Thomas Kuhn

[paulb2b2]

Thomas Kuhn, Jungian Psychology and Ufology.

Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science who is to thank for the term "PARADIGM" ... believed that the way we experience the world is literally different dependent on our paradigm/worldview and that therefore the same person can see and experience the same world entirely differently if his or her paradigmatic worldview changes. When I was a child I was more obsessive about my interests (at least that is my perspective today about my childhood) but I can therefore easily imagine seeing the world differently from how I experience it now. I am saying these things because I 'think' that paracasters may see relevance for Ufology here. I don't mean the obvious relevance that discovery of ETI would result in the much desired paradigm shift in worldview... I mean something more like the possibility of science accepting that there is more than one experience of the world that can and should exist within the same world. Indeed there are multiple ways of experiencing the same world. Maybe its just me but this sort of knowledge never seems to be quite fleshed out and fully admitted.
Ok Im going to try and express some fleshed out ideas here. I have referred to same world/different worldviews/paradigms. (i.e. different psychological experiences of the same world). Even so if X expresses their worldview better than Y then most neutrals will favor X over Y. Much of Ufology seems to be unconscious... its unconsciously screaming theres something missing and then expressing this with unconscious archetypal projection (awe, fascination etc forming a living myth). Its literalizing.

This feeling that theres something missing is clearly meaningful but when it is expressed it comes out as too literal and thus causes a split between so-called believers and debunkers. Yet debunkers want meaning too... they just repress it because they dont believe that they can find it, or they have given up the search or they secretly search. Its in their unconscious anyway.

I derive from the Jungian community and a problem I found with them was that they are isolated within their own introverted community and they talk to themselves alot. The Ufology community suffers from outsiders shouting "nonsense" at it while the Jungian community suffers from being "ignored". So for example this Paracast forum gets a lot of guests who browse it... theres not so much interest from outsiders for Jungian theory. However, it therefore gets attacked less than Ufology.

I also felt as if many in the Jungian community looked into esoteric fields for their own Jungian ends. To me theres a problem in the Jungian field that they dogmatize Jungian psychology. I feel that if a Jungian looks into the UFO phenomenon then they should do so from both the Jungian angle AND from the UFO thinkers angle. Maybe some UFO thinkers are keen on the vice-versa here. And here is where I want to start being more positive. What is gained? The UFO field allows in the door the awe, fascination. This is openly stated as part and parcel of the phenomenon. From Ufology the Jungian allows in the precognition and telepathy... the effects on the individual who experiences such things. I know that some of you will be saying that Jungian psychology already allows for such experiences but actually Jungians are split on that. Some or many of them take a purely psychological projection, psychological compensation, psychological archetype approach/view and reject synchronicity and precognition etc. Anyway, also the ETH/nuts n bolts craft theory is endorsed as imagery as opposed to literal. So I am looking at a blending of Ufology and Jungian Psychology that is psychological, paradigm shifting, and possesses imagery. This is my answer to the problems faced in both communities (Jungian isolationism/Ufology nonsense) and it merges two fields and each becomes something new... neither Jungian psychology nor Ufology... but a third thing. I started by discussing Kuhn and different ways of seeing the world. I just think that that is part of the problem for many in esoteric fields. They arent expressing and articulating their psychology as well as say the scientific materialists do. So I am thinking about this myself as outlined here.

 

[stephen dedalus]

Thomas Kuhn, Jungian Psychology and Ufology.

At the risk of sounding unnecessarily persnickety, I'm going to point out that Thomas Kuhn did not coin the term "paradigm." He was, however, the first to use it to refer to a disciplinary matrix of common foundational assumptions that guides research in a given field convincingly enough to attract a significant number of followers while still leaving enough unanswered questions to give those followers something to do (the further articulation of the paradigm; the effort to make theory match observable data more closely). It's important when invoking Kuhn to acknowledge that his very specialized use of the term paradigm demands contextualization within the internal workings of specific disciplines and the scientific worldviews that emerge within these disciplines, and rarely if ever is applicable to general notions of "worldview." I therefore don't know to what extent Kuhn's notion of the paradigm works "across" or "between" disciplines like Jungian psychology and ufology (and I use the term "discipline" loosely to refer to both); it seems to be more about the revolutions that occur within individual disciplines (as would be the case if a progressive strain of Jungianism challenged and usurped the doctrinal Jungians about whom you expressed concern).

Another thing to keep in mind--and I'm speaking specifically to your concern that there's "something missing"--is that for Kuhn, a paradigm will always offer an incomplete explanation of the world it purports to explain. Once enough anomalies accumulate, the paradigm will eventually be replaced by a new one, which may offer a satisfying account of some of the observable data, but, like the old one, will never be able to explain everything, and will therefore eventually be replaced by yet another paradigm. Therefore, "the feeling that there's something missing," is not only, as you say, meaningful, but permanent as well: a "complete" science doesn't appear to be possible within the Kuhnian model.