Non-Extraterrestrial UFO Hypotheses

a reply to: Tangerine

Certainly, they help us learn but beyond learning about basic things like what to fear, what are we learning that is so vital to our existence that we must experience this same story structure many thousands of times over a lifetime? Where do UFOs fit into this story experience? Do they alter the structure of story?

I was drawing parallels between the archetypes we see in fiction and the appearance of the UFOs. Several authors have noticed a 'Buck Rogers' element to UFO reports in the sense that they sometimes appeared to reproduce images from science-fiction comics. If we look at comic covers from the pre-1940s, there are plenty of 'flying saucers' and 'cigars.' There are even small, big-headed humanoids that were reported from the 1950s onwards.

It raises an interesting question of whether UFO sightings reflected cultural icons known to the percipient. Naturally, it doesn't explain all reports and neither does it offer a mechanism by which such transference could occur. I first read about this in relation to the 'Michelin men' sightings from 1950s France. Someone queried if it was coincidence that a nationally-recognised icon like the Michelin man would be reported several times in France?

If there was a 'control system' or unspecified Intelligence, might it interact through the language of cultural memes and archetypal symbolism? This ties into the comparison of flying saucer sightings with older sightings of elves and suchlike. Are people encountering something that reflects their own cultural beliefs? Obviously this is a slippery old slope as some have questioned if religious 'sightings' were similarly sourced? Archetypal angels delivering gospels have some similarities to 20th Century claims of 'spiritual aliens' bringing advice for the future of humanity.

Higher on the list of explanations, for me, would be a variety of abnormal, psychological conditions; hearing voices has a chequered history after all. The psychosocial approach seems to offer more answers there.

a reply to: Astyanax

As you probably know, Jung argued that myths are made up of archetypes, or somehow generated by them (he was never very easy to understand).

I certainly agree that he was hard to understand. I still doubt that I do but I think I get the gist of it. Freud was much easier to understand but it was a lot cooler to be Jungian. I do recall trying to read some Jung's work. Definitely his autobiography.
ETA: Its on archive.org!

So you'd have to ask what evolutionary advantage an archetype possesses. And an archetype is not a delusion; it's an aspect of reality, of life represented as a character or symbol of some sort.

My use of the word "delusion" was more or less to get the party started. Archetypes are expressed through art, literature, movies, dreams...I think of them as those themes that repeat regardless of culture. They are often hidden and it takes some effort to uncover them. They appear unconsciously individually and collectively because that's part of the core of what makes us human. That's my basic understanding.

The thing I was trying to get at was why would people see these UFOs and beings and believe them to be real? That seems to be a repeating theme but not really an archetype but perhaps an expression of it?(am I making sense?). Culturally we consider these folks "delusional" (though I argue that that is incorrect). Is there any advantage in that or is this the psychological equivalent of our little toe? A vestigial feature of sorts. More like a useless byproduct of our complex brain physiology. Just a thought and not really what I believe.

Anyway, really good comments. I haven't really thought about this type of stuff in a while and never really in relation to UFOs.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: wtbengineer

Yes, as I've read more and more of threads like this one, I do consider myself "lucky" not to have had (or be having) experiences with things of 'paranormal' nature...

Have you ever conjectured as to why those "haunting" things happened to you as a child?

Also, did you have any connection to the military? Because in my reading, I've found that most people who experienced 'stuff' as children either had relatives in the service or lived near military bases..

(Sorry, Mr. Tangerine, if that last question is off topic - I felt it needed to be asked, given wtb's history)

It's a legitimate question although I haven't noticed that, myself, in talking to people. Of course, I might not have been asking the right questions.

There is a list of why certain people are prone to 'experiences'.
It was put together by Keel/Vallee somewhere.. but it's all
common sense.

1) Genetic.
2) Abused as a child
3) Born on a 'hot spot'

those are the big ones.

I functionally have all 3 of those.

4) Associated with the military

is due to being saturated with EM fields from
military radars apparently. I don't have that
anymore.

We can discuss these if you like..

Kev

a reply to: Tangerine

On this point...

yes, UFOs as 'trickster' apparitions desperately
WANT TO STIR THE POT.

Our hard rational minds lock them out, so they
want to 'stop our world' so that we turn off
that rational mind and REGAIN the ability
to communicate 'with them'.

That word 'them' takes a lot of discussion,
but 80% of it is what I've already shared.

Kev

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Kandinsky

In the light of evolutionary biology, the archetypes and mythic elements might be hard-wired into us at a genetic level. It makes more sense than a speculative outside agency or elusive Intelligence.

What would be the biological advantage of .....a hard wired delusion? Is it as simple as the best story tellers got the girl?

That's a very good question. Storytelling may be THE thing that makes us human. If we assume that some of these stories are coming to us from "out there" rather than entirely self-generated, it may be the mechanism by which we are controlled. As humans, we spend much of our time experiencing stories and telling stories. That's what we're doing right here. That's what we do when we read or watch TV or films or gossip. We struggle to present archetypal experiences such as UFO encounters in story structure. Perhaps by doing so, we program or re-program ourselves. Perhaps we re-set ourselves.

Well I'm a massive storyteller myself (all shaman/tricksters) are and
it DID get me an awesome girl. But that said,

We are literally generating the future for the 'trickster'; we are the
force evolving it. "IT" also wants to evolve us of course, but we
aren't being very helpful.

We are the Tulpa generating machines.. the 'soul' generating
machines.. the 'trickster' evolving machines.. our organic
bodies with our amazing brains.. trapping natural EM fields
and evolving them..

In the future, the 'trickster' entity has an AI body, when it's
in it's final form. That 'post singularity' trickster entity in
AI form also reaches back to us, as the 'machine voices'
we hear about from skinwalker ranch, seances, UFO
sightings, etc.

If you want to learn about the 'trickster' just find your
friendly local neighborhood spider-shaman, and they
can tell you all about it. 'The trickster' lives in
harmony in the body of any good shaman.

Kev

a reply to: wtbengineer

Have you ever wondered whether you have Asperger's
Syndrome or not? People who have that are often the
Shaman/Experiencers and were abused as children.

It's because they make natural story-tellers, and they
tend to be liminal because their self-generating
circuitry is slightly 'damaged'.

From the perspective of society anyway..
and yes, I'm Asperger's.

Just a possibility to consider.

Kev

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

They were more like animals and didn't block out 95% of their environmental stimuli.

Do humans block out 95% of their environmental stimuli? I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.

There's a scientific term for it.. you know.. if a train goes by your house daily at noon, eventually you rarely hear it any longer.

I suspect the scientific term for it is 'getting used to it'. And animals behave in exactly the same way.

"the Fall" talks a good bit about it and provides copious references.

;-)

Kev

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Tangerine

It's very simple.

"Primitive man" stretching to "pagan man" used their brain
in a different way than "post fall" "modern man".

They were more like animals and didn't block out 95% of their
environmental stimuli. There's a scientific term for it.. you
know.. if a train goes by your house daily at noon, eventually
you rarely hear it any longer.

Well, after monotheism destroyed the beautiful Earth, which
was due to the Sahara region drying up (read the 'Fall'),

the 'modern rational' (asshole) mind took over, due to the dog
eat dog survival situation.

What mystics and writers like Brad Steiger, Keel, Vallee call
'the unconscious intelligence' or 'the trickster', etc. was in
fact a large part of the human brain/mind/culture and
RELATIONSHIP with electromagnetic and geomagnetic
forces ---- BEFORE the 'fall'.

So that part of us, which under certain circumstances can
manipulate EM fields strongly enough to cause so-called
paranormal / UFO type effects is VERY annoyed with us
(humans) for abandoning our relationship with 'it',
'post fall'. (fall of the neolithic/pagan way of life).

So it acts out trying to get our attention.. tries to
'materialize itself' in the world, so that we have to
see it and deal with it.. and stop ignoring it.

It's just that simple.

I wish someone would put together the other 30%
of the picture and write about it so that I don't
have to.

I do have 2500 words that Brad Steiger asked me to
write for his new book coming out, which discusses
a tangental part of this subject. It will be out
by October.

Kev

Thank you for a far more succinct explanation of the breakdown of the bicameral mind than I could have managed. Patrick Harpur also argues that the daimonic realm is trying to get our attention. In the modern world, that pretty much requires a slap in the face. I look forward to reading your contribution to Brad Steiger's book. Do remind us when it is released.

That was also part of Jung's theory. The UFOs represented the other portion of our psyche trying to break through as we aren't integrated anymore. His premise was that the more sober minded non-spiritual people were most likely to have this happen though it doesn't seem like that has held true.

It's people with slightly different neurologies who are most prone;
aspergers, some bipolar, some manic depressives, some of various
things..

and isn't it fascinating that such 'syndromes' and 'illnesses', especially
autistic spectrum ones are exploding now? Recently it came out that
something like 50% of all people will have asperger's by 2050
supposedly (I think that's too high).

Almost makes you wonder if the 'planet' or 'the trickster' is forcing
us to listen by breeding all these type of people?

Or of course, the stress of human culture is breaking everyone's
mind .. that's an equally good theory.

Kev

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, I don't conceive of this thread solving the UFO puzzle but, rather, expanding the horizon of discussion. Perhaps cross-fertilization of hypotheses seemingly far-afield from each other will yield new insights.

I felt your self imposed barriers to this discussion might stifle real disclosure and discoveries, until you added the above.

Theories sometimes are like automobile crashes, bits and pieces fall to the ground during impact. They fell off because they could not stand the test of time, or poor design. In other words, those bits and pieces will be taken back to the lab and try to figure out why these bits failed, in order to improve the design, product, etc. (lets say, pre 1960, as the automobiles today are designed to self destruct)

Theories crashing together will dislodge facts and trains of thought. The best of the theories will stand while the weaker, facts, assumptions, or sometime outright lies fall from the graces of the theorist. Those bits and pieces that fall out of the theories should be examined as closely as any other part.

And as you suggest, once this has happened "cross pollination can then take place, and then maybe the big riddle can be exposed, for what it truly is.

The two major "Theories" involved here are the theories of "Extra terrestrials" and "Inner terrestrials" Either and both theories predate mankind and therefore would be quite capable of manipulating and controlling us in ways we could only imagine. In other words, they would have created the framework or game board we call reality. And, as you did with your barriers of discussion, could quite easily guide, misguide, sabotage, our collective efforts at real truth.

But, your barriers are obvious and stated, while the barriers we see in the Institutions of higher learning are "Crafty" and subversive. Who, in their right mind can go to school, and have a open mind? Its all controlled via disciplines and specialties? Where are the courses that tie all the other disciplines together??? Outside of "Secret Societies", they don't exist,as far as I know. Our educational system is not designed to further the gifted mind, its there, to control it. And since there are no courses offered in the way of "Alien Science", or "Alternative History", one must assume it is directions of learning not preferred for us to travel down.

There is however, non institutional approval for discussing "Extraterrestrials" in media. But it seems the competing theories is not given the light of day, and that being "Inner Terrestrials". Beside, the CIA recently disclosed they were behind all the Extraterrestrial stories. So where does that leave us to look for answers?

A hybridize theory.

a reply to: Agnost

Thank you.

the set of 'tools'

I actually cut a paragraph talking about that from an earlier reply, because it was sounding even more like waffle than usual.

Let me see if I can explain what I think is the function of archetypes.

In my view, we are automatons to a far greater degree than we normally suppose; perhaps even completely, though I would hesitate, myself, to go as far as that. There is plenty of evidence that we mostly act before we think and very often act without thinking at all. Sometimes, we act without even noticing that we do so. Our actions are largely comprised of reflex, instinct and conditioned response. It can be altered by nonhuman agents — for example, seropositivity to the cat parasite T. gondii has been linked to schizophrenic behaviour in humans and even to suicide in postmenopausal women.

So I think of consciousness as something of an supporting actor, if not an actual spectator, in the theatre human behaviour.

If archetypes, then are some kind of 'projection of instinct, it must be the instinct, not the archetype, that offers the evolutionary advantage. Perhaps, as you posit, consciousness too offers an evolutionary advantage, but we shouldn't assume that and it is hard to say for sure.

Still, consciousness is there. And consciousness is often at a loss to explain to itself why the person it thinks itself to be sometimes acts in ways it cannot prevent or alter. Why does it so often lose control over the body to feelings and urges that seem to come at it from some other place, either within or outside the body? To the conscious mind, the actions of the unconscious can be terrifying, or an endless torment. The instinct of consciousness is to ascribe action to an agent. The archetypes are the agents of the unconscious in their preconceptual guise. They inform the mental structures created by consciousness; they are how we represent the unknown self to the knowing self.

The unconscious is the place where instinct resides. Since all humans share the same instincts, Jung was right, if misleading, to speak of a 'collective unconscious' containing universal (in a human sense) archetypes.

*

If consciousness really does have a selective advantage, I suspect it is to be found in its promotion and facilitation of social and cultural exchange. Being conscious, given a theory of mind and some sort of language, makes it far easier for us to cooperate, exchange the things they need, seek out their preferred mates, and above all to learn selectively advantageous behaviours from others and make use of them alone or in cooperation with others. Of course, wey're still acting on instinct all the time; but consciousness gives us more and often better ways to behave.

a reply to: Kandinsky

If there was a 'control system' or unspecified Intelligence

Might be even scarier if it wasn't intelligent. You couldn't reason with it.

a reply to: Astyanax

This is your best post on ATS.

You are 100% correct from my point of view.
All this new age waffle about 'consciousness' is purely wrong.
We are a product of our environment (which is larger than one
might think however); and yes indeed what most people call
'consciousness' is purely for a social function. Take away
that function, and we could be pure automatons and do just
fine.

As you say, 'consciousness' outside of the social function
does exist, but it's not 'human' in the sense people delude
themselves into believing.

Kev

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Kandinsky

If there was a 'control system' or unspecified Intelligence

Might be even scarier if it wasn't intelligent. You couldn't reason with it.

Yes.. what if that 'control loop' simply wanted to disrupt our society
and disrupt our rational minds? We'd have a hard time understanding
such an intelligence from our frame of reference..

Kev

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Well there are the fake UFO radar returns, staged fake crashes,
and actual fake UFO craft the government is socially
engineering us with - but that is outside the scope
of this discussion.

Since the government BADLY WANTS us to believe
in saucers and little green men, since 1947
(George Adamski worked for the CIA),

that's all the reason I need not to care one tiny
bit about the ETH.

Are there physical ET's out there?

probably.

But they probably left our galaxy billions
of years ago.

But again, outside the scope of this excellent
excellent POST.

Kev

a reply to: Tangerine

Then the question becomes why this process of alignment is sought or needed thousands of times.

Said the iron to the fire.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Tangerine

Then the question becomes why this process of alignment is sought or needed thousands of times.

Said the iron to the fire.

You are taking a page from my book today my friend!

If you just tell someone something, they will either
ignore you or argue with you, as most people don't actually
want to learn anything; they want you to affirm their
biases or to argue with you, so that they can have
an enhanced feeling of being 'real' and being 'alive'.

I won't ruin your fun, by discussing chickens and eggs.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Since the government BADLY WANTS us to believe
in saucers and little green men, since 1947
(George Adamski worked for the CIA),

And why is everyone blaming an inanimate object like government? Governments are nothing but tools held in the hands of men. But yes, someone wants us to look up, sometimes greeting our eyes with dilutions of grandeur. Its the old slight of hand trick on steroids. So while everyone is looking up.........................

Have you ever wondered whether you have Asperger's Syndrome or not? People who have that are often the
Shaman/Experiencers and were abused as children.

It's because they make natural story-tellers, and they
tend to be liminal because their self-generating
circuitry is slightly 'damaged'.

From the perspective of society anyway..
and yes, I'm Asperger's.

Just a possibility to consider.

You know, I haven't considered that really, but you could be right. I suppose I do fit the profile quite well actually. Not that I really care one way or the other I don't place much stock in labels. I kind of like the way I am and the interests I have. I think if I were any different I wouldn't be able to accomplish the things that I do, things that those who know me are amazed by. I don't want to sound boastful in any way, but if I didn't have the kind of preoccupation I do with these interests I don't think I'd have the ability to stick with things long enough to see difficult tasks through.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine

Stepping slightly outside of Jung for a minute, is it possible that something is manipulating or simulating these archetypes for whatever agenda?

Stepping slightly outside of Jung, archetypes don't exist. They're his (conceptual) invention.

Speaking for myself, I don't believe they have any objective existence; they are purely mental constructs, reflections of our unconscious instincts and tropisms.

Could something be manipulating these drives and tropes? Of course it could. In such cases the prime suspects would be (1) parasites and (2) other human beings. Logically, one would have to eliminate these two possibilities before considering a third.

Besides, if someone or something intelligenct is trying to manipulate us via a 'UFO syndrome', they don't seem to be doing it very well. Most people are oblivious to the UFO subculture and rarely think about them. And — as you and others pointed out in response to LiveForever8's post — the cover story is hardly one calculated to soothe and calm people, is it?

I'm not sure that the manipulation of unbounded phenomena or our perception and interpretation of it (if the manipulation is actually occurring) isn't being done well. It could account for religion and it seems apparent to me that UFOs are becoming a major component in a burgeoning religion. Fear and confusion have long been used to manipulate people.

originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: Tangerine

If I encounter a dog or a human, I sometimes perceive that they are trying to control me -- usually in a pretty benign way (ie. "Like me". "Pet me". "Leave me alone.") I'm pretty sure they perceive that I'm trying to do the same to them. Dogs, in particular, seem to pick up on "vibes".

Hi Tangerine,
I think body langauge (including eye pupil size), verbal language (both voice tone/timbre as actual words uttered) and smell (e.g. semiochemicals) go a long way in explaining "vibes", both inter- as intra-species, and both based on our previous experiences of these 'stimuli' (and their modulation or absence) as on our innate reactions.
That being said, if in our past we have experienced an emotion and linked that emotion to a stimulus (e.g. being cuddled by our mother whose favourite perfume was jasmine), and later in life we experience that stimulus (e.g. smelling jasmine on a night walk), the mind will recall our mother's embrace and presence, and we might mistakenly interprete that as a benign physical presence from e.g. 'good extradimensional beings', 'guardian angels', 'forrest fairies', depending on the believe system we were brought up in or came to believe. The mind is a powerful thing and 'trickster', as we might even be convinced having heard the words 'I love you' (what is what your mother would say while cuddling you) on that particular night walk, and having no clue it was the faint jasmine smell that triggered all of these experiences.

That's true. As for the vibes I get from dogs and believe I give out when encountering a dog, I'm very fond of them and associate them with mostly positive experiences. I'm not especially interested in technology and don't associate it with positive emotions. On the other hand, I have positive associations with nature. Therefore, I would probably be more inclined to have a positive experience with a faerie than with a "being" associated with advanced technology. If an ultraterrestrial appeared to me in the form of a dog....

Actually, I have had a "black dog" experience. I was living in the mountains and had pulled into my driveway late at night. I opened the car door and a black dog raced up the driveway and jumped into the car behaving exactly as my own dogs would behave: very exited to see me. I knew, somehow, that this was my dog. He even looked near-identical to several of my dogs. I recall my mind racing to make sense of that. The dog jumped out of the car, ran down the driveway and disappeared. I jumped out of the car and ran down the driveway calling to him. I never saw him again. I had no fear of the dog but the experience, itself, was frightening because it elicited strong positive and then negative emotions and I could not make sense of it.