal has helped to generate the pop culture genres
of science fiction, superhero comics and pulp fiction.

The author details numerous personal histories and colorful anecdotes which include amazing
paranormal experiences of authors and artists alike. I especially enjoyed learning more about Ray
Thomas, the "Amazing Stories" history and his own paranormal experiences; Barry
Windsor-Smith's UFO encounter and pre-cognitive experiences; Philip K. Dick's gnostic beliefs and
fantastic personal visions, just to name a few. After reading the chapter discussing Jack Kirby's
wonderful world of aliens, ancient astronauts, mutants, counter culture and consciousness, I've got
a new appreciation for my childhood interest in comic books. I felt like I was reading a "hidden
history" of American culture. Buy the book, you won't be disappointed."

Mutants and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal

Great discussion! Thanks to Gut and everyone else.

Originally posted by BlueMule
But I don't get in their face about it, because that's just the way people are. I just let them talk how they talk and I try to present an alternative approach which the evidence supports, and which I accept as true. So I say it's true. That's what people do.

Yeah, I thought about it after I wrote that and realized how often I do it, too. And it does have it's place in persuasive speech. The realization also came at how much I've learned from folk here regardless of the style or manner. Ideas are thrown out there and if they "talk" to us we can follow them wherever they personally lead.

Have you read anything by Jeffrey Kripal?

Funny you mention Kripal because I just came across a book review that intrigued me and decided I needed to add it to my reading list. It sounds a little intellectually challenging, but those are usually the kind that are the most worthwhile.

This HAS been a great discussion and it's a good time for it as I believe some of the concepts here are finally starting to come into their own right. Vallee, for example, might not be so much the, "Heretic among heretics" that he reflected on when he first suggested Magonia and such.

I'm working on a Dorothy Izzat thread that approaches her story from a somewhat different angle that I hope will please both the ETH and IDH camps. We'll see how that goes, heheh.