From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:23 -0400 Archived: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:40:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:13:19 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:42:03 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified ><snip> >>In the absence of confirmatory evidence, the use of the word >>'confabulation' is equivalent to the use of the word >>'pareidolia'. The experiencer is said to be confabulating when >>he/she describes something too odd to accept. >>I suggest that, like 'pareidolia', 'confabulation' is not an >>explanation, but a succinct expression of ignorance of the >>facts. >I'm not sure you properly comprehended my reply so let me try >again. >Several abduction researchers have spoken out that parts of the >abduction narratives are fantasy. Jacobs gave an example of >abductees who claim the aliens do something to them to cause >their faces to appear blurry, to prevent the abductee from >seeing their faces. The abductee usually responds this is done >to lesson their fear. >Jacobs believes this is confabulation, a fantasy the abductee >has invented and added to the narrative. Jacobs argues the >aliens have shown their faces to the abductees many times before >so it makes no sense to all-of-a-sudden begin to mask their >faces. This would be one example of confabulation. Confabulation >can be simple and it can also be complex or intricate in detail. >Part of the abduction researchers' job is to separate >confabulation from the "real experience". However, new abduction >researchers may not be aware of this. This is why we simply >cannot take everything abductees claim at face value. From the description given, I understand that Jacobs tried to explain away what the abductee said as an invention, i.e., confabulation, simply because it did not fit the narrative he preferred or expected. But there may have been a good reason for that deviation. Perhaps the abductee was particularly fearful during this particular experience, and the ET thought hiding the face would help allay the fear. Or, this was the first encounter with this particular ET individual, and he was simply following ET procedure for first encounters. In either case, the report that the faces were hidden would have been true. My point was that, without 'ground truth' data, labeling a part of the abductee's experience as confabulation requires a subjective judgement that may not be correct. The label should not be used to dismiss the experience as reported. Otherwise, the researcher would be adding his/her own perspective, i.e., making things up. I suggest that, unless a person is prone to serious mental aberrations or known to be lying, his/her claims about what happened during an alien abduction experience should actually be taken at face value. But the claims should not be judged as true or false until there is a better understanding of the phenomenon. Abductee claims in common should lead to only interim conclusions about the how and why of what's happening. This is because alien intelligences seem to be involved and, by definition, are unpredictable from a human perspective. An abductee's claim that is unsupported because it is truly a confabulation should fall away over time without being so labeled. William 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp