The Reinvention Required In The Study of The Anomalous

One of the key points of my writing on the subject of the paranormal is that what is anomalous may not be directly observable as a distinction that is also a verifiable discernment regarding the finite nature of our own powers of observation.

Add to this discernment that the paranormal is not alien to us in the strictest sense as we recognize these events as the familiar placed in a unfamiliar context. 
The field of the study of the anomalous that includes unidentified atmospheric phenomenon, ghost encounters, presentment as precognition, possessions etc which apparently have no pragmatic usefulness to be applied to the prosaic nature of everyday living. 
One could reasonably observe that this separation is due to the nature of the questions posed from which are derived a confusing assortment of abstracted theories that operate at cross purposes that lack a nexus of focus.
The anomalous is familiar and yet exhibits behavior that is cannot be accounted for. 
This accounting is as variegated as a hybridised stereotype meaning the individual (s) who exponentially inhabit the same space as these observations have a finite capability to steer the outcome of what is in essence an effect, which has no volition of it’s own.

Imaging and imagination as the verb of consciousness is more of a mirror than a root source of the phenomenon that is also the mirror of a waking state, which is a dreaming state.

We divide these two states from one another and yet both exhibit each others attributes, and this is what lies behind our own defining of ourselves as being conscious.

Add this discernment to our interpretation of the physicality of our environment that provides a false image of solidity rather than the reality that it is a spectrum of energy keyed as information that becomes referential.
However the study of the paranormal is not one that can be button holed as solipsism, meaning that the mind has a unique and isolated nature whereas the environment is discounted as imaginary. 
This poses a conundrum of epistemology that while the mind and it's environment cannot be separated as a clear divide, the environment at times has a strange and unaccounted for malleability that seemingly originates between the two.
Yet perhaps the role of solipsism is reversed when the terms of the questions we ask become inadvertent key characteristics of what is incommensurable to any known relationship. What exactly is a Demon, a UFO, a Sasquatch other than incommensurable references?
Imaginary language.
As an example take the term, Unidentified Flying Object. The operand word of "object" that is utilised despite the fact that it's critically assumed physicality as an object as we define a solid object that is used as a metric has led nowhere for decades. 
Whether it is Roswell, Socorro, or any other event you chose to use as an example
If we add the entire body of evidence such that it is, without picking and choosing examples, we have an inexplicable variegation of reported "craft types" that are are patently transient, depending on the differentiation found in individual observers and \ or the equally transient imagery borrowed from cultural consensus based on shared anticipation. Add to this the "averaged" stereotypical "craft" has historically changed from decade to decade, century to century which makes it reasonably probable that if all the witnesses were not lying, then we have observer variegation based upon the nature of unknown relationships between the observer and the observed.

Another discernment may be the term of self awareness may be another form of circular logic whereas the locus of our attention may not be divisible as to observe itself while in the act of observing.

One could say that a great deal of what we define as being conscious is the differentiation of autosuggestion. 
Another way to say the same thing is to say our environment suggests to us that triggers the inferences stored as associative transients, that are self referential and self organizing without much interference from the possibility of divided attention.

If any of the foregoing has validity then we must ask a fundamental question. Why has the study of the nature of consciousness been separated from the study of the paranormal?

In effect, the field of the paranormal has divided the inseparable.

This may be the missing context we require as a more holistic and realistic approach to the confusion that results from dividing the observer from the observed.

The greatest and most profound anomaly there is comes from the anomalous nature in the origin of consciousness itself and yet in a equally profound manner, this question has been separated from our own observations on the subject of the paranormal.

You could say reasonably that the positivism of the skeptic is matched by that of those in the paranormal field by the use of terms that have no defining or repeatable, demonstrable connection to anything other than self referential identifiers.

This could be the underlying nexus that has resulted in a merry go round of entropy regarding results versus the false nature of the debates themselves.

The entire paranormal field utilizes an imaginary language while the skeptic insists that everything under the sun is observable in terms of physicality. Is it any wonder that after being involved in tis field, many become weary, disillusioned, or lunatic?

In brief, the study of consciousness cannot be separated from the study of the paranormal.

For readers who are interested in the scientific studies and research experimentation regarding the study of the strange nature of consciousness as a series of inexplicable anomalies, two of many such examples are found here:

http://tarnsitsandstations.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-nature-of-conciousness-double-slit.html