• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

December 14, 2014 — George Hansen

Forums New posts
smcder said:
Who is the current biggest influence on your psyche?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
My inner bodhisattva that I've been trying to cultivate.

Once you move past death and partner as influences it's all about working on the ego. I struggle. I rarely read. Trying to puzzle out how to make equity a viral social media event led by youth is mostly what I think about when i'm thinking. I think my dog might actually be my biggest current influence. Never had a dog before and so his Zen like nature still makes quite an impression on me.
 
ufology said:
Perhaps I was not being precise. I don't mean live streaming, and your PC is probably capable, but I thought you mentioned before that your connection is too slow for YouTube videos, which are essentially videos on demand, also referred to as streaming media. Or was that someone else?
Click to expand...

No, perhaps I was not being funny ...

I'll check my settings to see if the humor might have been filtered.

But yes we do have "country internet" here ... But I'll try to have a look at your video at the library.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Burnt State said:
My inner bodhisattva that I've been trying to cultivate.

Once you move past death and partner as influences it's all about working on the ego. I struggle. I rarely read. Trying to puzzle out how to make equity a viral social media event led by youth is mostly what I think about when i'm thinking. I think my dog might actually be my biggest current influence. Never had a dog before and so his Zen like nature still makes quite an impression on me.
Click to expand...

In Buddhism, we call this ... Middle Age. ;-)

Have faith in Dog, Dog will see you through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wade Ridsdale said:
Maybe we should look at the trickster as a thermostat/pressure release value. I think disorder is the natural state and as you mentioned societies by nature values order and having achieved a situation to is liking will fight change and to an extent will be able to hold it off for a time but something has to give and perhaps like a boiling pot, if the lid is on to tight it blows big time into something chaotic. Disorder will not be denied. Look how easy it is for things to be in a state of disorder, just do nothing and change will occur, as opposed to order which takes work and rigidity (?)

As far as the increased levels of paranormal events that come in on the heels of a chaotic trickster inspired event are in fact a sort of consequence of a trickster inspired event less than an intended effect.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence really struck a chord with me as the wife & I were speaking about this last night.

Perhaps the trickster manages this hologram of sorts that we live in and maybe these "aliens" we encounter are hacking into or manipulating Earth's control system for their own gain & the paranormal activity that comes after a UFO event is the control system catching up or recovering from the hack. Maybe like ripples in water. Just a thought! Great episode!
 
Hi everyone. I confess I have not read the book, although I have it now in my clammy little hands. I intend to begin the literary journey today. I was hoping someone would be kind and answer a question or two for me. Does GH leave open the question of whether his theorized "control system" that seems to respond with what we call paranormal activity in response to anti-structural events is a purely automatic process, i.e., a law of nature like the balancing and unbalancing of weather systems? Or does he leave open the possibility that there is an intelligence beyond this phenomena, acting (as Jacque Vallee would say) as a control system on the human race? Frankly, I do not recall if Vallee considered this control system to be under intelligent direction or an automatic reaction (perhaps residing within the human consciousness?) without a so-called directing EXTERNAL intelligence?

Also, one earlier poster did not consider UFO's to be appropriately categorized as paranormal. I think this depends on your basic assumptions. If you believe that UFO's are literally craft designed and piloted by off-planet physical entities, then the paranormal classification may seem deluded. In my opinion, it makes sense within GH's paradigm to include UFO's within the paranormal classification because we honestly do not know what we are dealing with. From personal experience, I can claim that an event can be quite physical and yet feel paranormal. Perhaps this is just a lack of understanding on my part. In some ways, a paranormal experience can have the same qualities as a dream with the same juxtaposition of relatively mundane and fantastic elements. For example, I recall one reported UFO close encounter situation that left physical markings (trace marks on the ground) yet had remarkable "Alice in Wonderland" characteristics. In this case, the observer saw robed "wizards" with long beards on the craft, along with a large black dog with glowing red eyes. Now, this is the kind of report that literalists like Budd Hopkins or David Jacobs would probably file in the trash can. Yes, a literalist could also claim that the observer was given a screen memory to cover the literal experience of little grey doctors (and we are all familiar with the famous OWL motif). But what if some of the experiences simply are as observed? There was another case where a woman saw the star ship Enterprise floating in a field UPSIDE DOWN! What do we make of this? Since we have problems with such cases, it seems OK to give them at least a temporary "paranormal" moniker. The Trickster is alive and well within the UFO phenomena. What do we make of a documented case where a rancher and his family saw a large semi-truck floating in the air above their barn? The dog ran up to it barking, and soon died of what the doctor considered radioactive poisoning. So, this was both a physical event (radioactivity poisoning is not a screen memory) yet inexplicably silly. What do we make of the 50's report of a UFO landing in Wisconsin and sharing pancakes with a nonplussed human? The pancakes were actually analyzed and found to be of normal terrestrial composition. So we have both physicality yet also absurdity. How about the classic case where a voice from a UFO asked for the time. When given the time, the UFO responded that the human had lied, and that the time was actually 4:00 p.m. (if I remember correctly). Another woman said she saw Jesus aboard a craft. Another saw Elvis Presley! Screen memories or the Trickster at work?

Just a few thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Hansen, or anyone else for that matter, ever verifies the notion of the trickster as an intelligence - neither an individual god like figure, nor a collective planetary intelligence. But I would ask @Christopher O'Brien to chime in on this one as he's the local trickster expert.

My understanding is that the critical theory to date on this subject is much more observational, something like an ethnographic or anthropological perspective regarding odd events collected over time. These odd events do have some patterns and specific features to them. There are patterns that adhere to a number of ritualistic experiences that are age old rites of passage. It seems that we have many histories and collected stories that identify the notion of the trickster, and Hansen's text delineates the trickster as an ethic almost, something that humans participate in as much as we are subjected to it. His ideas of the shaman as sham or the role of the magician, hoaxer and liar are all emblematic of the trickster ethos. Our passages into adulthood are often framed by our encounters with the trickster.

Those UFO scenes you cite then may be seen as our own brain trying to rationalize or realize visual inexplicable visual phenomena that our brain returns to us as recognizable images (see this thread: The UFO Stimulus ) or are simply further examples of the phenomenon of the trickster - examples that are simply categorized as "tricksterish" the way that the sudden appearance of centaurs, dog faced men smoking and bigfoot playing a mandolin are all collected into a rather robust and loose assemblage of events that get called, for lack of a better term, "the trickster." So Ufo's certainly do appear to act as the trickster on occasion but are not always easily categorized this way.
 
beyondthestargate said:
Does GH leave open the question of whether his theorized "control system" that seems to respond with what we call paranormal activity in response to anti-structural events is a purely automatic process, i.e., a law of nature like the balancing and unbalancing of weather systems? Or does he leave open the possibility that there is an intelligence beyond this phenomena, acting (as Jacque Vallee would say) as a control system on the human race? Frankly, I do not recall if Vallee considered this control system to be under intelligent direction or an automatic reaction (perhaps residing within the human consciousness?) without a so-called directing intelligence?
Click to expand...

Excellent question, Stargate. I haven't read the Hansen book either and would like to know the answer to your question. There are people here familiar with both the Hansen book and with Vallee's theory who can likely respond to that question and I hope they will. Btw, welcome back to the Paracast forum. I'm a relative newcomer.
 
beyondthestargate said:
Also, one earlier poster did not consider UFO's to be appropriately categorized as paranormal. I think this depends on your basic assumptions. If you believe that UFO's are literally craft designed and piloted by off-planet physical entities, then the paranormal classification may seem deluded. In my opinion, it makes sense within GH's paradigm to include UFO's within the paranormal classification because we honestly do not know what we are dealing with.
Click to expand...

You're right about 'basic assumptions'. I've thought and perhaps posted that I think the paranormal is too loose and undefined a category to account for ufos, but no doubt that's because my own reading in ufo research persuaded me a decade ago that some ufo sightings and events (for me the significant ones) have involved physical craft -- phenomena producing measureable physical qualities (radar, EM effects on our machines, persisting anomalous changes in plants and soil, and other ground effects). So I haven't spent enough time considering the paranormal mental effects involved in many ufos cases, including the telepathic reception of information by humans from encountered occupants of landed ufos. Putting all of this together is an immense challenge that I've avoided dealing with. The Rendelsham case is particularly saturated with consequent ambiguity. We might have made some progress in at least recognizing the physical reality involved in some ufo events were it not for the suppression of information obtained by the militaries and governments of the planet who have predominantly had access to hard data and even crashed ufos. I think it's the case that the PTB's information managers, esp in the US and UK, have encouraged 'paranormal' interpretations of ufos in several ways in the interest of ultimately causing us to doubt our perceptive capabilities. It might well be the case that the operators of physically substantial ufos have done the same thing and for approximately the same reason -- to maintain ambiguity concerning the actual state of affairs.
 
Last edited:
Constance, I never really considered before that any PTB (including any operator of a UFO) would want us to consider UFOs to be paranormal to maintain ambiguity. What an interesting idea. Thank you for that.

Burnt State, thank you also your comments about the proper stance from which GH's theory should be applied, or perhaps "back engineered" into previous logs of paranormal observations.

I know a UFO/Abduction Researcher (you would recognize his name but I do not want to state it because he is a notoriously touchy individual) who has taken his interpretation of GH's theory and applied it to his investigations. I have witnessed him frame his questions of a "witness" in terms of GH's theory. For example, after a witness describes the paranormal event (I am including UFO events in the paranormal simply to keep it simple), this researcher will put forth a dialogue as follows. I am including contrary answers from a proverbial witness that I have also seen.

Researcher "Was there anything anti-structural going on in your life when this event happened?"

Witness "Um, I don't think so. No"

Researcher "I mean (this researcher inserts the words "I mean" into just about every sentence), was there a recent change in your life, e.g., a change in job, marital status, health?"

Witness "No"

Researcher "I mean, were in you in transition between something like a job, or engaged to be married, or leaving behind one religion to embrace a different one?"

Witness "No"

Researcher "I mean, Had you experienced a disappointment or loss in your life recently?"

Witness "No"

Researcher "I mean, had there been any emotional turmoil in your life when this event occurred?"

Witness "No".

Do y'all think that taking GH's theory and seeking to verify it via each new witness's account is appropriate? Should GH's theory be taken this literally on an individual basis, or applied from above to a distribution of events over time?

I have just witnessed this researcher try to pigeonhole each new paranormal case into the GH theory in the manner I've shown. And in many cases, the witness (not being aware of the GH theory and hence, not groking it or buying into it) simply responds in the negative.
 
I'm really really really NOT trying to be a jerk when I say:

Read the book

There's no summarizing it or really discussing it adequately without having read it ... and then referring back to it in discussion.

If anyone does read it - or has ( recently) read it ... let me know, I'm re-reading it now and would love to discuss the book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'll take a crack addict answering the questions ... I owe some to @Constance. I'm just not confident of my ability to summarize Hansen's work so I will be quoting ... I at least have a sense of where I'd look in his book for answers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Burnt State said:
I don't think Hansen, or anyone else for that matter, ever verifies the notion of the trickster as an intelligence - neither an individual god like figure, nor a collective planetary intelligence. But I would ask @Christopher O'Brien to chime in on this one as he's the local trickster expert.

My understanding is that the critical theory to date on this subject is much more observational, something like an ethnographic or anthropological perspective regarding odd events collected over time. These odd events do have some patterns and specific features to them. There are patterns that adhere to a number of ritualistic experiences that are age old rites of passage. It seems that we have many histories and collected stories that identify the notion of the trickster, and Hansen's text delineates the trickster as an ethic almost, something that humans participate in as much as we are subjected to it. His ideas of the shaman as sham or the role of the magician, hoaxer and liar are all emblematic of the trickster ethos. Our passages into adulthood are often framed by our encounters with the trickster.

Those UFO scenes you cite then may be seen as our own brain trying to rationalize or realize visual inexplicable visual phenomena that our brain returns to us as recognizable images (see this thread: The UFO Stimulus ) or are simply further examples of the phenomenon of the trickster - examples that are simply categorized as "tricksterish" the way that the sudden appearance of centaurs, dog faced men smoking and bigfoot playing a mandolin are all collected into a rather robust and loose assemblage of events that get called, for lack of a better term, "the trickster." So Ufo's certainly do appear to act as the trickster on occasion but are not always easily categorized this way.
Click to expand...

What Burnt said ... and definitely check with Christopher.

I don't recall it as explicitly described in terms of "control structure" maybe he refers to Vallee ... I'll check ... Pressure valve metaphor maybe ... ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
beyondthestargate said:
OK, enough said! I shall read the book and stop bothering the denizens of the deep.
Click to expand...

LOL ... not at all ... no no no ... no bother!

but if you do read it, let me know if you concur that it's not a book easily discussed or answered questions from to those who haven't read it ...

and I shall still endeavor to answer ...

Will you accept an unambiguous answer to the question

"What is the ontological status of the Trickster?"

sign me,
- The Kraken
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well ... now this is interesting ... I can't access the Trickster and the Paranormal on the "cloud reader" and I no longer have my Kindle ... I just accessed this a few days ago ... ???

kokpelli.jpg
 
smcder said:
Well ... now this is interesting ... I can't access the Trickster and the Paranormal on the "cloud reader" and I no longer have my Kindle ... I just accessed this a few days ago ... ???

kokpelli.jpg
Click to expand...
Kindle can be downloaded for PCs and Macs.
 
Back
Top