UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 19

Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:48:23 -0500
Archived: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:26:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:30:42 -0400
>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:01:17 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

>>Contributors to and readers of this thread might like to
>>consider the following points:


>>I would draw particular attention to the concept of 'nuisance'
>>in all of this. When issues of mental illness are raised in
>>connection with highly unusual experiences, it is always worth
>>standing back from the bare facts of the experience and pausing
>>to consider this factor and the ways it which can affect what is
>>reported, how (or whether) it is reported, and resultant responses.

Sound and excellent advice, Gerald!

>Just to add more grist to the mill, it should also be understood
>that Mental Illness in the medical community is defined by the



>"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth
>Edition (DSM-IV)


>The DSM IV is published by the American Psychiatric Association.
>Much of the information from the Psychiatric Disorders pages is
>summarized from the pages of this text. Should any questions
>arise concerning incongruencies or inaccurate information, you
>should always default to the DSM as the ultimate guide to mental


Yes, the existence and the application of the DSM IV manual
within the community of mental health professionals is a very
important point.

Despite this being the bible of professionals in the mental
health community, as you so accurately point out, the
experiments that Ray referred to clearly indicate the existence
of some very serious problems. If all the professionals are
using their bibles and they are each interpreting and applying
all the data properly and consistently then we should not be
seeing the results that the experiments referred to by Ray have

The fact that there is such a thing as the DSM IV that is the
ultimate guide to mental disorders available to all the
professionals yet we still have the results of those experiments
shows that the process is breaking down with the psychologists
and psychiatrists themselves.

It all boils down to subjective interpretation in the end and
this occurs behind the eyes and within the craniums of the
psychologists and psychiatrists, not within the pages of the DSM
IV manual.

Nothing in the above should be construed as my accepting the
contents of the DSM IV manual as completely accurate because
I certainly don't.

>But as pointed out by others, the entire
>field of Psychology is built on a foundation of theories that
>often evolve from the bottom up, making the field highly suspect
>in many ways.

Maybe. Maybe not. Most likely you are partly accurate.

The experimental psychologists (and there have been lots of them
who were quite competent and who both understood proper
scientific methodology and applied same) have devised and
conducted many outstanding experiments and conducted much
excellent research. A lot of their data has come from
reproducible experimentation and results are often confirmed by
more than one completely different type of experiment - each of
which were designed to test something from different angles.

Psychology is much more than dealing with and treating mental
illness. Psychology is the science of human behaviour, not just
the science of mental illness and how to cure it. If you limit
psychology to the area of mental illness then you miss the big
picture quite entirely. Psychology is the science of the mind
and its mental and emotional processes; it is the science of
human (and animal) behaviour that studys actions, traits,
attitudes, thoughts, and mental states. Dealing with mental
illness, that is, diagnosing and treating mental illness, is
only one aspect of psychology.

That the aspect of psychology which deals with mental illness is
fraught with problems and full of highly suspect teaching is
undeniable. I have been saying this right from the beginning.

One only needs to look at Freud's dream and sex theories, and
his ideas regarding women, to be utterly convinced of this. Even
Jung, though certainly much more 'on the ball' than Freud ever
was, was probably inventing his own underworld and perhaps
inventing the archetypes as well (though it is possible they are
real). The problem with Jung is that he had accepted Freud's
version of the unconscious and merely seen himself as exploring
it even deeper. The archetypes may be real but it is how Jung
came to decide this that makes some of his concepts dubious and

In Janet's psychology (before Freud) the view of the human
psyche was simple; its hidden aspects were merely subconcious as
opposed to unconscious (there is a huge difference). Freud
viewed the hidden aspects of man as deep, dark, negative and
turbulent and man's objective consciousness was essentially
powerless against it. Jung, a romatic, accepted Freud's deep
underworld concept but, extremely interested in religion and the
early church fathers, could not accept that man's experience of
God was nothing more than disquised sexual impulse and he also
believed that the forces in the unconsciousness were not as
dangerous as espoused by Freud. He had to invent a deeper level
of the unconscious to reconcile this, replete with the
archetypes. However, the essential point here is that, although
Jung's version of the unconsciousness is a more positive one and
provides man with access to greater power, it was still power
controlled by the unconscious. Hudson had known that the
objective mind (not the subjective mind) is the part of man in
control and is not passive as both Freud and Jung believed. The
experience of hypnosis shows Hudson right and both Freud and
Jung wrong.

Don't begin to even get me started on the problems with

So, in Freud's dubious and pessimistic theories on a negative
unconscious which the objective mind of man has no control over
and which causes neurosis due to unconscious sexual repression,
and Jung's probably invented collective unconsciousness with its
archetypes as the basis for a perhaps equally dubious set of
theories, we see two examples of conflicting psychological
systems. And it doesn't end with these two.

This takes us back to my point. There are so many systems within
psychology. Lots of conflicting views. With new systems in the
making, such as that of transcendental psychology as being
developed by researchers like Stan Groff. Considering this
alone, it is small wonder that the experiments referred to by
Ray produced the results they did. Add to that a flawed human
perception process and faulty reasoning and things are exactly
as expected.

But to use this to throw out the whole field of psychology is
sheer folly. The experimentalists in the field have done lots of
great work and produced much valuable data. That the flawed
human beings trying to apply it (especially in the field of
mental illness) can't get it together, and these same flawed
human beings put too much stock in certain ideas in psychology
that haven't yet been proven, is not reason in any way, shape,
or form to throw out everything that has been gained through the
application of good science in this field. But that is what is
being attemped by several people on this list.

Regardless of what value is or isn't present in the field of
psychology, the fields of parapsychology and parasociology are
much, much harder to dismiss. As are their findings. But you
will still find much in the psychologies of older _quality_
researchers like F. W. H. Meyers and E. Gurney that may be of
extreme relevance to the solution of the UFO enigma. And,
whether certain researchers within the UFO community recognize
it or not and accept it or not, traditional psychology has a
huge contribution to make to UFO research. At least where UFO
research isn't pseudoscience!

Eugene Frison

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



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