May 3, 2015 — Eric Wargo: Talk About Reality

[Gene Steinberg]

So what about our concepts of reality. What about precognition, and is it possible we are seeing events from our own future?

In this episode, your paracast hosts and Eric Wargo looked at the possibilities of UFOs from different points of view. What do you say, listeners?

 

[wwkirk]

Eric is quite the smart guy. But I still think the Trickster as archetype is still a relevant mechanism.

 

[Lionel Mandrake]

Excellent episode!!

 

[Eric Wargo]

Greetings--glad you liked the episode.

Don't get me wrong, I love the trickster as a concept, but I don't think it's a mechanism. It's a word for a phenomenon, and the mechanism behind the phenomenon at least involves psi. This is one reason why I think the "archetype" notion is a bit distracting: It keeps us from asking about underlying mechanism or mechanisms.

I like John Alexander's term "precognitive sentient phenomena." PC is definitely part of the story.

 

[marduk]

I'm only about half way through, and I have to say this is easily one of the best paracast episodes ever.

Level, clear headed, and he's gone 90 miles down the track in the same direction I've been thinking about for the past 5 years and only gone 1.

A great find guys.

 

[Constance]

Greetings--glad you liked the episode.

Don't get me wrong, I love the trickster as a concept, but I don't think it's a mechanism. It's a word for a phenomenon, and the mechanism behind the phenomenon at least involves psi. This is one reason why I think the "archetype" notion is a bit distracting: It keeps us from asking about underlying mechanism or mechanisms.

I like John Alexander's term "precognitive sentient phenomena." PC is definitely part of the story.

Re information/communication received from across great distances, for example in either mediated or direct communication from discarnate but surviving consciousnesses and also in remote viewing, what do you think would be the nature of the 'mechanisms' involved?

Also, do you think these mechanisms (if they exist)

1) are built to fulfill the intentions of a 'control system' of some sort manipulating the consciousnesses of members of our species;

2) might instead be avenues of possibility for the integration of mind and world designed by a higher power that does not seek to control us or events in our local world; or

3) simply evolve in the increasing complexity and interconnection of systems constituting the universe we live in?

Or have some other possible explanation?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

First off, I always get excited when I first hear the guest speak and discover that they are well spoken, have some humor, and are smart.

Second, I think my head is still swollen from all of the knowledge I was trying to process and make sense of. A good chunk of it was over my head but I still thoroughly enjoyed Eric and the show.

 

[Burnt State]

Jung was a transgressive theorist who saw patterns in culture, nature and in the human mind. When these patterns are broken, or when the common symmetry of life is broken we see a new emergence, something radical and as exciting as a synchronistic event. This is the moment of the creative spark, when the saviour climbs down from the tree and performs a new kind of magic trick.

When a meaningful coincidence of an acausal connecting principle takes place it's as if the universe is trying to tell us something directly, like a voice from the sky above is yelling down at you, "Hey, wake up down there!" Jung's theories are the scientific beginnings of trying to look at the relationship between psyche and nature, and all his descendants continue to expand and explore the very limited boundaries of western culture that Jung wanted to crack open.

Eric may not be there for Jung's archetypes or his defining construction of synchronicity but he laid the groundwork for your paracast conversation and your way of thinking which, like Jung, is trying to expand our thinking about psyche and nature. Certainly you both argue for a less limited version of what is mind.

Here's another descendant of Jung, good reading: http://www.jung.org/Synchronicity Cambray.pdf

And then this seems to belong here as well, the definitive sci-fi movie that looks directly at how dreams, time and reality can intertwine along the lines of strong emotion:

 

[Eric Wargo]

Re information/communication received from across great distances, for example in either mediated or direct communication from discarnate but surviving consciousnesses and also in remote viewing, what do you think would be the nature of the 'mechanisms' involved?

Also, do you think these mechanisms (if they exist)

1) are built to fulfill the intentions of a 'control system' of some sort manipulating the consciousnesses of members of our species;

2) might instead be avenues of possibility for the integration of mind and world designed by a higher power that does not seek to control us or events in our local world; or

3) simply evolve in the increasing complexity and interconnection of systems constituting the universe we live in?

Or have some other possible explanation?

I can't answer the question about the mechanisms involved in remote viewing or communication with discarnate intelligences (if those exist)--I wish I could, but I really have no idea. The most persuasive explanation to me is the nonlocality idea, that separation in space and time are illusions created in the cortex and that psi involves suppressing these cortical functions. But I think this is a huge unanswered question. As for the "why" questions, I think it's closest to your #3--an evolved capacity--although I'd be tempted to modify it by saying that what has "evolved" is really the cortical blockages to experiencing nonlocal interconnectedness. In this post I explain some of the evolutionary reasons why psi is not more easy or more prevalent--I think there are good reasons it would actually be rare or only expressed in very unconscious ways.

 

[Eric Wargo]

Jung was a transgressive theorist who saw patterns in culture, nature and in the human mind. When these patterns are broken, or when the common symmetry of life is broken we see a new emergence, something radical and as exciting as a synchronistic event. This is the moment of the creative spark, when the saviour climbs down from the tree and performs a new kind of magic trick.

When a meaningful coincidence of an acausal connecting principle takes place it's as if the universe is trying to tell us something directly, like a voice from the sky above is yelling down at you, "Hey, wake up down there!" Jung's theories are the scientific beginnings of trying to look at the relationship between psyche and nature, and all his descendants continue to expand and explore the very limited boundaries of western culture that Jung wanted to crack open.

Eric may not be there for Jung's archetypes or his defining construction of synchronicity but he laid the groundwork for your paracast conversation and your way of thinking which, like Jung, is trying to expand our thinking about psyche and nature. Certainly you both argue for a less limited version of what is mind.

Here's another descendant of Jung, good reading: http://www.jung.org/Synchronicity Cambray.pdf

And then this seems to belong here as well, the definitive sci-fi movie that looks directly at how dreams, time and reality can intertwine along the lines of strong emotion:

La Jetee is one of my favorite films!--coincidentally, I just discussed this movie on my blog here, in similar terms.

My main disagreement with Jung was that he created new concepts for phenomena even when existing concepts could actually explain them. I don't think you need a concept of "synchronicity" to explain how psi and the unconscious combine to create numinous meaningful coincidences in our lives (see here for a more developed explanation of my argument), and that verbal handle might actually cause you to stop investigating what is really going on. Nowadays people just go "oh it was a synchronicity" without considering how they may have created the event through psi acting in their own lives, unconsciously. I think understanding our own latent psi abilities may enable us to harness this energy and creativity in a direct way, as I suggest in my latest post (sort of a theory of practical synchromysticism).

The Cambray book looks excellent. Thanks--I will check it out.

 

[Burnt State]

Eric,

Just started reading though your blog space: great images, a frenzy of associative writing that is clearly explained and you travel down some nice alleyways of science and imagination as you do so. I really liked the article on anamorphosis and the UFO as anamorphic wedge as a means of explaining Vallée's control system - nicely done.

The discussion on that Gnosic notion of an indelible, unknown force keeping down our psi capacities I think is more accurate that you believe it to be. There are, of course, the sociological factors that hold us back, our predilection to burn witches, shun the savant & put the schizophrenic seer on a ship of fools instead of learning new paradigms from them. We live in a total distortion of human experience thanks to rationalism and conservatism - more of a nightmare really disguised as bland normality.

But there still is something else just below the surface of it all, yes perhaps akin to a Philip K. Dick paranoia. We see these hits of parnormality and creativity all the time. And is there not also an evolutionary trait that burns within parts of the species to see beyond the veil, to listen to voices from Zeta Reticuli and other invisible, uncharted locations in order to make contact with a mysterious ? Jung says we must integrate the shadow into our world so that we can take these next steps. The magician longs to see, no? This impulse comes from somewhere.

I see you've experimented with time. Have you worked on any other experiments in similar veins in order to shift perspectives so to speak? In the Scientology training gambit you get to enter into some quasi hallucinatory spaces that let's people open other doors. Have you opened any other doors of perception and if so what did you find? How has the dream journal altered reality?

Keep up the exceptional imaginative work. Now that you've hit the show I'm sure you'll be back and we can get an even rounder picture of your way of thinking.

 

[Burnt State]

My main disagreement with Jung was that he created new concepts for phenomena even when existing concepts could actually explain them. I don't think you need a concept of "synchronicity" to explain how psi and the unconscious combine to create numinous meaningful coincidences in our lives (see here for a more developed explanation of my argument), and that verbal handle might actually cause you to stop investigating what is really going on. Nowadays people just go "oh it was a synchronicity" without considering how they may have created the event through psi acting in their own lives, unconsciously. I think understanding our own latent psi abilities may enable us to harness this energy and creativity in a direct way, as I suggest in my latest post (sort of a theory of practical synchromysticism).

I can see your blog will be consuming more of my time that I don't have but that's a good thing.

In favour of Jung I would say this: reality is intensely complicated at best and his concept of synchronicity is complex with good reason. Any theorist with great ideas and thoughts aims for sleek simplicity, but in the end it's always a lot of loose ends and weird string theories that need tying up.

I think the purpose of his concept was not to stop the process of discovery, but in fact to try to blow open the doors of conservative western thinking and legimtimize what we refer to as paranormality. I say embrace your forefather, dude, and stand proudly on his shoulders as he cleared the path for many a creative thinker to travel down. I know that children are here on this earth to destroy their parents - that's how new concepts are born, so it's fine if you need to slay Jung in your process, just don't miss out on what he's proffering, for you do descend from his stock.

On a side note, imagine just how brilliant and different the world could have been if Jodorowsky was allowed to make Dune? It's a classic example of the Western Capitalist slaying the Eastern Mystic. Now i can tell from your honorable writing you're not a capitalist, but tell me, you're not really trying to slay Jung are you?

Edit: I see you get involved with the great cinematic master of time, Tarkovsky. He stood alone until Wong Kar Wai came along. Have you read Tarkovsky's journal Time Within Time?

 

[Eric Wargo]

Eric,

Just started reading though your blog space: great images, a frenzy of associative writing that is clearly explained and you travel down some nice alleyways of science and imagination as you do so. I really liked the article on anamorphosis and the UFO as anamorphic wedge as a means of explaining Vallée's control system - nicely done.

The discussion on that Gnosic notion of an indelible, unknown force keeping down our psi capacities I think is more accurate that you believe it to be. There are, of course, the sociological factors that hold us back, our predilection to burn witches, shun the savant & put the schizophrenic seer on a ship of fools instead of learning new paradigms from them. We live in a total distortion of human experience thanks to rationalism and conservatism - more of a nightmare really disguised as bland normality.But there still is something else just below the surface of it all, yes perhaps akin to a Philip K. Dick paranoia. We see these hits of parnormality and creativity all the time. And is there not also an evolutionary trait that burns within parts of the species to see beyond the veil, to listen to voices from Zeta Reticuli and other invisible, uncharted locations in order to make contact with a mysterious ? Jung says we must integrate the shadow into our world so that we can take these next steps. The magician longs to see, no? This impulse comes from somewhere.

I see you've experimented with time. Have you worked on any other experiments in similar veins in order to shift perspectives so to speak? In the Scientology training gambit you get to enter into some quasi hallucinatory spaces that let's people open other doors. Have you opened any other doors of perception and if so what did you find? How has the dream journal altered reality?

Keep up the exceptional imaginative work. Now that you've hit the show I'm sure you'll be back and we can get an even rounder picture of your way of thinking.

Thanks! The "archonic" idea that we are being held down by some higher force or intelligence is something I wage a personal struggle with daily because half of me does subscribe to it, but I think it's a slippery slope that can become its own archon in our lives. Ultimately I think the only real archons are the ones we think about and believe in. We are our own archons.

Those forces of rationalism and conservatism that squash imagination, etc. seem nightmarish sometimes, but they are manifestations of natural social patterns. If everyone did nothing but dwell in the mysterious, society would fall to pieces pretty quickly, so I tend to agree with Gary Lachman in his recent books on hermeticism, etc.: It's important to dwell near the source and touch it occasionally but not get swamped by it.

Re: experimentation, apart from lucid dreaming (for which, yes, a dream journal is crucial--I assume that's what you're getting at), an area I haven't yet discussed on my blog yet but am going to in a post very soon is OOBEs/astral travel. This, it seems to me, is the holy grail of consciousness exploration, and one I've given a lot of thought to in the last couple years. I've only had a few tantalizing, brief, very weird successes--not enough to satisfy me about what (the f***) is going on.

But speaking of "the magician longing to see," I have found regular vanilla Zen meditation to be the most 'shamanic' or 'magical' of practices, opening to what I can only call the "Twin Peaks Imaginal."

 

[Eric Wargo]

I can see your blog will be consuming more of my time that I don't have but that's a good thing.

In favour of Jung I would say this: reality is intensely complicated at best and his concept of synchronicity is complex with good reason. Any theorist with great ideas and thoughts aims for sleek simplicity, but in the end it's always a lot of loose ends and weird string theories that need tying up.

I think the purpose of his concept was not to stop the process of discovery, but in fact to try to blow open the doors of conservative western thinking and legimtimize what we refer to as paranormality. I say embrace your forefather, dude, and stand proudly on his shoulders as he cleared the path for many a creative thinker to travel down. I know that children are here on this earth to destroy their parents - that's how new concepts are born, so it's fine if you need to slay Jung in your process, just don't miss out on what he's proffering, for you do descend from his stock.

On a side note, imagine just how brilliant and different the world could have been if Jodorowsky was allowed to make Dune? It's a classic example of the Western Capitalist slaying the Eastern Mystic. Now i can tell from your honorable writing you're not a capitalist, but tell me, you're not really trying to slay Jung are you?

Edit: I see you get involved with the great cinematic master of time, Tarkovsky. He stood alone until Wong Kar Wai came along. Have you read Tarkovsky's journal Time Within Time?

Yes I'm trying to slay Jung.

Not really. I don't think Jung's purpose was to stop inquiry, not at all. But I think there was an unacknowledged egotistic part of him that tried to sieze these scarabs even as he was opening the window to them, if you know what I mean. I don't question his importance as a pioneer. But I do kind of wonder whether we'd be talking about synchronicity right now if it hadn't been for Sting, of all people. In the 1970s, when Koestler published his book on coincidence, he was basically looking back on Jung's book as a forgotten minor episode in his career because the synchronicity concept is so unhelpful as an explanation. It's amazing the weird history of memes, isn't it?

As for Jodo's Dune, yes ... but don't you think it is much more awesome as an idea of a film than as an actual film? It was way too ahead of its time--or, not even part of time. Personally I'm kind of grateful it collapsed and released its creative team to make Alien, which I think is possibly the best sci-film of all time, or neck and neck with 2001.

Yes, Tarkovsky is phenomenal, especially Stalker. I've read parts of Time Within Time, but I especially like Sculpting in Time. (From his diaries, he actually sounds like he was kind of an unpleasant guy.)

 

[Burnt State]

He was Russian. He had a lot to be dissatisfied with.

 

[TrivialSublime]

So what about our concepts of reality. What about precognition, and is it possible we are seeing events from our own future?

In this episode, your paracast hosts and Eric Wargo looked at the possibilities of UFOs from different points of view. What do you say, listeners?

Chris O’Brien referred to the American public (pubic his words) as Corn-fed, Inbred and Brain-dead for the most part” and this gem “constant state of waking coma".

Chris can comment on his own about if that’s how he feels or it was an offhanded comment where his brain failed to engage with his mouth..

My question is do you want plain “Amurican “Corn-fed, Inbred and brain-dead folks listening to your show and do you agree with his characterization?

Smacks of elitism, I'd be curious as to your opinion.

Oh and for the butt kissers that might jump to the defense, go for it....

 

[Eric Wargo]

Chris O’Brien referred to the American public (pubic his words) as Corn-fed, Inbred and Brain-dead for the most part” and this gem “constant state of waking coma".

Chris can comment on his own about if that’s how he feels or it was an offhanded comment where his brain failed to engage with his mouth..

My question is do you want plain “Amurican “Corn-fed, Inbred and brain-dead folks listening to your show and do you agree with his characterization?

Smacks of elitism, I'd be curious as to your opinion.

Oh and for the butt kissers that might jump to the defense, go for it....

I wouldn't characterize the public that way, no. I assume Chris was being provocative--it's radio, right?

 

[TrivialSublime]

Hi Eric,

Actually my question was to Gene, sorry I wasn't clear Eric but I appreciate your response.

Well part of the definition of provocative is ‘provoke’ so if that was his intent, it worked. That being said, I welcome your approach to these things and Chris’ as well.

I listen to the show as a download through Stitcher and was hoping to listen to the entire show since I wanted to hear what you had to say after looking at your website. After his comment I went somewhere else. Now I know I will get the “oh boo hoo” stuff and that’s fine.

I’ve got a thick skin, more then most, his comment came across badly this morning during the commute to work, just another Corn-Fed, Inbred, Brain-dead drone on his way to work…

 

[Burnt State]

Calling @Jeff Davis - what did you think of the show?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris O’Brien referred to the American public....
My question is do you want plain “Amurican “Corn-fed, Inbred and brain-dead folks listening to your show and do you agree with his characterization? Smacks of elitism, I'd be curious as to your opinion.

I've lately been in a weird, fatalistic mood, forobvious reasons. This "mood" has translated into feeble attempts at pointed humor. I've been revisiting Bill Hicvks and George Carlin lately... I'm a meat n potatoes, boots-on-the-ground-sorta guy. If that's "elitist" we could use more of this out-in-the-field where the rubber leaves the road.

Oh and for the butt kissers that might jump to the defense, go for it....

Yikes, dude!