Re: the psychic web
Lotta nunneries being mentioned here 
1 Like
Interesting, yes. It could be attributted to the psychic web, indeed.
Although “hysteria” is a term that has long been removed from psychological works, what is important are the observable symptoms and their mechanisms. With “mass hysteria” something similar happened, so when I studied mirror neurons and how important they have been evolutionarily for humans, it occurred to me that they could play a role in those collective episodes, but I was never interested in looking for information on the subject.
Now I see that this connection has been proposed/investigated: The mirror neuron system may play a role in the pathogenesis of mass hysteria - PubMed.
1 Like
Just finished reading this book: The Trickster and the Paranormal
Lots of food for thought there. The author is a parapsychological theorist who proposes that paranormal phenomenon are difficult to study because they are liminal phenomena that work against binary logic, institutions, subject/object divisions. Furthermore there is a lot of deception and fraud in the field which he thinks is part and parcel of these phenomenon, rather than something that just invalidates it - hence the title.
@henryyyyyyyyyy I can’t remember if I read it here specifically but there is this idea that nunneries and monasteries have a higher incidence of weird happenings eg: poltergeist phenomena, stigmata, miracles, marian apparitions etc. These orders tend to concentrate societies fringe dwellers and there may be a tolerance for esoteric mysticism and the like there. So yes, the psychic web force is strong in these nunneries perhaps!
Something I didn’t realise earlier is that weird phenomenon tend to cluster e.g. the UFO abductee who also experiences NDE’s, has experienced poltergeist phenomena, telepathy and synchronicities. There is even a term for it - high strangeness.This is also supportive of Richard’s psychic web as a parsimonious model to explain all sorts of crazy goings on.
On the other hand my personal feeling is that the AFT account of the cosmos outlined by Richard provides us with a starting off point to make sense of reality and consciousness rather than a final destination. The possibilities are quite exciting.
2 Likes
What is your take, Srinath, does the Trickster finally cease to operate upon actual freedom?
I read the book based on your recent interest in these matters as well as your positive review and recommendation. Like you, I found it interesting with plenty of food for thought. It’s weird, brilliant, pathetic, factual, and bogus all at the same time. I expect the author – who admits to appropriating the deceptive and anti-structural nature of the Trickster archetype he’s exploring – views his own book in the same way.
I did see a potentially critical flaw to his thesis (you tell me if it’s off-the-mark).
Throughout his book, he presents a well-researched scholarly case, steeped in academic milieu, for the existence of an immortal, cross-societal, invisible, formless, male-gendered, mythological, demigod-type entity, “The Trickster,” who exists “betwixt and between’’ objects and worlds (the liminal realm). The Trickster, as he describes it, revels in personifying itself in instances – or rather each and every instance – of disruption, deception, chaos, boundary-blurring, uninhibited sexuality, and paranormal powers/events. Anything from hoaxes, fantasy, mysticism, psi, witches, and werewolves (for example) are all the handi-work and arena of this mischievous mythological archetype.
He proceeds to rely on the Trickster to explain all manner of human behavior and unexplainable events in general.
Additionally, he fully accepts the existence of psi phenomena like ESP and psychokinesis based, at least in part, on what he designates as “overwhelming evidence” derived from a long history of repeatable (although not necessarily reproducible, for some very interesting reasons) carefully controlled-lab experiments. However, the impression is that he co-opts the lab-derived results from one paranormal category (psi) to give credence and plausibility of existence to every other paranormal activity – poltergeists, witchcraft, reincarnation, and, of course, his Trickster.
Lastly, what I found extraordinarily convenient about this paranormal and omnipresent Trickster figure is that whenever the parapsychologist goes out to follow up on reports of UFO abductees, only to once-again discover the bullshit of absolute crack-pots and hoaxers, he can still manage to salvage something from what would otherwise be a complete waste of time; he isn’t forced to leave empty-handed. In every circumstance, he can fall back on the supernatural Trickster mythos. He shoe-horns “him” into what “the establishment minions” (his words) would simply dismiss as either mundane bullshit or the paranoid attention-seeking tendencies of lonesome outcasts suffering mood/personality disorders. In this way, for him, it’s a win-win. When he responds to the next Big Foot sighting, he will either validate the existence of Big Foot (which he acknowledges would be unlikely) or he will interpret the deceptive/ delusory features of the whole thing as validation for the existence of the Trickster. One way or the other, something paranormal happened here, dammit!
All that said, I found his elucidation of the (arbitrary and flexible) nature of boundaries, categories, classifications, distinctions, identities, relations, and consciousness just fantastic.
I only wish he could have applied his exemplary scientific mindset (he is brilliant) to his own personal “Big Foot” (aka the Trickster). Then again, he may think, what would be the point, since the Trickster himself would make such endeavor impossible.
1 Like
I’ve danced with some similar narratives in conversation before, and my experience was that they were ready to undermine any categorization, narrative, fact, argument, or experience… except, of course, their own!
In the land of imagination, anything goes. The giveaway is that they still want to be ‘right’ 
1 Like
Blind spots are a bitch.
1 Like
@rick Nice critique, and I do agree with much of what you have written. The anti-structural, trickster thing being invoked time and time again does get a bit tiresome towards the end. But I guess the book has mostly one big idea and lots of entertaining examples for it.
Re: the trickster, he’s talking not so much of an entity as an archetype, i.e. something more abstract that can be personified, but doesn’t necessarily have to be. He says … “Carl Jung’s idea of archetypes is also helpful in understanding the trickster. The term archetype is often confusing, and there has been much debate over its definition. For purposes of this volume, “archetype” means only a pattern that can manifest at multiple levels. No more is implied, and nothing paranormal is necessarily required to explain it. Hansen, George P… The Trickster and the Paranormal (p. 22). Xlibris US. Kindle Edition.”
That might well raise more questions than it answers and its a problem with the idea of archetypes in general. But the idea of the trickster then becomes something more abstract - a pattern, that mysteriously constellates and which may or may not be personified.
I see the book as a grab bag of interesting accounts and ideas. Not sure what I quite make of it yet. Definitely entertaining and fascinating. All models are useful and all models are wrong - as someone once said!
2 Likes
Interesting.
The basis for my critique did miss the mark in an important way, then. The countless references I observed Hansen make to mystical (largely historical and mythological) Trickster “characters,” “deities,” and “beings,” along with his allusions to them “residing in” and “governing” liminal (medial, undefined, invisible) realms while engaging in supernatural/paranormal activity left me with the prevailing (apparently inaccurate) notion of a separate, distinct-from-human supernatural entity (a term he doesn’t use) that, like deities/demons/spirits in African religions (for example), possess or inhabit people or otherwise interfere with human affairs.
I gave less thought/weight to his references to archetypes no doubt because I had a less-than-adequate understanding of what those were. After reading your clarification along with a few internet sources I gather they are akin to “personality types,” would you agree? I see connections to antiquated pre-defined personality types in Western and Eastern zodiac signs (Pisces, Gemini, The Rabbit, The Ox), as well as contemporary Myers-Briggs personalities (The Giver, The Counselor, etc). For Jung I found twelve archetypes (basic personalities?) such as The Hero, The Sage, The Lover, etc.
I now consider Hansen’s book, with its incorporation of the author’s specialized knowledge and background as a parapsychologist, to be a formal submission for the inclusion of a 13th type of personality (The Trickster) into Jung’s archetype paradigm.
Something along those lines.
Jung hopped onto my reading list a few months ago, it’s high time for me to get acquainted with him.
1 Like
Hey Rick, your confusion re: archetypes is entirely expected as it is built into the very idea which is a bit vague and difficult to define. Even Jungian scholars can’t agree on exactly what they are, whether they actually exist and what part of the theory is correct.
Wikipedia has a reasonably good article, which I actually created back in the day when I was into Jung, but its morphed a fair bit since: Jungian archetypes - Wikipedia
Basically the sorts of things that most people think of as archetypes e.g. trickster, mother, the flood are more correctly called archetypal images, with the archetypes-as-such more properly considered a kind of matrix or scaffolding of pure form from which these images emerge. A lot of Jung has been taken up by the New Age or appropriated into pop psychology - personality types, MBTI, Zodiac etc. are examples. I wouldn’t call those Jungian archetypes really.
“… that the archetype-as-such might perhaps be compared to the axial system of a crystal, which … determines only the stereometric but not the concrete form of the crystal … [Amongst different crystals of the same substance] the only thing that remains constant is the axial system, or rather, the invariable geometric proportions underlying it. The same is true of the archetype. In principle it can be named and has an invariable nucleus of meaning - but always only in principle, never as regards its concrete manifestation or image.”
2 Likes
I think of Jungian archetypes as having ‘psychic existence’ (i.e. not-actual existence) in the human psyche. They sort of live ‘in the human (collective) psyche’ and as a human we can be influenced by them (and humanity can generate more archetypes)… and they thus form part of the psychic network/psychic web. Some being older/more powerful than others…
1 Like
I connect with archetypes as the narrative/image-based outcomes of emotional dynamics
For example, in certain intense emotional states I find myself ‘emodying’ the image of the devil himself… the archetype arises from the instinctual passion entering the narrative-based human awareness/consciousness/communication
1 Like
@Srinath This archetype-business is weirder and more complex than I initially thought. Fits well with the main topic.
I have been trying to wrap my mind around the concepts in the Wikipedia article you sent. I would like to run an analogy by you which I formulated to assist me in understanding the basic framework of the concept. Please give a more suitable analogy if you find the following faulty.
Would the archetype-as-such vs archetype image be analogous to movie genre vs genre type in that the movie genre, e.g., comedy, drama, horror, etc (which incidentally describe human emotional patterns) provides the basic model/framework upon which a genre type will emerge? For example, from the horror genre you may get ghost movies, monster movies, zombie movies, etc., and in the action/adventure genre there emerges disaster movies, superhero movies, heist movies, etc.
Or, and still using the film industry, would archetype-as-such be analogous to movie studios like Universal, Disney, or Paramount, i.e., the operation-systems behind the scene, that produce/give form to movies whose plot patterns can be distinguished and categorized into distinct genres (archetype images), e.g., comedies, dramas, horror, etc.?
Proceeding deeper with the analogy, could the collective unconscious be akin to the film industry as a whole, i.e., the behind-the-scenes interconnected substratum out of which Hollywood, Bollywood, Cantonwood, all major and minor movie studios, all genres, sub-genres, and individual movies arise from?
I began reading Jung yesterday, so hopefully these concepts will be better understood by hearing them direct from the horse’s mouth. There have been too many instances in recent memory where I suspected that my ability to comprehend the contributions of contemporary thinkers on matters of consciousness was handicapped because of my failure to comprehend Jung. Which is unfortunate because what I understand to be his central theme, the collective unconscious, sparks little interest in me at this time. Furthermore, I suspect Richard may have either adopted or been influenced by some of Jung’s central ideas, models, and modes of communication on matters of consciousness (to a certain degree), so there’s yet another reason for delving in. Fortunately, I am finding Jung to be a great writer, and I am enjoying following his lucid and organized thought processes, even as I wince at what appear to me to be dubious universal postulates. I find myself often thinking, “Speak for yourself on that one, buddy,” which was similar to my reaction when reading some of Freud’s ideas. Nevertheless I approach him with an open mind, always on the lookout for astute insights.
So to better follow the progression of Jung’s ideas I have begun with the earliest book of his that I could find, Psychology of the Unconscious. I’m sure I’d be better equipped if before approaching Jung I were to first undertake studying in depth his predecessors and influences (Freud, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, to name a few) so as get a better grasp of what he’s on about and what led him there, but then the rabbit hole would never end.
@rick really like your film metaphors and I agree with your take. If you DM me your email ID I can send you some contemporary analytical psychology papers on archetypes.
I’m not sure if I really believe in the existence of archetypes - even in the psyche. But I do like it as a rough and fuzzy starting off point which says something about the psyche or even the universe: something about patterns that transcend individual human consciousnesses and affective worlds. Perhaps even something about the actual universe which is not simply dead matter, but a magical soup which begets form and life in a way that isn’t purely mechanistic. Psyche has a funny way of distorting and transposing the actual
4 Likes
Thank you for your feedback, Srinath. Yes, I am very interested in looking at those psychology papers. I am sending you my email address.
Re: the idea you just put forward that the way things happen in the actual universe may not be purely “mechanistic,” i.e., “determined by physical processes alone,” is interesting in of itself, and is something I have also given thought towards. I have seen intriguing proposals that all phenomena and their causes are neither fundamentally mechanical, or even energetic, but instead informational. As you know, others adopt or develop spiritual models, chemical models, psychic models, molecular models, electrical models, etc. Whatever the case, and to regress myself to that of a simpleton for the sake of sanity, I am convinced and satisfied that there are definitely things happening, and they are happening in one way or another.
Hey Rick. I guess by ‘not purely mechanistic’, I was thinking about a universe that is more than just dead brute matter organising itself through random processes. So an order or even a kind of intentionality that operates through physical processes - rather than anything outside of that.
But fair enough, it is tricky to theorise how the deep structure of the universe may be alive and more than merely intelligent in a rigorous way using conventional scientific or metaphysical models. I’ve only recently heard about informational physics. Will need to read up about it.
1 Like
It is definitely interesting, isn’t it, that the universe arranges itself into life in the first place? There would seem to be nothing inherent in how the universe “should” be that causes life to arise. And yet it does! And part of the experience of pure intent definitely is that existence is inherently pleasing and that the “direction to go in” is in the direction of existing (ie as a flesh and blood body).
It is quite delightful really …
1 Like
@claudiu or perhaps one can turn what you have said on its head. It would be stranger still if an alive and intentional universe that is infinite did not give rise to life. And no doubt it can give rise to forms that we can barely conceive.
Coming back to archetypes, I’ve been talking with Rick by email. One of the papers I shared with him talks about a potential physical and biological theory of archetypes which I find interesting. Basically its about self-organising, emergent phenomena in physical systems including natural ones. They use Bernard Convection, Taylor-Couette Flow and Segmentation in embryo’s as examples of complex and unforeseen patterns arising out of simple dynamic material systems. Emergentism basically. Arguably archetypes in the affective system that is the psyche would work the same way. They could represent a principle at work that is not necessarily restricted to psychic phenomena, but is extant in the universe at large as potential which could manifest in the consciousnesses of actually free persons too. How it would and could manifest is another issues. What would be ‘archetypal’ about pure consciousness? Potentially archetypal attitudes to society and the universe purged of the mythic, numinous, imagistic and affective quality and is as such a more refined expression of the universe as man/woman. Actual caring could be one such thing.
Haha no doubt, I’ve lost many of you there. It’s all fun speculation.
Paper here for anyone interested in reading: Dropbox - JOAP.1..pdf - Simplify your life
3 Likes
I personally maintain the opinion that life had no beginning. It’s a property of the universe.
It can evolve, adapt, travel around the universe.
The other opinion I think to be true is that “information”, like energy, is neither created or destroyed.
Those two things make all sorts of speculation redundant.
For example, and most obvious, the “mystery” of life’s origin.
No origin, always was. Always will be. No mystery.
The idea of life after death / before birth, is both true but has no permanent personal identity.
That is, my genetic / life information has no beginning, and has no end. Including the information of whatever has happened psychically. It’s not a person though.
‘i’ exist only in certain circumstances, in a particular way, temporarily.
I have always been and always will be.
But ‘i’ is not I. Neither is I the Universe. I am life. Unfolding and recombining, adapting and advancing, retreating and regrouping.
Using “I” in this context misses the point.
life. Small “L”. life is what is going on, as a human, here, in this body. life which has no beginning, no end, and like anything else in the universe, never lacks the information as to what it’s state is, it’s state changes, but never randomly or chaotically.
To say it is cause and effect is to dimish what i mean by “information”. Im talking about an “infinitude”, a beyond comprehension, matrix of simultaneously effects, alive and exitant perfectly.
1 Like
Could that be a case of “folie a deux”, perhaps ?