What physicists call the "quantum field," is also the "collective unconscious" of Jung, where archetypes arise, and where spontaneous and simultaneous events occur, independent of distance. Western occultists are convinced that this realm is where everything we experience (both in waking and dream states) resides, but we are only seeing and sensing a small piece of what it truly "is." This "dimension" is not bound by time, space or our attempts to understand and more importantly, to explain it. Language traps us in a conceptual web of illusions, at least as far as this symbolic realm is concerned. We may imagine that our reality could be a sort of shadow or epiphenomenon of this holographic dimension, looked at through a mental web of expectations, sensory input, and our illusory flow through time.
Is it just me or does Greg seem very close to Getting It?
17 comments:
Interesting. Sounds a little Taoist to me.
It's just you.
Paul Kimball, temporarily possessed by Jerry Clark
Hi Alex,
Yeah, Greg brings this weirdly Taoist sensibility to UFO weirdness.
So the ufology that can be told is not the eternal ufology. Explains a lot. ;)
Language trapping us in a conceptual web of illusions goes back to Jung and McKenna when they wrote and spoke on UFOs; the concept is much older is Western thought, all the way back to Plato and the early Gnostics...and yes, Mac, Greg is indeed very close to getting it.
Is this the "getting it" of the "We all know what 'it' is and you're just now arriving," or the "'It' that is possibly ineffeable and which we are all striving towards, seeing it in our own ways?"
Greg
Greg--
The latter!
Mac,
I know that's what YOU meant, I was referring to the anonymous post, but you've settled that for him/ her already.
Maybe. Maybe not. Ineffable...
Personally I hate it when the UFO phenomenon is taken down a McKennan road. This is a very real and tangible experience that is only clouded by our primitive inability to see it for what it truly is.
We are also at an incredible disadvantage, as based on most reports our senses are manipulated to obscure the event (and to render us docile).
Just because it's easier on our panicky, xenophobic brains to seek an esoteric answer doesn't make it the right one.
Denny
I never said that it was the "right" explanation. If you look at my post, I put the idea forward as a suggestion, and point out that there is no real objective proof for visitors from other planets either. I have little doubt that extra-human intelligence exists, the question is how does what it does to/with us.
If you like the current ufological explanation, it's as valid as others. I try to claim no special knowledge or viewpoint.
Hey Greg! Thanks for the reply.
I realize that your story was additional constructive, conjecture but I'm seeing more and more of this "safe esotaria" being associated with UFOs. I can only assume this is happening more frequently due to a sense of our own frustration with the subject and a desperation to find solid answers.
We do however need to keep in mind that there are very real associated trace cases and other forms of physical evidence for these events. Add to that a large body of very credible military and "inside" revelations/admissions/reports. Granted, only a small percentage of these bits of information are 100% bullet proof but that small percentage of reality remains.
Instead of looking for convenient answers we need to be looking at the core of what is tangible. That's the only truth we have.
Denny
Close, but no mothership shaped Adamski cigar, I'm afraid.
I really suspect/think the real phenomena that may involve non-human intelligence is much deeper than that posited by Greg B., IMHO. Beyond the beyond even posed by Vallee, etc.
(Oh, hi Denny. Get my note (#22), here abouts? Glad to see you here, believe it not. Further comment forthcoming on the details and facts, not ad hominems. Apologies mutually accepted?)
I guess I should read Greg's post once more before further comment here or there.
Mr. Intense,
Rather than spilling over into new threads I replied in the old.
Let's keep things clean for Mac.
Denny
D--
Agreed. I'll go look at post-22 post.
--MI
I think Greg is essentially correct (whether just "suggesting" these ideas or not). I especially like his connection between the mysterious holographic meta-realm of which he speaks and the occult dimension of things. I do worry about (anyone's) trying to make connections between quantum-mechanical theory and, say, Jung's brand of archetypal psychology.
Quantum mechanics does often seem to me to border on metaphysics, although I've yet to see any very convincing exploration of this possibility by anyone except David Bohm, himself a physicist. But Bohm does derive his concept of an "implicate order" (which we can probably twist around into some kind of occult dimension if we try hard enough) from quantum-mechanical effects. And doubtless, there IS a very deep connection between psychology and quantum mechanics at SOME level, especially given the fact that the outcome of certain types of quantum experiments depends on our observation of those experiments (Schroedinger's poor, tortured cat, etc.) However, it seems to me that we need actually to ESTABLISH this connection rather than simply asserting it.
(Anon c'est moi -- WMB)
Post a Comment