UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 15

Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:04:06 -0500
Archived: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:05:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary


>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:29:10 -0700
>Subject: Re: Ufology and Psychiatry - Summary

>>From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:01:05 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:51:34 +0100
>>>Subject: Ufology And Psychiatry Summary

>>>I hope, in future, that anyone thinking of accepting _any_
>>>dictum from the psychiatry/psychology camp would think again.
>>>Their words are about as reliable as politicians' promises - and
>>>IMHO for the same reason: they are self-interested professional
>>>liars (or fools, of course).

>>This statement displays the same miserbly shallow understanding
>>of Psychiatry and Psychology as your posts did regarding your
>>understanding of the physiology and functioning of the eye and
>>brain in the human perception process (so much more accurately
>>described by David Rudiak) earlier on.

>I suspect Ray belongs to the European postmodernist movement,
>which drove my youngest son berserk when he was at Oxford
>(apparently the universities there are overrun with
>postmodernists). Basically it is a form of nihilism, arguing
>that there is no absolute knowledge, all knowledge is
>interpretation filtered through our minds, therefore (in the
>most extreme versions), absolutely nothing can be trusted and
>there are no truths.

>While there is some "truth" in all this (it is rather hard to
>argue that what we consider knowledge stands apart from our own
>brains), it is often used to create sweeping indictments of all
>knowledge and all experts. Thus we get posts from Ray that all
>scientific theories are suspect or wrong, all our perceptions
>are wrong or not to be trusted, or in this case, all
>psychologists/psychiatrists are liars or fools or both. (Part of
>this may derive from an overreaction to the arrogance and
>rigidity of thinking that many experts in their field may
>display.)

Exactly! That arrogance and rigidity of thinking is present in
all fields, not just in psychology and psychiatry. Without
doubt, it is, as you say, partly a reaction to this arrogance
and rigidity that makes some people dismiss psychology and
psychiatry as worthless. I think, however, that a bigger part of
it for those active or interested in the UFO field is due to
either having a "miserably shallow" understanding of these
fields or to seeing psychology and psychiatry as being a threat
to a nuts and bolts ETH explanation of the UFO enigma,
especially when these fields expand into parapsychology and
parasociology.

And, to be sure, they can indeed be a serious threat to such an
explanation in that they can produce incontrovertible data that
significanly shrinks the truly anomalous (core) UFO cases, or
provides a better explanation that explains even these.

That's not to say that the ETH (even a rigid nuts and bolts
version of it) is not a viable and solid solution to a portion
of UFO events, only that good data coming out of these fields
_may_ provide a better explanation.

Having said this, it is not my intent to try to paint any of
these fields as being perfect. There is a lot wrong with them.
Psychology, to take an example, may see big changes if the
work of individuals such as Stan Groff has merit. A truly
excellent book for anyone who wants to get a start on
discovering what is wrong with psychology is 'The Dilema
of Psychology: A  Psychologist Looks at his Troubled
Profession' by Lawrence LeShan (1990 E. P. Dutton).

>The irony in all this is that the validity of postmodernist
>philosphy itself can be questioned on the same grounds, i.e.,
>hung from its own petards. I'd like to think in the last few
>thousand years that even with our own obvious mental limitations
>and human deficiencies of character we have actually learned a
>few truths, such as the Earth isn't flat and resting on the back
>of a giant turtle. Isn't our present views of cosmology and
>physics a bit more valid than that? The very fact that humans
>have not gone extinct instead of becoming food for saber-tooth
>tigers is some sort of testament to the accuracy of our
>perceptual apparatus.

I concur with most of this! I think science has discovered some
truth about the actuality that we exist in. However, I wouldn't
say our perceptual apparatus is accurate because it most
certainly isn't and the reality it presents to us doesn't even
come close to the actuality that is 'out there.'

To quote from the back cover of a book by M. D. Vernon named
'The Psycholgy of Perception':

" ... behind the retina of the eye, many more fallible mental
processes cause errors and inconsistencies to creep into our
perceptions ... perceptions of shape, colour, movement and space
develop gradually from infancy upward ... over thirty years of
research at Cambridge and elsewhere (my copy of this book was
printed in 1975), shows how the perceptions of different people
are not always alike: they vary with attention, interest and
individual personality factors ..."

What needs to be grasped is that this doesn't even begin to
describe the amount of distortion that occurs during our
perception process. This distortion occurs at several levels or
points during the process. The picture of reality that we get
doesn't even begin to approximate the actuality that is out
there.

First, the senses don't detect most of what exists. When was the
last time any of us directly viewed infrared or ultra-violet
light or heard sub or supersonic sound, or sat out at night
watching the cosmic rays striking. Our senses detect only a very
narrow range of frequencies and are absolutely clueless to most
of what is out there. We miss most of the picture so how is that
accurate?

Second, what we do pick up by the senses is severely filtered.
We would be overwhelmed if all the data that is presented to us
on a steady basis was made conscious to us. Accuracy of the
picture of what is truly out there has just been again
significantly diminished.

Third, what does get detected and does get through is impossible
for our brains to present to us accurately as a three
dimensional image, simply because that actuality is not three
dimensional. Modern physics tells us that all matter is composed
of molecules, that molecules consist of atoms, that atoms are
built out of subatomic particles, and that subatomic particles
are simply energy. Energy that is formless, odorless, colorless,
not solid, possesses no temperature! Current research indicates
that each of these so-called particles may be holographic,
existing as a field ubiquitously everywhere. So much for an
accurate image of that saber-tooth tiger.

It seems a much better description of what is actually out there
is information code.

Fourth, the information that reaches our brains from our senses
is - all of it - interpreted by our brains and our brains do
this based on what it has experienced in the past.

The picture it creates for us of what is out there cannot
possibly be, and never is, accurate. This is an incontrovertible
fact that is derived from discovered truth based on solid
research in several scientific fields (including physics,
biology, and psychology).

Our senses and brain and our perception process evolved to allow
us to survive in the material world. These provide a picture of
reality that is functional, not accurate. The picture created by
our brains is a functional one - allows us to function within
the world of matter - but it is not an accurate one. Functional
is not the same as accurate! The brain can create a picture of
what is out there that only needs to be functional for us to
survive in the world of matter; it is not necessary that it
create an accurate one to achieve this result. This is exactly
what it does! It is a fallacy to think that our perception
process has to produce accurate representations of the existing
actuality for us to survive in the material range of
frequencies.

>Ray doesn't strike me as a bad guy and often posts interesting
>ideas, but he really needs to come off it a bit and not take his
>own philosophical underpinnings too seriously. _Good_ scientists
>have a certain degree of humility, realizing the limitations of
>their own knowledge and theories and realize there may always be
>a need for modification should the evidence justify it. No need
>to accuse them of all being fools and all theories totally
>invalid.

Ray certainly does post interesting ideas at times. In fact, the
whole point that he was trying to make in his posts that
eventually got lost in a discussion of the physiology of the eye
was a valid one and I completely agree with him. He was stating
that the human perception process is mostly psychological (a
truth) and that our senses and brain produce inaccurate
representations of what is out there (another truth). He was
also stating that there may be a type or form of intelligence
out there that our perception process may not be suited to
communication with. This may be the most significant truth of
all!


Eugene Frison




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com