September 1, 2019 — David Halperin

[Gene Steinberg]

All right, you know the score. David is not a doe-eyed believer in extraterrestrial flying saucers. But he offers the insights of a religious scholar in examining the mystery, and he's worth a listen.

He also talks about the impact of UFO sightings to various people and even focuses on the famous report, from 1974, of a UFO seen by former Beatle John Lennon.

It surely warrants further discussion, so this weekend's episode of After The Paracast also featured a short segment on David's theories.

Remember that After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+. If you want to know more, please visit: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[Bob Zanotti]

Gene, I am breaking a very long silence on the Forum because I feel it necessary to point out in public, as I did in private correspondence with you, that "David Halperin's" theories actually go back to C.G. Jung, who published a book about UFO's as an extension of the mind back in the 50's. David Halperin was a teenager at the time. These theories clearly originated with Jung, not David Halperin. In your correspondence you told me that Halperin had acknowledged that he was influenced by Jung on this topic. But during the show, itself, I heard only two mentions in passing of the name Jung, and in neither case did Halperin clearly admit the influence Jung had had on him on this subject or that these theories had actually originated with Jung.

Interestingly, C.G. Jung was the son of a Zurich Protestant pastor and was raised in a religious environment. He was also a spiritual man and very open to the paranormal, himself. Not surprising, then, that Halperin would be interested in Jung's writings and be influenced by them.

Perhaps David Halperin will credit C.G. Jung in his new book, as he should do. But as far as the Paracast show is concerned, this attribution was missing. Bad form.

Bob

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Bob, so far as I recall, we did mention Jung during the episode.

 

[Bob Zanotti]

Yes, Gene, the name was mentioned, but I heard nothing resembling a "credit" or "attribution" from David Halperin. The implication was that the ideas were his own. This is what put my nose out of joint, as the Brits say. If I missed something, I will stand corrected.
PS Perhaps this came up in After The Paracast, which I admittedly did not hear (yet). As I said, if I'm in error, I will admit it.

 

[Bob Zanotti]

Gene, I have just listened to After The Paracast from September 1. At 27:00 into the show you made a very brief reference to "The Collective Unconscious". You attributed it to C.G. Jung, but there is otherwise no mention whatsoever of Jung having influenced David Halperin. My original comments stand. Halperin's ideas about UFOs originating in the psyche are not his, they are those of C.G. Jung. It is the duty of any serious author or journalist to attribute or credit sources. Halperin has failed to do this here for whatever reason. As a journalist with more than 50 years experience, I would call this "unethical".

Carl Jung’s Fascinating 1957 Letter on UFOs

Deities, conspiracies, politics, space aliens: you don't actually have to believe in these to find them interesting. Just focus your attention not on the things themselves, but in how other people regard them, what they say when they talk about them, and why they think about them the way they do.

www.openculture.com

 

[wwkirk]

Gene, I have just listened to After The Paracast from September 1. At 27:00 into the show you made a very brief reference to "The Collective Unconscious". You attributed it to C.G. Jung, but there is otherwise no mention whatsoever of Jung having influenced David Halperin. My original comments stand. Halperin's ideas about UFOs originating in the psyche are not his, they are those of C.G. Jung. It is the duty of any serious author or journalist to attribute or credit sources. Halperin has failed to do this here for whatever reason. As a journalist with more than 50 years experience, I would call this "unethical".

Carl Jung’s Fascinating 1957 Letter on UFOs

Deities, conspiracies, politics, space aliens: you don't actually have to believe in these to find them interesting. Just focus your attention not on the things themselves, but in how other people regard them, what they say when they talk about them, and why they think about them the way they do.

www.openculture.com

David Halperin apparently has an account on this forum. Maybe you could PM him. Though maybe that would be unnecessary if he reads this thread.

Here and there, Halperin does acknowledge that he's following in the footsteps of Jung, though he doesn't always make a big deal of it.

"No, UFOs are not a “fact.” They don’t exist physically, the way jet planes exist. But they’re not “bunk”; they’re about the farthest thing from “bunk” that can be imagined. They’re myth; which I conceive, a la Carl Jung, as a collective dream of humanity, emerging within us to convey the profoundest truths of all."
Remembering Stanton Friedman – The Recollections of Kevin Randle, Kal Korff | David Halperin

Here he admonishes David Clarke for not appreciating Jung enough.

"Although he cites Jung’s classic Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky frequently and approvingly, Clarke conveys almost nothing of the depth and richness of Jung’s conception of the UFO. (Or of myth. Clarke’s own understanding of myth, taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, is far more simplistic.) He represents Jung as having said that the “psychological core of the myth” is summed up in the X-Files phrase “I want to believe.” But that’s not what Jung was saying at all.

"Jung’s point, rather, was that the UFOs are something from deep in our unconscious which we don’t “want to believe,” in fact don’t believe, but which force themselves through their own energies into our awareness. Which makes them, as myths, the deepest truths of all.

"Clarke’s handling (or mishandling) of Jung points up my main criticism of his book. For all his knowledge of the “UFO syndrome”–and there’s a lot of it between these two covers–he shies away from probing it at any depth."
David Clarke, "How UFOs Conquered the World: The History of a Modern Myth" | David Halperin

There are a few more references to Jung on his website. I don't know, maybe Halperin supposes that the primacy of Jung's views is so well known that it doesn't need to be mentioned very often? For example, if someone touted a theory that the unconscious is behind much human behavior, how often would Freud's origination of this theory have to be mentioned?

It remains to be seen how Jung is referenced in his upcoming book.

 

[Bob Zanotti]

Thanks for the articulation of the issue. Nice to know that Jung has been credited at least somewhere by David Halperin, albeit indirectly. But my point is very specific: We have a man who has written a new book about the psychological and spiritual aspects of the UFO phenomenon, but without giving any credit or attribution to the origin of the idea when he appeared on a mass medium, The Paracast. This is conventional courtesy and normal literary/journalistic form. Any scientific or academic paper requires it. At least in the case of The Paracast, Halperin has failed to do this. Perhaps David Halperin feels he is above this. As I said: bad form, the Freudian reference notwithstanding. There is really no defense.

 

[matthew1977]

David has a great radio voice. i would love to hear him telling scary stories.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

Thanks for the articulation of the issue. Nice to know that Jung has been credited at least somewhere by David Halperin, albeit indirectly. But my point is very specific: We have a man who has written a new book about the psychological and spiritual aspects of the UFO phenomenon, but without giving any credit or attribution to the origin of the idea when he appeared on a mass medium, The Paracast. This is conventional courtesy and normal literary/journalistic form. Any scientific or academic paper requires it. At least in the case of The Paracast, Halperin has failed to do this. Perhaps David Halperin feels he is above this. As I said: bad form, the Freudian reference notwithstanding. There is really no defense.

Hey nice to see some new comments from you on the show. For my part, when I hear Jungian concepts being applied to a conversation, I usually take it for granted that we are talking in a Jungian context, similar to the way that when the subject of relativity comes up, we don't have to mention the name Einstein. Nevertheless it might be helpful for those who aren't used to such conversations, to have a little background information. As cohost, I'll try to be more aware of that in the future.

 

[Bob Zanotti]

Hey nice to see some new comments from you on the show. For my part, when I hear Jungian concepts being applied to a conversation, I usually take it for granted that we are talking in a Jungian context, similar to the way that when the subject of relativity comes up, we don't have to mention the name Einstein. Nevertheless it might be helpful for those who aren't used to such conversations, to have a little background information. As cohost, I'll try to be more aware of that in the future.

I only just saw this (I was not notified of your post in September).
I think Halperin knew exactly what he was doing. I think he was just hoping no one would notice. I am not as awed by him as some others apparently are. Must be my advanced age of 74. In any case, elegant, defensive diplomacy, Randall. Compliments. I'm sure DH is grateful for the "save".

Apropos, Coast just had a guest who was described as a "pioneer in dream analysis". Once again, I thought that distinction belonged to Jung. plagiarizing Jung is apparently a current, contagious disease.

 

[Randall]

I only just saw this (I was not notified of your post in September).

Maybe your notification options are turned off? Of they ended-up in your spam folder? Or you need to update your email address? If you want to start receiving them again, check the usual suspects, and if that doesn't work, I'll do what I can from here ( maybe over Skype ) to see if we can fix it.

I think Halperin knew exactly what he was doing. I think he was just hoping no one would notice. I am not as awed by him as some others apparently are.

It's too long since we've had you on. How about joining us for the short show ( After The Paracast ) in the not too distant future?

Must be my advanced age of 74. In any case, elegant, defensive diplomacy, Randall. Compliments.

Advanced age? Didn't Kirk Douglas recently turn 103? I remember him as a main character in this classic film:

I'm sure DH is grateful for the "save".

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you let me know the episode and time, I'll check it out. Now you've got me curious.

Apropos, Coast just had a guest who was described as a "pioneer in dream analysis". Once again, I thought that distinction belonged to Jung. plagiarizing Jung is apparently a current, contagious disease.

There's a clear inference there that Halperin has plagiarized Jung. Is that an academically established fact, or are we maybe stretching things a bit? If we really want to see the pioneers of dream interpretation, we can go all the way back to biblical times. Sometimes these character seem to take on an almost prophet-like status. Nowadays they call them futurists ( e.g. Kurzweil, Kaku, Kromme )

 

[Bob Zanotti]

Maybe your notification options are turned off? Of they ended-up in your spam folder? Or you need to update your email address? If you want to start receiving them again, check the usual suspects, and if that doesn't work, I'll do what I can from here ( maybe over Skype ) to see if we can fix it.

It's too long since we've had you on. How about joining us for the short show ( After The Paracast ) in the not too distant future?

Advanced age? Didn't Kirk Douglas recently turn 103? I remember him as a main character in this classic film:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you let me know the episode and time, I'll check it out. Now you've got me curious.

There's a clear inference there that Halperin has plagiarized Jung. Is that an academically established fact, or are we maybe stretching things a bit? If we really want to see the pioneers of dream interpretation, we can go all the way back to biblical times. Sometimes these character seem to take on an almost prophet-like status. Nowadays they call them futurists ( e.g. Kurzweil, Kaku, Kromme )

Randall,
My notification option may be off, I'll check, although it has always worked until now. Having said that, I'm not a regular contributor to the Forums for reasons I've stated long ago.

Modern dream analysis goes back to Freud and Jung, Jung being the one who refined it most. I could go back in ancient history for the roots of dream fascination, but the scientific and scholarly interpretation belongs to Freud and especially Jung.

To the point at hand. I have not seen Hallerin's latest book. But from what I've heard, it sounds extremely close to what Jung wrote in 1953. I'm sorry to say that plagiarism of all kinds and in all fields has become the order of the day and is now done routinely and unabashedly. Where would Coast to Coast AM be without it? A possible euphemism would be "academic recycling or redisovery". Either the perpetrators have short memories or are ignorant of the true pioneers, or they hope their audiences are. I love the old expression: "It's not important today what you are, but rather, what you claim to be". Just look at what's happened in academia. That's symptomatic.

Personally, I find David Halperin arrogant and pedantic, and apparently, not used to being challenged. As a former university lecturer myself with a number of academic associates and friends, I know the phenomenon firsthand. Halperin gives me the impression of a classic ivory tower academic, not used to questioning of his pronouncements and views - very, very old school. I saw that most strikingly when Gene brought him on for a staged dogfight with Erich von Däniken (whom I know and respect). I told Gene what I thought of that.

Regarding a "diplomatic save", I think you made a valiant effort to cover Halperin's ***, perhaps unknowingly. Very noble of you. My take, anyway.

"Advanced age". That was most certainly tongue in cheek. I neither look nor feel, nor think like "advanced age".

Not being deeply into ufology anymore, I doubt I could contribute much to the Paracast, except in a nostalgic or purely philosophical way.

 

[Randall]

Randall,
My notification option may be off, I'll check, although it has always worked until now. Having said that, I'm not a regular contributor to the Forums for reasons I've stated long ago.

Modern dream analysis goes back to Freud and Jung, Jung being the one who refined it most. I could go back in ancient history for the roots of dream fascination, but the scientific and scholarly interpretation belongs to Freud and especially Jung.

To the point at hand. I have not seen Hallerin's latest book. But from what I've heard, it sounds extremely close to what Jung wrote in 1953. I'm sorry to say that plagiarism of all kinds and in all fields has become the order of the day and is now done routinely and unabashedly. Where would Coast to Coast AM be without it? A possible euphemism would be "academic recycling or redisovery". Either the perpetrators have short memories or are ignorant of the true pioneers, or they hope their audiences are. I love the old expression: "It's not important today what you are, but rather, what you claim to be". Just look at what's happened in academia. That's symptomatic.

Personally, I find David Halperin arrogant and pedantic, and apparently, not used to being challenged. As a former university lecturer myself with a number of academic associates and friends, I know the phenomenon firsthand. Halperin gives me the impression of a classic ivory tower academic, not used to questioning of his pronouncements and views - very, very old school. I saw that most strikingly when Gene brought him on for a staged dogfight with Erich von Däniken (whom I know and respect). I told Gene what I thought of that.

Regarding a "diplomatic save", I think you made a valiant effort to cover Halperin's ***, perhaps unknowingly. Very noble of you. My take, anyway.

"Advanced age". That was most certainly tongue in cheek. I neither look nor feel, nor think like "advanced age".

Not being deeply into ufology anymore, I doubt I could contribute much to the Paracast, except in a nostalgic or purely philosophical way.

Thanks for your perspective Bob. One of the things I love about The Paracast is the philosophical nostalgia from people like Gene and yourself who have a lot of history and experience. May I suggest that rather than the full 2 hours, the more casual 45-60 min show would be a very good fit. We'd love to have you on. We can do December 27. Or if you prefer, we can wait until all the Christmas crazies and New Year's Eve is out of the way We record the show Fridays starting at 4:00PM, with a 15-20 min intro by William Puckett who reviews current UFO sightings.

 

[Bob Zanotti]

We'd love to have you on. We can do December 27. Or if you prefer, we can wait until all the Christmas crazies and New Year's Eve is out of the way We record the show Fridays starting at 4:00PM, with a 15-20 min intro by William Puckett who reviews current UFO sightings.

Thanks for the invitation, Randall. Unfortunately, I'm going to be pretty well tried up till the end of January, partly because of health reasons. I'll get back to you when the dust settles.

Season's greetings.
BZ