December 14, 2014 — George Hansen

[Burnt State]

CSICOP as Prometheus? Whose fire are they stealing and where's their daily tortures? Is Randi getting his liver eaten out daily by that twin-headed bird of prey, Penn & Teller?

 

[Burnt State]

What I took from this show and some of the related Magonia articles, is that the world turns on rumour. Rumour serves to destabilize the rational. Ritual allows us to enter into liminal spaces, to experience our connection to the wild, to enter the magic theatre and come out as 'experienced.'

But if the shaman is a sham and magicians, like mediums, are here to hoax and deceive, then is their only purpose simply to destructure what we've been sold as truth? Of course on the other side of that coin is the debunker like CSICOP spinning their own tricksterish version of truth. Funny, I always saw them as agents of structure but really they are just agents of opportunity. Surrounding both though is the rumour, and it is the rumour that rules, that makes the invisible suddenly visible. It's all William Blake, contraries at work in the world; wild forces bound by conserving agencies. The 'word' may be wicked inspiration, but the 'word' is also just a container.

But, pure raw experience, the land suddenly flooded with so much light it induces a panic through the hunter's senses, sudden terror in the kayak. The human body is a limited bag of blood, guts and bone and sometimes our conditioning runs into abrupt conflict with experience. Each seems to inform the other. If I go to the haunted house in the middle of the night I expect to get scared. But if you could strip the 'abnormal' experience of its high strange features would it be anything more than just one more event in the string of that day's events? Maybe the rumor infects our heads?

Still, the liminal experience happens. Can they all just be sociological products, consequences of our upbringing, life experiences and sudden brief context, the ephemeral natural moment made visible just for that moment? Maybe the UFO is just another firefly in the field. It winks on and winks off. We, the witness, are forever changed.

 

[Randall]

"... In The Trickster and the Paranormal, George Hansen argues that science and reason can only go so far toward helping us understand UFOs and the paranormal ..."

The problem with statements like the one above is that it frames the problem in such a way that the claim is necessarily true by virtue of the qualities assigned to the assumptions made. For example the paranormal is by definition beyond the rage of scientific explanation, so by lumping UFOs in with the paranormal, the statement that "science can only go so far" is automatically correct. However when the assumption made isn't accurate to begin with, the claim may not have any value other than word filler, and such is the case with this particular example.

To clarify further, the assumption that UFOs should be lumped in with the paranormal in such as way as to defy the possibility of scientific investigation is a faulty approach. There is ample evidence by way of usage and definition to conclude that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien ( but not necessarily extraterrestrial ) craft. Things that are not such craft are not UFOs, they are some other thing or phenomenon, perhaps some misidentified animal, existing technology, or natural phenomenon. Even if it could be determined that some UFO reports represent some sort of supernatural event, that still wouldn't make the phenomena itself a UFO, it would make it angels or demons or whatever the case may be, and all those things are peripheral to our core subject matter.

To use an analogy: Consider the Cargo Cults, primitive people living in isolated regions who deified aircraft and performed rituals believed to have magical powers in order to gain their favor. Had they also developed their own primitive science, they might just as easily have made the claim that "... science and reason can only go so far ..." in explaining aircraft. Clearly however, to the pilots and aircraft engineers, science and reason are plenty good enough to explain aircraft. Those who are making the claim that "... science and reason can only go so far ..." when it comes to UFOs are doing exactly the same thing by assuming that UFOs operate on or are composed of some magical, paranormal, or supernatural element. It's pure nonsense, but it serves as nearly limitless filler when you need to meet a publishing deadline or want to entertain audiences with speculative woo.

 

[Constance]

Lots of case histories of the trickster figure as it has cropped up around the planet in our early history:

Trickster - Crystalinks

The author then synthesizes the multivarious representations of the trickster and his/her behavior and activities in these concluding paragraphs, recognizing a rational development of the trickster figure over time:

"No matter how often scholars have analyzed this myth in the attempt to reduce it to any strictly rational value, it endures in all of its polyfaceted and multileveled grandeur. To restrict understanding of it merely to one or two of its features would be to rob us of its unusually important meaning. For serious reflection upon the myth in all of its world variety brings a conviction that it can refer only to the evolution of human consciousness and the full range of phases and multiple colorations which this implies. Yes, the evolution of our consciousness, but from a gigantic perspective and nothing less, one which carries us back to the fabulous illo tempore: into the night of time millions of years ago to the magic moment of first creation, that, dawn time "when first the world was born" and we "walked with the gods."

From the initial dimness of a consciousness newly-born, lacking any real integration of its components, and having forgotten his divine mission, we follow Trickster as his awareness steadily comes forth in ever greater measure. We watch as the self-knowledge of this inchoate entity develops, bringing with it strength, remembrance, and a firmer sense of identity, all this until, at a certain point, by capturing the fire of inner illumination from the gods, he gains a full measure of self-consciousness or self-recollection, and can act to benefit mankind. To use Jungian terms, the Unconscious within himself has been transmuted into the Conscious, bringing lucidity of spiritual vision of self and the universe."

Makes sense to me.

 

[EQ42]

This might've been the most thought provoking episode of The Paracast I've heard and definitely one of my favorites.

 

[smcder]

From the C&P thread part 1

... Hansen, if I understand him correctly, sees the paranormal as truly dangerous and something to be respected and direct interaction with it comes at a cost to the individual. He discusses precautions he took when directly exploring the paranormal - such as not being engaged in an intimate relationship and simplifying his life as much as possible. He also discusses the experiences of other people who directly engage the paranormal. I think many people can relate to this discussion.

He also discusses the characteristics of those whose role it is to engage these forces. Such persons are liminal and ambiguous

(for example they may be outside the norms of their society in terms of sexuality: see this website by Jeffrey Kripal, Chair of the Religious Department at Rice University Kali's Child)

they may live physically removed from society, they are at once feared and despised, a source of awe and laughter. There is a fear of the real powers than seem to be around them but they are also looked down on and ridiculed.

As for the clown, it's a complex history and fascinating. Hansen refers several times throughout the book to the disturbing phrase excrement eating ritual clowns - (my Kindle edition is not indexed, or I would search and give you the number of times he uses this reference) - eating excrement is of course a reversal and Hansen documents this behavior in religious figures as well.

As to taking advantage of fear, that's the role of the priest and associated organizations which stand at great remove from the paranormal. Hansen does a good job of delineating the role of the priest in his discussion of Weber and the disenchantment of the modern world. I think Hansen would say Saints and Holy Fools are truly exotic and don't exploit power, rather they are used by powers rather than using them for personal gain.

 

[smcder]

Also from C&P 1 post #338 - there is quite a bit of discussion here on Hansen's work around that point in the thread, I had just read or was reading his book then.

@Constance said

"Also meant to add, Steve, that I'm not surprised that Hansen comes to no conclusions about the reality status of the 'trickster'. I'd hoped he would at some point foreground that question. My impression is that the trickster notion has in our time become a convenient means of avoiding the hard questions about paranormal, supernatural, and spiritual experiences that continue to proliferate in our world -- most inconvenient phenomena in a materialist age such as ours and unwelcome challenges to those who seek to promote a materialist description of reality."

smcder

"I don't see it quite this way, if I understand Hansen, this is part of the nature of the phenomenon. The Trickster is betwixt and between (another phrase he uses many times throughout the book) and so it's reality status is indeterminate by nature - it does and doesn't exist . . . this is consistent with the Trickster as mythological figure, changing his appearance, appearing and disappearing, intervening when things get too orderly (so, Gremlins in WWII and the law of unintended consequences in today's high-tech world)."

 

[Wade]

As for the clown, it's a complex history and fascinating. Hansen refers several times throughout the book to the disturbing phrase excrement eating ritual clowns - (my Kindle edition is not indexed, or I would search and give you the number of times he uses this reference) - eating excrement is of course a reversal and Hansen documents this behavior in religious figures as well.

If i recall this was only in the context of native american clown societies was it not ?
I don't recall seeing if this act had made its way into other clown cultures. Don't ask me why but I ended up googling the clinical term for this act and was kind of struck by how close the term resembled the fear of clowns. I thought that there may had been some kind of connection like they shared that same origin but I figured I was putting too much thought into it, it was just a bunch of Latin terms strung together.

 

[smcder]

The problem with statements like the one above is that it frames the problem in such a way that the claim is necessarily true by virtue of the qualities assigned to the assumptions made. For example the paranormal is by definition beyond the rage of scientific explanation, so by lumping UFOs in with the paranormal, the statement that "science can only go so far" is automatically correct. However when the assumption made isn't accurate to begin with, the claim may not have any value other than word filler, and such is the case with this particular example.

To clarify further, the assumption that UFOs should be lumped in with the paranormal in such as way as to defy the possibility of scientific investigation is a faulty approach. There is ample evidence by way of usage and definition to conclude that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien ( but not necessarily extraterrestrial ) craft. Things that are not such craft are not UFOs, they are some other thing or phenomenon, perhaps some misidentified animal, existing technology, or natural phenomenon. Even if it could be determined that some UFO reports represent some sort of supernatural event, that still wouldn't make the phenomena itself a UFO, it would make it angels or demons or whatever the case may be, and all those things are peripheral to our core subject matter.

To use an analogy: Consider the Cargo Cults, primitive people living in isolated regions who deified aircraft and performed rituals believed to have magical powers in order to gain their favor. Had they also developed their own primitive science, they might just as easily have made the claim that "... science and reason can only go so far ..." in explaining aircraft. Clearly however, to the pilots and aircraft engineers, science and reason are plenty good enough to explain aircraft. Those who are making the claim that "... science and reason can only go so far ..." when it comes to UFOs are doing exactly the same thing by assuming that UFOs operate on or are composed of some magical, paranormal, or supernatural element. It's pure nonsense, but it serves as nearly limitless filler when you need to meet a publishing deadline or want to entertain audiences with speculative woo.

Hansen's thesis isn't that simple ... the excerpt @Soupie pulled above - the summary by Perkins didn't quite resonate with what I remember ... it doesn't tell the whole story ... so I pulled up my ebook copy of the Trickster and the Paranormal, Chpt 19.

"I will present a UFO hoax that I helped investigate, but before I do, I want to be clear that I am not suggest that all UFO reports can be dismissed as intentional fraud or honest mistakes. On the contrary the evidence is clear that some UFO phenomena have a physical event-level reality. Well documented cases have not been satisfactorily explained in conventional scientific terms, despite considerable efforts by debunkers."

But that doesn't take anything away from Hansen's idea about the Trickster - the physical reality of UFOs isn't incompatible with Ufology holding a liminal place in society and thus being subject to the Trickster theory. Perhaps if it moves out of that liminal space into mainstream science - it will get out of the Trickster's jurisdiction but see Chpt 15 Institutions and The Paranormal to see why he doesn't think that's likely. Study of alien spacecraft, yes, Ufology no.

Chpt 16 discusses the same thing with parapsychology.

 

[smcder]

If i recall this was only in the context of native american clown societies was it not ?
I don't recall seeing if this act had made its way into other clown cultures. Don't ask me why but I ended up googling the clinical term for this act and was kind of struck by how close the term resembled the fear of clowns. I thought that there may had been some kind of connection like they shared that same origin but I figured I was putting too much thought into it, it was just a bunch of Latin terms strung together.

Chpt 17 by the way was on UFO flaps, cattle mutilations and bigfoot

"unbounded conditions"

I found my ebook!

 

[smcder]

If i recall this was only in the context of native american clown societies was it not ?
I don't recall seeing if this act had made its way into other clown cultures. Don't ask me why but I ended up googling the clinical term for this act and was kind of struck by how close the term resembled the fear of clowns. I thought that there may had been some kind of connection like they shared that same origin but I figured I was putting too much thought into it, it was just a bunch of Latin terms strung together.

no, not related

coprophagia
1891, from Modern Latin coprophagus, from Greek koprophagos "dung-eating," from kopros "dung" (see copro-) + -phagos (see -phagous). Related: Coprophagous.

coulrophobia (n.)
"morbid fear of clowns," by 2001 (said in Web sites to date from 1990s or even 1980s), a popular term, not from psychology, possibly facetious, though the phenomenon is real enough; said to be built from Greek kolon "limb," with some supposed sense of "stilt-walker," hence "clown" + -phobia.

Ancient Greek words for "clown" were sklêro-paiktês, from paizein "to play (like a child);" or deikeliktas; other classical words used for theatrical clowns were related to "rustic," "peasant" (compare Latin fossor "clown," literally "laborer, digger," related to fossil).

The whole creation looks suspiciously like the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the Internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter; perhaps it is a mangling of Modern Greek klooun "clown," which is the English word borrowed into Greek.

 

[smcder]

CSICOP as Prometheus? Whose fire are they stealing and where's their daily tortures? Is Randi getting his liver eaten out daily by that twin-headed bird of prey, Penn & Teller?

CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview by George P. Hansen

 

[Constance]

smcder said: ↑
Also from C&P 1 post #338 - there is quite a bit of discussion here on Hansen's work around that point in the thread, I had just read or was reading his book then.

@Constance said
"Also meant to add, Steve, that I'm not surprised that Hansen comes to no conclusions about the reality status of the 'trickster'. I'd hoped he would at some point foreground that question. My impression is that the trickster notion has in our time become a convenient means of avoiding the hard questions about paranormal, supernatural, and spiritual experiences that continue to proliferate in our world -- most inconvenient phenomena in a materialist age such as ours and unwelcome challenges to those who seek to promote a materialist description of reality."

smcder
"I don't see it quite this way, if I understand Hansen, this is part of the nature of the phenomenon. The Trickster is betwixt and between (another phrase he uses many times throughout the book) and so it's reality status is indeterminate by nature - it does and doesn't exist . . . this is consistent with the Trickster as mythological figure, changing his appearance, appearing and disappearing, intervening when things get too orderly (so, Gremlins in WWII and the law of unintended consequences in today's high-tech world)."
Click to expand...

smcder
"I don't see it quite this way, if I understand Hansen, this is part of the nature of the phenomenon. The Trickster is betwixt and between (another phrase he uses many times throughout the book) and so it's reality status is indeterminate by nature - it does and doesn't exist . . . this is consistent with the Trickster as mythological figure, changing his appearance, appearing and disappearing, intervening when things get too orderly (so, Gremlins in WWII and the law of unintended consequences in today's high-tech world)."


Is 'the trickster' a 'phenomenon'? And if so, in what sense (meaning, definition) of the term 'phenomenon'? In the phenomenological turn in philosophy, beginning with Husserl and developed in the phenomenological philosophy (primarily German, French, and American) that has followed, we recognize that what we can learn about the objective nature of the world comes to us not directly from things in themselves but through their phenomenal appearances as and where we encounter these appearances -- that is, from a variety of localized points of view that are available to us in our local experience in and of the world. Individually and collectively we can and do multiply our points of view on the objects (and concepts) that surround us in the world, in nature and in the constructs of the culture(s) in which we live. This multiplication and sharing of perspectives {across historical cultures and across disciplines} is our best hope of arriving at what will be our species' maximum possible understanding of 'what is', i.e., what we can call 'real'.

Unfortunately, the word 'phenomenon' in common usage has missed the point made in phenomenological philosophy -- that phenomenal appearances of things do not give us 'reality' but instead partial approaches to reality. If we take these phenomenal appearances to constitute objectively 'real' things we end up reifying them:

from Merriam-Webster.com:

"re·ify
verb \ˈrā-ə-ˌfī, ˈrē-\
re·ified re·ify·ing
Definition of REIFY
transitive verb

: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing"

Re "the trickster," we gather the trans-historical expressions (in myth and legend) of certain human behaviors (and human interpretations of those behaviors) and we take them to express a unified 'phenomenon', but what is that phenomenon? I would argue that it is not an entity independent of our existentiality (our positional subjectivity in a world whose objectivity challenges our understanding). I think that the more we reify 'the trickster' as an entity or force outside ourselves and attempt to understand what 'it' is, the less we are able to understand ourselves and the nature of the 'reality' in which we live -- and which we add to.

What do we add? We add our experiential receptivity to the manifestations of the world in which we find ourselves existing (Heidegger says "the world into which we are 'thrown'"). We soon agree with one another locally about the vegetation and the animals we live among, their uses and their dangers for us. We try to survive through cooperation with one another. We look to the elders of our tribes to guide us into the future based on their experience in the past. And we discover among us individual humans who see and hear and understand things that seem to be inaccessible to most of us.

We listen to them because they can sometimes accurately predict events in the future, and often are able to heal our ailments, physical and, increasingly, mental and spiritual. They report to us the existence of another reality that contains our own. Over and over, around the planet, these individuals report this other reality. These we call shamans, seers, prophets, and tricksters. They point us toward the liminality of our own experience and expand our ability to appreciate its reality.

Other kinds of tricksters (the fools, the jokers, the pranksters, the clowns) also challenge our ordinary consensual perceptions of reality, laughing at what we too often take to be 'real' in the terms and rules laid down by the power structures, the PTB, that manage (and too often control) the practical conditions of our existence and how we interpret our existence. We know subliminally that their definitions of reality are limited, self-interested, distorted, and reductive, but they are strong and by comparison we are weak. Do we dare to listen to the shamans and the jokers we subsume under the category 'tricksters' -- on one side pointing us toward a larger reality and to our connection with it, and on the other side ridiculing the 'official' description of reality we accept from our local 'leadership' -- and strike out on our own in exploring what is real?

The powers that rule our material existence and shape our thinking are still winning this struggle for the hearts and minds of our species, largely because they have ridiculed the shamans and the jokers, who have actually been social critics, critics of limiting ideologies. But all of the ideas involved in this struggle have come from ourselves in the evolution of our consciousnesses and minds, not from an external entity that plays games with us. We are not puppets or victims of outside 'powers'; we are conscious beings not yet sufficiently in touch with, and afraid to explore with all the resources we can bring, what we already subconsciously know -- that the material world we exist in is not the whole of the being within which we exist.

 

[smcder]

smcder said: ↑
Also from C&P 1 post #338 - there is quite a bit of discussion here on Hansen's work around that point in the thread, I had just read or was reading his book then.

@Constance said
"Also meant to add, Steve, that I'm not surprised that Hansen comes to no conclusions about the reality status of the 'trickster'. I'd hoped he would at some point foreground that question. My impression is that the trickster notion has in our time become a convenient means of avoiding the hard questions about paranormal, supernatural, and spiritual experiences that continue to proliferate in our world -- most inconvenient phenomena in a materialist age such as ours and unwelcome challenges to those who seek to promote a materialist description of reality."

smcder
"I don't see it quite this way, if I understand Hansen, this is part of the nature of the phenomenon. The Trickster is betwixt and between (another phrase he uses many times throughout the book) and so it's reality status is indeterminate by nature - it does and doesn't exist . . . this is consistent with the Trickster as mythological figure, changing his appearance, appearing and disappearing, intervening when things get too orderly (so, Gremlins in WWII and the law of unintended consequences in today's high-tech world)."
Click to expand...

smcder
"I don't see it quite this way, if I understand Hansen, this is part of the nature of the phenomenon. The Trickster is betwixt and between (another phrase he uses many times throughout the book) and so it's reality status is indeterminate by nature - it does and doesn't exist . . . this is consistent with the Trickster as mythological figure, changing his appearance, appearing and disappearing, intervening when things get too orderly (so, Gremlins in WWII and the law of unintended consequences in today's high-tech world)."


Is 'the trickster' a 'phenomenon'? And if so, in what sense (meaning, definition) of the term 'phenomenon'? In the phenomenological turn in philosophy, beginning with Husserl and developed in the phenomenological philosophy (primarily German, French, and American) that has followed, we recognize that what we can learn about the objective nature of the world comes to us not directly from things in themselves but through their phenomenal appearances as and where we encounter these appearances -- that is, from a variety of localized points of view that are available to us in our local experience in and of the world. Individually and collectively we can and do multiply our points of view on the objects (and concepts) that surround us in the world, in nature and in the constructs of the culture(s) in which we live. This multiplication and sharing of perspectives {across historical cultures and across disciplines} is our best hope of arriving at what will be our species' maximum possible understanding of 'what is', i.e., what we can call 'real'.

Unfortunately, the word 'phenomenon' in common usage has missed the point made in phenomenological philosophy -- that phenomenal appearances of things do not give us 'reality' but instead partial approaches to reality. If we take these phenomenal appearances to constitute objectively 'real' things we end up reifying them:

from Merriam-Webster.com:

"re·ify
verb \ˈrā-ə-ˌfī, ˈrē-\
re·ified re·ify·ing
Definition of REIFY
transitive verb

: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing"

Re "the trickster," we gather the trans-historical expressions (in myth and legend) of certain human behaviors (and human interpretations of those behaviors) and we take them to express a unified 'phenomenon', but what is that phenomenon? I would argue that it is not an entity independent of our existentiality (our positional subjectivity in a world whose objectivity challenges our understanding). I think that the more we reify 'the trickster' as an entity or force outside ourselves and attempt to understand what 'it' is, the less we are able to understand ourselves and the nature of the 'reality' in which we live -- and which we add to.

What do we add? We add our experiential receptivity to the manifestations of the world in which we find ourselves existing (Heidegger says "the world into which we are 'thrown'"). We soon agree with one another locally about the vegetation and the animals we live among, their uses and their dangers for us. We try to survive through cooperation with one another. We look to the elders of our tribes to guide us into the future based on their experience in the past. And we discover among us individual humans who see and hear and understand things that seem to be inaccessible to most of us.

We listen to them because they can sometimes accurately predict events in the future, and often are able to heal our ailments, physical and, increasingly, mental and spiritual. They report to us the existence of another reality that contains our own. Over and over, around the planet, these individuals report this other reality. These we call shamans, seers, prophets, and tricksters. They point us toward the liminality of our own experience and expand our ability to appreciate its reality.

Other kinds of tricksters (the fools, the jokers, the pranksters, the clowns) also challenge our ordinary consensual perceptions of reality, laughing at what we too often take to be 'real' in the terms and rules laid down by the power structures, the PTB, that manage (and too often control) the practical conditions of our existence and how we interpret our existence. We know subliminally that their definitions of reality are limited, self-interested, distorted, and reductive, but they are strong and by comparison we are weak. Do we dare to listen to the shamans and the jokers we subsume under the category 'tricksters' -- on one side pointing us toward a larger reality and to our connection with it, and on the other side ridiculing the 'official' description of reality we accept from our local 'leadership' -- and strike out on our own in exploring what is real?

The powers that rule our material existence and shape our thinking are still winning this struggle for the hearts and minds of our species, largely because they have ridiculed the shamans and the jokers, who have actually been social critics, critics of limiting ideologies. But all of the ideas involved in this struggle have come from ourselves in the evolution of our consciousnesses and minds, not from an external entity that plays games with us. We are not puppets or victims of outside 'powers'; we are conscious beings not yet sufficiently in touch with, and afraid to explore with all the resources we can bring, what we already subconsciously know -- that the material world we exist in is not the whole of the being within which we exist.

I don't think this is what Hansen is saying although some have read him that way ... And I know you make that distinction ... but let me refresh a bit and see and if so, try to find some quotes ... This is a book that no amount of reading or discussion about will substitute - and it's one where the ideas are bigger than the authors conclusions about them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Soupie: Anyhow, I'm fascinated by all of this, but in particular I wonder about 1) what underlying structural similarities there may be to current and historical paranormal experiences, and 2) what the nature of the external element to these experiences might be.

Smcder: Can you clarify? Are you asking for historical examples of the Trickster archetype as they appear in the paranormal?

I thought Hansen was suggesting that high strange, paranormal phenomena — upon deep analysis — can be found to share a common structure.

But perhaps I was just confusing this with the idea that all paranormal phenomena share tricksterish elements...

He referred several times to the fact that UFO sightings are not infrequently accompanied by simultaneous Bigfoot sightings. Why might that be? Is there a connection between objective bigfoot entities and hightech flying machines or rather is there a connection between quasi subjective-objective paranormal phenomena that materialize as an experience of bigfoot-like creatures and UFO-like objects?

 

[Constance]

Good. While you're consulting Hansen's text please keep an eye out for passages where he speculates about the origin of archetypes and especially of the trickster figure.* I've read in several different texts that Jung later identified the trickster as a "character archetype" in distinction from the other archetypes, apparently focusing on the various human behaviors and activities contributing to the idea of 'the trickster'.

*In looking for theories of the archetypes in general and the trickster in particular, I'm looking beyond the standard explanation that archetypes exist in the subconscious to the question 'how did they get there?'.

 

[smcder]

I thought Hansen was suggesting that high strange, paranormal phenomena — upon deep analysis — can be found to share a common structure.

But perhaps I was just confusing this with the idea that all paranormal phenomena share tricksterish elements...

He referred several times to the fact that UFO sightings are not infrequently accompanied by simultaneous Bigfoot sightings. Why might that be? Is there a connection between objective bigfoot entities and hightech flying machines or rather is there a connection between quasi subjective-objective paranormal phenomena that materialize as an experience of bigfoot-like creatures and UFO-like objects?

Does this sound like the relevant chapter?

17. Unbounded Conditions UFO flaps and Bigfoot sightings can involve groups of people that are unknown to each other. The phenomena can erupt unexpectedly, and there are few cognitive or social mechanisms to contain them. The events are rife with hoaxes and other trickster manifestations.
(9 pages)

 

[Randall]

Hansen's thesis isn't that simple ...

Rarely is a part of something as complex as the whole, and there is certainly room in language to take context into account, so thanks for that. The book overall is probably very interesting. I don't own a copy, but I do own Chris O'Brien's which IMO is an excellent work.

 

[smcder]

Good. While you're consulting Hansen's text please keep an eye out for passages where he speculates about the origin of archetypes and especially of the trickster figure.* I've read in several different texts that Jung later identified the trickster as a "character archetype" in distinction from the other archetypes, apparently focusing on the various human behaviors and activities contributing to the idea of 'the trickster'.

*In looking for theories of the archetypes in general and the trickster in particular, I'm looking beyond the standard explanation that archetypes exist in the subconscious to the question 'how did they get there?'.

It looks like chpt 2 & 3 will be the place to look:

2. An Overview of Tricksters From Mythology, Folklore, and Elsewhere Several trickster figures are briefly presented, including Hermes, Eshu-Elegba, Wakjunkaga, the Spirit Mercurius. Commonalities are identified. The idea of archetype is explained.
(13 pages)

3 . Ernest Hartmann’s Mental Boundaries Ernest Hartmann, a Tufts University psychiatrist, developed a concept of mental boundaries that has striking parallels with the analysis of the Greek trickster Hermes, presented by Jungian psychiatrist Jean Bolen.
(4 pages)

 

[smcder]

Rarely is a part of something as complex as the whole, and there is certainly room in language to take context into account, so thanks for that. The book overall is probably very interesting. I don't own a copy, but I do own Chris O'Brien's which IMO is an excellent work.

A fractal?