“An engineer observing a computer would want to look at the back and open up the boxes. He would want to take a probe and examine the different parts of the computer. But there is another way of looking at it; the way of the programmer, who wants to sit in front of the computer and analyze what it does, not how it does it. That's my approach. I want to ask it questions and see what answers I get. I want to interact with it as an information entity.” - Jacques Vallee
Can we derive a simple definition of the paranormal and anomalous? Perhaps put simply, these chimeras of the senses are observable phenomenon that are lodged between coherence and chaos. Language is coherent by necessity, while the natural world and it’s origins remain chaotic and incoherent in theory and so when the anomalous is confronted with rationality it is no surprise to us that both logic and the illogical become surrealistic as equivalences of one another as it becomes very apparent a primary and very fundamental conceptual model of causation is missing.
It may be that this is due to our inner nature and it’s causation remains an equal enigma and so the historical world of physicality that we cannot frame in language as to it's origin are equally lodged between the coherence of objectification and the subjectivity that is apparent when the chaotic caricatures a stable state of behavior, much like our own behavior.
One mirror reflects the other. Self referential definitions and behavior.
Yet buried in our view of chaos as opposed to coherence within the study of the anomalous is a interdependence that suggests an unnamed Janus face or two sides of the same coin. The image and the reversed reflection in self awareness.
"Whole and unity; thing or entity or being. Every whole is a unity and every unity that is divisible is a whole. For example, the primitive concepts, the monads, the empty set, and the unit sets are unities but not wholes. Every unity is something and not nothing. Any unity is a thing or an entity or a being. Objects and concepts are unities and beings. "-Godel
Going deeper into this concept of a pattern that synthesizes a common bond between paradox in the paranormal and the predictive, Ibn Al Arabi suggests a reality that "possesses such utter nondelimitation that it is not delimited by nondelimitation."
What might "reality" that be that quantum physics follows on the footsteps of metaphysics?
It seems that if we compare fruitful results as well as the many facets of the anomalous as a active study, physics and in particular, quantum physics has left the forlorn Ufology far behind...It seems to have descended into self referencing babble while physics has sent out more explorers of merit.
Einstein parallels the nature of the mind being intrinsically folded within both the hardware and software of the environment when he observed that "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."
A strange separation of the mind from the nature which produced it has occurred.
Hidden in this circuitous labyrinth of delusions mistaken for certainties is a taboo that John C Lilly accurately described as being present both in the positivists and in the skeptical, the believers and the atheistic in what RA Wilson called reality tunnels.The objectification of imagination creating a divide between mind and nature....based on reversed causation has placed itself into a non existent box, an imaginary island.
“ In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits... In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits.”
- The Human Biocomputer (1974)
The network he refers to is a field of energetic information as the root of physicality and yet our models of causation begin with physicality as the root of information, as if a potato could create itself. Something is missing with our conceptual models of causation, which Phillip K Dick involuntarily ventured into...
“We hypostatize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of the information; the message has changed. This is a language which we have lost the ability to read. We ourselves are a part of this language; changes in us are changes in the content of the information. We ourselves are information-rich; information enters us, is processed and is then projected outward once more, now in an altered form. We are not aware that we are doing this, that in fact this is all we are doing”
― Philip K. Dick, VALIS
In this context, one could say in relation to popular cultures adverse reaction to the contradictions between rational logic underwritten by materialism versus the seeming chaotic and unpredictable fear of uncertainty and the unpredictable in the para-normal is defended by an equal reactive mixture of defensive ridicule underlined by fantasies, it is advisable that it is "better do nothing than to be busy doing nothing"
Our culture cannot discern the relationship between software and hardware. Physicality and self organizing energy as a divide created by reverse causation as a conceptual model of effects.
‘But the bits and pieces of mind which appear before consciousness invariably give a false picture of mind as a whole. The systemic character of mind is never there depicted, because the sampling is governed by purpose. We never see in consciousness that the mind is like an ecosystem – a self-corrective network of circuits. We only see arcs of these circuits.
And the instinctive vulgarity of scientists consists precisely in mistaking these arcs for the larger truth, i.e., thinking that because what is seen by consciousness has one character, the total mind must have the same character.
Freud’s personified ‘ego’, ‘id’, ‘super-ego’ are, in fact not, truly personified at all. Each of his components is constructed in the image of only consciousness (even though the component may be unconscious) and the ‘consciousness’ does not resemble a total person. The isolated consciousness is necessarily depersonified.
The whole iceberg does not have those characteristics which could be guessed at from looking only at what is above water. I mean: the iceberg does – mind does not. Mind is not like an iceberg.’ [Bateson, 1967]
One can say the same about our definition of reality based on physicality as a primacy of causation relates to our own conceptual model of what we may be. One hand washes the other. The physical defines the non material in error.
We return to the paranormal and might have a glimmer of it’s nature which is the true nature of the universe and we observe experiential reality in an upside down manner. The relationship between physicality and energy as information that we process and how we process it is amply illustrated by the nature of nature in relationship to the mind working incoherently as assuming physicality as a primacy. Physicality is an effect not a cause and while physicality creates effects we can perhaps say that over and over again, seeing is not believing This applies directly to the anomalous as well as to my peers. A wave comes before a molecule.
.“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” ― Albert Einstein
I began this essay by quoting Jacques Vallee’s discernment concerning the relationship between software and hardware, consciousness and physicality in relation to UAP, and his concept of a control system. He continues to add qualifiers to this concept….
“We're assuming that there is a feedback mechanism involved in the operations of the control system; if you change the information that's carried back to that system, you might be able to infiltrate it through its own feedback.”
I am suggesting that there are no manipulators behind this matrix other than the human observer and many years ago suggesting any change or distinction of form between the observer and the observed in this context has our fingerprints all over it.
We are the creators of extraterrestrials, the demons, the men in black, the crop circle in our compendium but not through our fantasies but rather in nature as bringing our organisational nature as a superimposition of faceted programs in the relationship of anticipation, intention, identification, associations, emotions and the directed energy of attention that make illustrations from waves to a physicality that demonstrates the primacy of energetic information as a causation in relationship through a spectrum of physicality.
It is ourselves that are paranormal and see causation in a reversed and upside down modality that answers the Zen like question I asked myself some time ago…...How can nature be unnatural?
It is not. Our minds are unnatural in how we conceive “reality”
The chaotic nature of the anomalous is a signet of inability to conceive of it's coherence.