Thursday, March 31, 2011

Imaging The Invisible

"As Peret asserts, the value of such stories resides in the fact that they respond to direct social necessity but in a way that is not obvious in a society dominated by what is utilitarian and functional. Rather they represent a natural surplus of imaginative abundance that may confound or reinforce the way we perceive the world, but which never does so in a simple way. Even though they may have no direct social use, they nonetheless embody the actual state of real relations between people."
— Michael Richardson (Dedalus Book of Surrealism 2: The Myth of the World)

The Analogical Symbolism of A Experiential Hole in My Clothing

Although this opening quotation addresses surrealism, if we change the context to the paranormal, that is to say the verb in information being experiential tales, we have the metamorphosing "vehicles" in the atmosphere, telling us tales of the observer's relationship to the observed. We have the memories of the dead who convey the sense of the ritualistic paths found beneath the living where emotions and the mind meet the entrapment of mistaking words for objects, our reactions to sentience, our imaging to realities.

Carl Jung perhaps aptly characterized the importance of the observer in co-creating realities in terms of our proclivity to  measure reality by divisions, as " It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves." Since the entire subject of the paranormal as well as the UFO phenomenon are oddly taboo in public scientific circles, for the most part, over the past several decades, the investigations into these areas of interest have been relegated to a relatively small but persistent portion of the public, which has largely grown inward in it's unofficial divorce from scientific investigation and has become more of a sociological phenomenon than in the past.

When I began writing on these subjects three years ago, I suggested the direct linkage between the UFO phenomenon and other paranormal phenomenon. At the time, this was largely ignored or brushed aside, yet there could be no greater observable phenomenon than these events, it seems to physicists than to apply their theoretical measuring sticks to. Unfortunately this phenomenon is joined at the hip to the idea that these are manned extraterrestrial craft, which I have gone out of my way to suggest it is more likely that they are not. The answer to the UFO phenomenon lies outside of Ufology and yet, the proliferation of new mythologies growing in the hothouse of isolation, grow ever more domesticated into very toxic product that grow out of memes and rumors and inferences that are for the most part, third or fourth hand or worse, anonymous sources. Is there a way out of this?

 I think a first step is to take a pause. The second is to admit that we know no more than we did sixty years ago. The third is to look at the relationship to the observable effects of this phenomenon and ask the scientific community, not the political community, some tough but open minded questions as contrary to the clamor of a small vocal cult of skeptics, they are not the adversarial community, if they are conducting science. The level of maturity in this field seems to be lowered daily by polemics rather than asking ourselves some tough questions. Perhaps if we act like adults we can be treated as adults.

A universe of implicate ordering that transcribes the laws of thought based on the editorial prowess of language, as a closed system, as a proverbial software of descriptors we use as referents to imagine reality, may be also producing indirect effects we are unaware of that we call paranormal, as opposed to normal which has yet to be defined as a stable model, an M theory can encompass the aggregate sum of phenomenon without knowing all of it's constituent dynamics. Largely, reality is a set of theoretical models that are in effect, mythologies in their incompleteness, whether it is the UFO phenomenon or the Big Bang theory.

My questions are on the surface simple enough but the answers contrary to most assumptions are not simple.
1. Is there an observer effect when the phenomenon shifts fro a wave to a construct of energetic particles?
2. Is # 1 perhaps based on the similarity of REG results seen in the global consciousness experiment that is a tipping point in the appearance of the phenomenon?
3. Based on #2, is there a linkage to consciousness? Specifically the entanglement of minds to produce effects such as #1?
4. If this is a natural phenomenon that links the coherence of a large group of individuals to create a visible resonance effect, can this then be triggered? Are atmosphere conditions a linkage, or other extra-planetary influences in the form of wave energy?
5, If there is a linkage between mind and matter, does this represent a affirmation of biocentrism?

Can the transpersonal ( as evidenced in the paranormal ) be, in effect personalized to where  this transcription at best can be only ruminated upon as a metaphor for which, at present we have no comparisons? As animals, we see ourselves as both Gods and Monsters and so, is it any wonder that we project these cross purposes prone to uncertainty into our projected fears which then become realities? We have an illusion that good animal \ bad animal applies to nature, wolf versus dove, spider versus butterfly..which then goes deeper into psychological iconography.
Yet we divorce ourselves under denial, and bury contradictions deeply as they directly apply to a mountain of evidence, as Gurdjieff would say, we not burying the bone alone but the dog as well.
What we pretend to be versus what we are.

Yet what I have found researching in the paranormal, no matter how deeply the observer as a functionary of society tries to bury the bone, it pops right up in the paranormal, and yet we refuse to own is a god or a monster invisible to us!.

No, it's not..take a look around you.

We lie through our teeth culturally and then when a nasty metaphor pops up, it's "them" not me.

A relationship where the experiential listener is so provincial as to be illiterate? Yet we have explanations of euclidean right angles that mash the ill fitting into a ludicrous pose that only reflects the human condition as a tragicomedy. Demons and Angels. the binary of mythologies. Yet these same behavioral models dominate our projections superimposed onto the unknown whether we are Dr Hawking or theologists. Is it any wonder that when this cultural containment system programs an implicate ordering, we get monsters, gods, and deformed impulses..or worse to domesticate them by giving them a term we ourselves do not fully understand the implications of?

Is any answer better than no answer?

"Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies."
— Joseph Campbell (Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor)

Every one of these other rooms of consciousness are non-human, of other kingdoms or species and yet we are so profoundly connected to them as a living system of differentiation that is so obvious, however, at the boundary layer of a fractal blooming in a holographic dream scape, we appear to be unique, and this psychology of "uniqueness" has led us into a stark dead end, fearful and paranoiac.

This state of disassociation is profound, locked by a behavioral-ism of software prone to uploading and downloading errors, viruses and trojan horses that have been incorporated for centuries into our operating platform as tool makers and mimics who have divorced themselves from reality. When will nature reboot this situation? It has in the past within this living system we inhabit.

I have been thinking about my friend a lot lately, one I have never met personally who dwells between the possible and the delimited, between those things we can see and directly experience and those we can yet visualize concretely in the provinces of the mind we call imaging or worse, imagination. From Borge's Library of Babel she weaves illustrations of our relationships with that which is yet to be materialized and yet, simultaneously, the fictional portrays the truisms we cannot see in what we say is our variant of consensus reality. 1,001 Arabian Nights and the study of the paranormal seems to be largely of imaging the invisible with our own stilted models of predictability. What returns as feedback are largely parodies of our own imaging, that not surprisingly perhaps are unpredictable with an instability that matches note for note our own buried uncertainty and lack of understanding and instability, which we hide from public view either as institutionalized or indirectly worshiped.

Giving divine perfection seemingly frozen in eternity, the contradictory cross purposes of human attributes seems to have an anthropomorphic wish list attached to it. Is the invisible a phenomenon something to be feared or containerized, or if we are unconsciously manipulating it are we programming contradiction in and getting contradiction out?

The sentence "how things work" is simply outdated as is our language. Science has shown there are no "things" that are not living embodiments of the invisible, and yet we characterize them as stable objectification when nothing is so stable, lest it collapses under it's own inability to change. To say that Ufology has to rid itself of old language, old monarchical conceptual models of behavior, otherwise it will continue to de-evolve into self parody, a crank's paradise is understated. The phenomenon is so complex that the continued applications of rhetoric only obscures the subject further, to the point where the interactive dynamics of it become secondary to a politic of sociology.

What may disappoint many is that neither gods or monsters are responsible for  the relationships between string theory, the multidimensional geometry of music and the manifestation of quantum effects that are akin to an unknown resonance tied to consciousness.

"And these little things may not seem like much but after a while they take you off on a direction where you may be a long way off from what other people have been thinking about." - Rodger Penrose

Last night, at 2:45 am, I was awakened by a very loud female voice calling my name. "Bruce !! "Being half awakened, without thinking, I responded aloud with "what!?" Indeed what, or more importantly, Why? As a result, this morning I wondered as I wandered in my routines, ruminating on the impracticality of the paranormal. Perhaps as a tool maker, perhaps as a character in someone else's fictions that illustrate my own plight of ignorance in these matters. She woke me up as a analogical symbolism?

I don't pretend to know.

"Surrealism will usher you into death, which is a secret society. It will glove your hand, burying therein the profound M with which the word Memory begins."
-Andre Breton

Why do some events have no correspondence to the lithography of consensus memory? "They" as such, seemingly play with memory, like an artist rather than a scientist. Making lamps out of ice cubes. The twist of metaphors in the admixture of contexts, neither here nor there, as a pointillism of an unknown fabric being woven as a type this.

The opening cannot be seen that exists between the heart and the mind, is incommensurable by my own experiential testimony, a tale that reads between the words, between the lines of any causal theory I could muster on my best day. A world proclamation of ignorance...wrought by the apparent holes in our psychic clothing.

As the physicist F David Peat observed synchronicity may be a flaw in the fabric of our conceptual models, as much as our holographic capacity to create three dimensional objects out of the resonance of synapses, may all lead back to spacial relations that have no linearity, no human narrative plot.

We insert ourselves as protagonists but then what is the self referential definition of a human that does not rely on the constraints of language, a cybernetic air show where our semiotics do loop to loops, as a superior intelligence may look on with astonished awe.

I have no doubts that it is reasonable to suspect, at the heart of the material as plotted by our animal senses is a infinitude of invisible realities that fashion what we take the credit for. It all may come down to a simple question. How do we imagine the invisible? Even the most ardent proponents of rationalism and empirical reality do this ceaselessly, lest we forget this very human superimposition of the unformed..
This is not a function of government and yet behind the scenes, it plays an overwhelming role in social politics through the scrim of warring rhetoric and propaganda that transfers into empirical corpses.

Are we all living in a world based on the denial of uncertainty, of a present whose roots are in the memory of language as applied to thought, and yet what lies behind this operating platform that is invisible and yet whose effects can be seen? Is the search of the paranormal a search for an analogy for ourselves that is transpersonal?

I think, to a large extent, this is so.


  1. Bruce said;
    "Is any answer better than no answer?"

    Maybe not, but some answer, as long as it acknowledges the limitations of its context, must be better than no answer.

    you said;
    “Is it any wonder that when this cultural containment system programs an implicate ordering, we get monsters, gods, and deformed impulses..or worse to domesticate them by giving them a term we ourselves do not fully understand the implications of?”

    Well, here’s a thing Bruce. There is potential to upset the cultural containment system if we can bring into the world of form, clearly more accurate representations of, ok, lets say, call it the implicate order. But surely while any attempt to ‘domesticate’ the ineffable involves risks we cannot currently understand, we may mitigate some risk by using the forms themselves as identifiers of natural sources of corruption.

    “Is the invisible a phenomenon something to be feared or containerized, or if we are unconsciously manipulating it are we programming contradiction in and getting contradiction out?”

    It’s easy to accept the latter half of the sentence, but how does the invisible become useful to us if it is not containerized in one way or another. Beware the container, sure, yet there must be better ‘containers‘ than what we work with now.

    “It all may come down to a simple question. How do we imagine the invisible?”

    Agreed, so it’s not so complicated, it’s only the rhetoric that makes it seem that way.

  2. Hi,
    The post was meant as a recognition of the complexity of a dynamic that the vast majority divorce themselves from, or at least, from what I am reading in various media. I think perhaps you would agree that also there is a reciprocity in this, in that what we image often times becomes a defacto script, so it is cautionary and a fine balancing act, which I think it should be, as a responsibility to others and ourselves if we are on our toes about it. The context is a indirect social criticism but was not meant or intended to be mean spirited, as language seems to over ride various realities these days, where our script paves over these crucial discernment's in uncertainty posed against a contingent certainty, whether it is the paranormal, politics, religion, science, etc. Call them self fulfilling prophecies, or the observer effect, the tensioning of evolution, resistance to change..but I see this dynamic coming more into play as "time" progresses. The old axiom of water taking on the color of the container may apply to the paranormal as well.