Aw Gut that probably won't end well for me... moving on...
Psychotronics are often associated with "mind weaponry" but in the parapsychological sense actually includes stuff like Persinger and Koren's
I think this is a topic that actually might help us see that control system (one of them, anyway).
We have what humans experience (naturally, spontaneously, whatever). We are instantly limited thanks to our native languages, none of which really
support the 'shared experience' of these things at all, and some of which (like English) are stupendously bad for trying to convey them. This is a
critical point, because we can't have intelligent debates or exploration about "a thing" unless people actually understand that "thing." If they
have 50 different versions of the thing, we just have a mess. If they have some poorly translated version of the thing that makes it actually seem
like something else, we just have a mess.
So before we get anywhere exploring human experience (let alone the control systems that may impact it), we actually have to be able to communicate
with one another decently. Or at least know what we are truly communicating about.
This pretty much crashes and burns most esoteric experience. It's like having a two hour deeply emotional, passionate lovemaking session with humor
and intimacy and feelings of divine in places, a little kundalini rising and more, and then when it gets translated into what everyone else thinks
happened, it's six minutes of pxrn.
People who have not already had that experience in order to have a baseline for sharing cannot interpret any communication we provide properly. Even
if we have words (which English at least generally doesn't), if someone hasn't had a given experience to associate with a word, it means nothing to
them. (Blind people learn that grass is green but what does it mean to them?) We are limited to what we already know. So when a person has an
experience and shares it in words, the only people who are actually going to be able to know what they mean are those who have the capacity for that
kind of thing and at least minor degrees of experience with it.
Which is to say that our first problem is that we actually expect such experiences to be translatable into terms that everyone will totally
understand. This is why some guy and his wife can literally be pulled over by a UFO so close to the car and pacing it and their engine kicks out, only
to be assured by others that they were confused by the planet Venus. This is why someone can have fairly extensive interactive experience with other
identities (whatever they may be), only to be assured by others that they were just hallucinating during sleep paralysis. The problem here is that
language can only convey within the limits of what the persons being communicated WITH are capable of understanding (though of course there are other
psychological and sociological issues that interfere as well).
So to some degree we wreck our data right out of the gate, because picking up that data and trying to make it something everyone understands and
communicates about immediately reduces the data to "the interpretation of the common denominator" you might say. Or in short, no matter what depth
experience it began as like above, now it's pxrn. Maybe some people have a greater understanding of what is meant and likely occurred, but for the
sake of people saying, "So what else is a similar experience, what can be confused with this experience," it's still going to be pxrn.
Following that analogy, you'd then get people insisting that the 2 hours of divinely intimate bliss could (a) be easily had for thirty bucks with a
girl from the corner of west hollywood boulevard, (b) was probably just a dream 'cause it happens like that sometimes, (c) was really just sex and
only irrational emotional sorts attribute more to it than the physical.
Getting any intelligent discussion about other sources of the experience, about replication, about what it means, is pretty much going to be a big
waste of time at this point. Because what nearly everyone is talking about, has almost nothing in common besides the most trivially crude elements
with the experience the person was trying to describe.
Should I invent a technology which gives a man or woman a nice O, some would say that I caused that experience. As if they could even be compared. As
if that isn't ridiculous. But that's what many people would say. "Look, there is nothing to all that, I caused it with this thing marked
Now separately we have people like the McKenna brothers who tried to find a doorway into the interworlds via drugs, because it was clear that some
drugs sparked the same kinds of experiences talking to the same described entities about the same topics even. Clearly, affecting the brain or nervous
system with that drug was some kind of key.
(Of course, then you have the debate about whether they were actually talking to entities about thing X vs. mysteriously hallucinated the same
experience as Joe over there down to some details, but it really meant nothing and was just a physiological blip, obviously, as we all know that those
entities can't exist.)
Then you have people like Persinger who are using a different tech approach to messing with the brain to see what happens and to see what can be
replicated. This is really fascinating stuff. But now, we have the Panasonic element to further add to the common mistranslation of the original
experience as pxrn.
Does the experience someone have with the toy truly match the kind of experience the people were describing originally? I saw a TV clip years ago
where some young guy, in college as a subject, was wearing the helmet, and assured the camera with a smirky snarky grin that he was being abducted by
aliens. Hope that wasn't research.
Psi research such as remote viewing is -- when done by legit people -- the tightest science there is, it has to be, and even some psychological
sciences are now pretty tight for similar reasons, but there seems to be no double-blind or more in place related to the Persinger research (would
appreciate correction if this isn't so), at least for what little I've seen and read so far. So to begin with I consider the research utterly
fascinating but only partially credible because of that. But even just taking it at face value:
Is the experience really
the same? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it "overlaps" here and there and all over even by accident because
it's still experimental of course. If it isn't the same experience though, and yet I keep seeing references to people claiming that Persinger
helmets "give people alien abduction experiences," then what are we doing aside from creating a biogizmo that we can 'reduce' all experience to,
as if it is Venus, or a weather balloon?
I notice a curiosity where people are more likely to question one thing than another. If you tell people, "Well people are confused by Venus and
weather balloons and secret technologies," most (but the dense) would say, "Yes. That doesn't mean those things cover all unexplained visual
sky-object experiences." But if you tell people, "This guy invented a technology that messes with the human brain and artificially makes people have
spiritual or alien abduction experiences," a lot of people assume that IF that is true (I do not dispute it, as I don't know), then it stands to
reason that those experiences are merely a matter of some brain chemicals and frequencies pushing on a neuron here and there. In other words, they
promptly pull the experience out of the category as being as literal and individual as making love, and drop it into the category of pxrn.
Suddenly there is the assumption that the original experience, reduced to the low common denominator of what people assumed it was, translated from
the miserably unequipped language people had to convey it with, "is" the same experience as the toy is bringing on. In this analogy, we'd have
people who had a vested interest in distracting us from true intimacy et al., at which point this would be an excellent "explaining it away" tool
much like say, Venus.
That doesn't detract from the value and fascination of the research itself, which I actually believe may genuinely get us somewhere someday with the
'opening doors' of the sort the McKennas were trying to do. I'm all for it.
It simply points out that we are taking the word of sources we don't know, based on other people (subjects) we don't know, and their subjectively
reported experience with electronics, as then summarized and reported by someone else in the lab, and then we are assuming
experiences are the same as
the people whose experiences have been reduced and slotted into the same general category.
(Which is really something since the real experiences vary so widely.)
Persinger's work, which he has happily agreed to have used as the standard "debunking" for so-called contact experience in all forms of media for
decades now, is one element that can affect a feedback/control system.
Now, for those experiences which were annoyingly unexplainable by Venus or measurable insanity, we have a better explanation: it's a neurochemical
anomaly, no big deal, we can bring that on in the lab on purpose any time we want.
So if one had associated spirituality or communication with it (much like intimacy and kundalini in the analogy), then you could be "shook loose"
from those "superstitions" about your experience, since now this other thing allegedly has the answer.
Despite that it is its own legit area of inquiry, it is used, both by accident and by design and by the obvious need of human psychology as I see it,
to 'explain away' a great deal of things I see no evidence it is truly qualified to explain 'away.'
Persinger's work is being used -- and has been being used, with his obvious participation -- as a certain kind of paradigm and distortion and
misattribution for so-called alien and/or interworlds expeirence, much like Venus and weather balloons have been used to explain away everything in
That doesn't mean that Venus, weather balloons, and thinking you see a grey alien when you wear his helmet don't exist of course. It merely means
that they aren't necessarily the same experience that we were allegedly trying to figure out in the first place. It is merely assumed
they are. For some reason it seems like people accept that.
But in that assumption, we have essentially wiped out our only source of real data. Now our discussions can be about the complexities of panasonic...
rather than the expanded experiential states that genuine intimacy and kundalini can both bring about, for example.
Our world is filled with this in many ways actually so culturally we are very easily led to it. We say 'hamburger,' people think McDonalds... like
that tastes anything remotely like any hamburger you ever had off your grill. They could be completely different foods, and if our visual/logical
senses weren't busy focusing on the similarity of form and outer-description, rather than taste and nutrient experience, they'd be considered so.
But we learned as a culture to describe 'food' (I use the term very loosely) by that. So a frozen burrito nuked has close to no taste relationship
to a real burrito and in fact has its own distinctive taste. We learn to like the taste as its own taste, but we still call it a burrito, cause it's
got 'stuff' wrapped in one version of a tortilla. Eventually we have a food climate that contains almost no food whatsoever, and is killing us en
masse (slowly and lucratively), but we're still calling it by all the labels of the actual food that once upon a time our people ate. (How
cute!) Sure, this was mercenary corporatism and consumerism and biochemical research, not gov't intell or whatever, but is there really a difference
in the end result in our culture?
Are we gradually going to be calling "sightings" and "alleged-alien contacts" experiences which, for the sake of the analogy here, we can say
'share the same form and outer description, but taste [and inherent nutrient/value experience] completely different?'
A primary way of controlling the public is to tell them what they are experiencing. Really, it sounds crazy that this would work, but you see
it all the time. "The economy is fine, it's looking up, unemployment is not so bad!" Yeah, on Mars... just keep telling people that. I'd
think it was pointless to contradict reality, but I hear people parroting the news and media, there are just not enough facepalms to cover it.
(I remember after the '94 Northridge earthquake, this psychologist came on the radio and told us that it was a natural psychological reaction to the
experience to feel like everything was almost constantly shaking, from barely to a lot. Actually we were having gazillions of aftershocks. Everything
WAS nearly constantly shaking! A perfect example of someone who just shows up and tells you *what you are experiencing and why* -- and people believe
There isn't a brain machine that exists that can explain the overall context of Walton's experience for example, or others.
This stuff is utterly fascinating for human consciousness, and more than worth the research exploration.
But when it is used to any degree to "redirect" the "assumption" of people's spontaneous experience into being "the same as that," it deserves
very hard skepticism.
Venus can't explain plenty of sightings, and panasonic can't explain deep intimacy and kundalini, and Persinger's brain machine cannot explain the
spectrum -- and there is a HUGE spectrum, including much ignored in various social genres -- of human experience with perceived-as-foreign
As "useful elements in a control system" go, at least a cultural control system, Persinger's work rates way up there.