Saturday, December 23, 2006

Inconvenient Facts About Abductions (Greg Bishop)

I daresay the book about the Hill case (The Interrupted Journey) has been digested and deeply ingrained in the minds of all UFO researchers who engage in hypnotic regression with supposed abductees. There is almost no way that anyone who is interested in the subject can put this template out of their minds when investigating extra-human encounters. As one researcher (a psychologist) -- and one very sympathetic to the issue -- told me, "Many of these people have little respect for or knowledge of the unconscious."

What may have occurred is that the influence of this particular episode and its subsequent dissemination in the abduction literature provided researchers and abductees with a convenient template for their experiences, whatever they were (and are.) I am reasonably sure that many hundreds, if not thousands of people may be latching on to this image to come to terms with something completely outside of their experience, if only to have a place to put it in their minds, and come to some sort of peace with it. For the "aliens'" part, it may be just fine with them that we do this.


In other words, we may not be dealing with anything so facile as flesh-and-blood creatures (indigenous or otherwise). They could be so devastatingly alien that our brains are forced to adopt science fiction imagery simply so we can deal with their presence -- perhaps to keep from going mad. I like Greg's idea that the "aliens" could be complicit in this.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mac:

It always amazes me that abductionologists like Hopkins and Jacobs totally ignore the historical pattern of these experiences, and the shifting nature of how it manifests itself, and what it might. Frankly, Susan Clancy had a better grasp of it, from the skeptical side (and Kevin Randle, Russ Estes, and William Cone before her), and Nick, Greg and you from the paranormal perspective.

Paul

W.M. Bear said...

Mac -- Before I became a PB junkie (and thanks a lot, BTW! ;-) my view of UFOs was close to what Vallee's apparently is -- to wit, that the "abduction experience" is, on some level "real," in the following sense. Entities, the true nature of which we have little or no knowlesdge, actually manifest themselves to human beings but not in what we would think of (if we understood the phenomenon) in material form as beings on the "physical plane."

In this type of explanation, it seems to me, so-called "close encounters" are, in effect, a kind of hallucinatory experience BUT ONE WHICH IS INDUCED BY ACTUAL ENTITIES WHO SIMPLY CHOOSE TO MANIFEST THEMSELVES IN THIS FORM. (Whether these entities exist in some "parallel dimension" or whatever, who can know at this stage?)

HOWEVER (note, as always, my "big however"), following the UFO discussions on PB has, shall we say, "sensitized" me to the possibility that there is also a physical side to this phenomenon and that these beings (whatever their origins, cryptoterrestrial or otherwise) may be real physical entities. Ah well, so much for easy explanations!

Mac said...

Paul--

It always amazes me that abductionologists like Hopkins and Jacobs totally ignore the historical pattern of these experiences

For Hopkins et al, the aliens came here in the 1940s and have been busily pursuing their hybridization program ever since. While I think there might indeed be a genetic component to the experience, I'm not about to start shouting "Invasion!" as Jacobs does in "The Threat."

Whatever the UFO intelligence is -- indeed, if there even is one - then it's much more abiding and mysterious than an interstellar task-force. At the very least, they (or it) is extraordinarily patient and seems to have deep roots in our species' history.

(While I think highly of Randle's abduction book, I'm not so sure about Clancy.)

Mac said...

WMB--

I find your "pre-PB" take on he abduction mystery both sound and plausible. It could very well be the correct answer -- although good luck getting an "alien" to admit it!

Anonymous said...

Mac:

While I think highly of Randle's abduction book, I'm not so sure about Clancy.

In essence, they say the same thing.

Paul

Carol Maltby said...

I've always liked what Terence McKenna said about that:

"We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which disguises itself as an extraterrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us."

Mac said...

In essence, they say the same thing.

Yeah, but at least Randle is willing to consider that UFOs (and occupants) might be real. I haven't read Clancy's book, but from everything I've read about it she seems convinced there's no real possibility of ET visitation, in which case her conclusions are, at best, biased.

Mac said...

Carol--

Amen! ;-)

W.M. Bear said...

Carol -- I've seen this quote before and my reaction (then as now) was/is: an ET invasion is supposed NOT to alarm us!!?? My god, what must the actual ALTERNATIVE (that WOULD alarm us) be??!!

Mac said...

WMB--

I think you might be missing McKenna's point. At least we can hope to *comprehend* an alien invasion, while reality might be far weirder.

Carol Maltby said...

More alarming might be the nature of the symbiosis, if that was true.

What would we need and get from them?

What would they need and get from us?

Anonymous said...

Is McKenna in essence saying that we are the (partial) physical manifestation of a self that extends far beyond what we would consider 'self' to be, rather than dealing with an entity/entities that would be entirely separated from humans?

Given our species' fondness for inrospection, curiosity about others, and an inablilty not to meddle in the affairs of others, it might not be surprising to find the 'other' part of ourselves as having those same traits.