David Mathisen is changing the way we think about Hercules |337|

[Tarquin Rees]

I appreciate the sentiment Typoz and yes, I'm pretty much done here. Just in case anyone should think I've flounced or am offended in any way, here's the reason why I believe my continuing contribution is a waste of everyone's time. Nelson's schtick is just the latest attack on seriousness about the subjects Skeptiko purports to deal in. The way to deal with nonsense, whether it be lifestyle skepticism or Nelson's war-game secularism is to challenge it with facts. If the Skeptiko project wants to be taken seriously on issues like psi and NDEs, it can't favour easily refutable nuthatch theories simply because "they're fun". They may improve footfall on the forum, and are much more user friendly than a Dean Radin statistical meta-analysis, but you can't run with the dogs and the fox. Either it's an informed discussion about the gaps in the standard model, or it's a discussion of general esoterica on a wrung what you brung basis.

I have no problem with the latter if we can confront the assumptions head on, but I resent being upbraided for calling BS on a spade full of it. The current Skeptiko world view goes: belief cool, religion uncool. If there has to be religion, make in eastern. If Jesus shows up in an NDE, make it Christ consciousness, a tulpa spook of general niceness. Meanwhile bring on the Age of Aquarius. I resent being framed as a low rent evangelist for challenging fluff and novelty with a different perspective. Perhaps if I'd used a topless chick on a Harley or an Alan Moore character as an avatar I wouldn't come across so square. I certainly never signed up to discuss religion and I'm damned if I'm being painted as the forum spoil sport. Skeptiko has and does deal with some pressing subjects and there must be room for fun, it can't all be cutting edge philosophy and science, but I don't believe I'm imagining a trend to bargain basement theories and Reddit style discussions. So I'll certainly look in now and again, but I'm convinced this place doesn't need my voice.

Unlike materialists, I believe science is a method not a lifestyle. If someone's protocols are sound they can believe the moon is made of green cheese, and their research can advance human understanding so long as their convictions don't dirty the test tube. The forum is paying lip service to that ideal by displacing its prejudices elsewhere.

I don't agree with your views but why leave? It's not a competition... you're needed for the symphony and you're playing an important role. Why would you duck out on that? People are going to slag you off whatever you do in life. You still have your being and beliefs... no-one can take that.

Why not stay and be yourself?

You don't actually need to engage with anyone or even read posts you know will be negative. One positive person is good enough... and you may be that inspiration for someone else. If you're not there to put your view - even if it is just one view being shouted down by a million opponents - then that person who needs to hear it might miss out.

 

[Far.From.Here]

I appreciate the sentiment Typoz and yes, I'm pretty much done here. Just in case anyone should think I've flounced or am offended in any way, here's the reason why I believe my continuing contribution is a waste of everyone's time. Nelson's schtick is just the latest attack on seriousness about the subjects Skeptiko purports to deal in. The way to deal with nonsense, whether it be lifestyle skepticism or Nelson's war-game secularism is to challenge it with facts. If the Skeptiko project wants to be taken seriously on issues like psi and NDEs, it can't favour easily refutable nuthatch theories simply because "they're fun". They may improve footfall on the forum, and are much more user friendly than a Dean Radin statistical meta-analysis, but you can't run with the dogs and the fox. Either it's an informed discussion about the gaps in the standard model, or it's a discussion of general esoterica on a wrung what you brung basis.

I have no problem with the latter if we can confront the assumptions head on, but I resent being upbraided for calling BS on a spade full of it. The current Skeptiko world view goes: belief cool, religion uncool. If there has to be religion, make in eastern. If Jesus shows up in an NDE, make it Christ consciousness, a tulpa spook of general niceness. Meanwhile bring on the Age of Aquarius. I resent being framed as a low rent evangelist for challenging fluff and novelty with a different perspective. Perhaps if I'd used a topless chick on a Harley or an Alan Moore character as an avatar I wouldn't come across so square. I certainly never signed up to discuss religion and I'm damned if I'm being painted as the forum spoil sport. Skeptiko has and does deal with some pressing subjects and there must be room for fun, it can't all be cutting edge philosophy and science, but I don't believe I'm imagining a trend to bargain basement theories and Reddit style discussions. So I'll certainly look in now and again, but I'm convinced this place doesn't need my voice.

Unlike materialists, I believe science is a method not a lifestyle. If someone's protocols are sound they can believe the moon is made of green cheese, and their research can advance human understanding so long as their convictions don't dirty the test tube. The forum is paying lip service to that ideal by displacing its prejudices elsewhere.

I agree with much of what you say, but I think you are missing the idea that this isn't a science podcast. For better or for worse Alex has "followed the data" into some odd places. I've just read Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal and I do believe the direction of the forum has somewhat developed due to the same ideas presented by Hansen. There is something about the outer edge of "reality" that most nearly resembles a fun house mirror. To a large extent the material here no longer interests me and I no longer listen to the podcasts. I feel like a ghost here, rattling down the same hallways night after night, occasionally mustering enough energy to poke someone in the ribs. Yours is a valuable voice that was missed during your long hiatus, but I completely understand your impulse to dedicate less energy to this space. Peace.

 

[gabriel]

I agree with much of what you say, but I think you are missing the idea that this isn't a science podcast. For better or for worse Alex has "followed the data" into some odd places. I've just read Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal and I do believe the direction of the forum has somewhat developed due to the same ideas presented by Hansen. There is something about the outer edge of "reality" that most nearly resembles a fun house mirror. To a large extent the material here no longer interests me and I no longer listen to the podcasts. I feel like a ghost here, rattling down the same hallways night after night, occasionally mustering enough energy to poke someone in the ribs. Yours is a valuable voice that was missed during your long hiatus, but I completely understand your impulse to dedicate less energy to this space. Peace.

I don't buy into the Trickster stuff for the same reason I don't accept the skeptic criticism that says, "why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world". Both lack parsimony and are unfalsifiable. That said, I'm happy to debate the idea or indeed any other in a sincere spirit of enquiry. What I don't want to do is trade my bullshit with someone else's, unless both parties know we're extrapolating way beyond the data and each agree to play nice. That was always the case, the board consisted of guys who'd been round the block, came to similar conclusions that weird shit does indeed happen, and sketched in the consequences however they saw fit.

What's changed is now anything goes, and the further the better. I'm cool with that, it isn't my forum, I certainly don't want to run it but I'm no longer interested in being Banquo's ghost, moaning and rattling my chains. The anti-Christian sentiments are just a foil for the bigger picture, and have coincided with a general trade off from philosophy, science and a general respect for established thought, into any riffs so long as they offer novelty. I don't think that's a fair swap for better ideas just because they might be boring to someone unversed in their foundations.

 

[Tarquin Rees]

For better or for worse Alex has "followed the data" into some odd places. I've just read Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal and I do believe the direction of the forum has somewhat developed due to the same ideas presented by Hansen. There is something about the outer edge of "reality" that most nearly resembles a fun house mirror.

It's not "for better or for worse" - it's just 'following the data'. Either he is or he isn't. Either you want to join him on the journey (if he is following it) or you don't? The nature of the data in some sense is irrelevant.

 

[Typoz]

It's not "for better or for worse" - it's just 'following the data'. Either he is or he isn't. Either you want to join him on the journey (if he is following it) or you don't? The nature of the data in some sense is irrelevant.

We are all on our own journeys. Sometimes paths may cross and people walk side by side for a while. But we must each be true to our own journey, not tag simply along with someone else's path, when that would be to sacrifice one's integrity - for what?

 

[Tarquin Rees]

We are all on our own journeys. Sometimes paths may cross and people walk side by side for a while. But we must each be true to our own journey, not tag simply along with someone else's path, when that would be to sacrifice one's integrity - for what?

How much integrity can there be though if one is not 'following the data'? I know we're all supposed to be post-Truth now but that doesn't mean that such a thing as a fact does not exist. What you believe after you accept the facts is up to you maybe but if we're talking about making up our own Truth I think that's part of the problem we're skirting around in the discussion.

 

[Far.From.Here]

I don't buy into the Trickster stuff for the same reason I don't accept the skeptic criticism that says, "why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world". Both lack parsimony and are unfalsifiable. That said, I'm happy to debate the idea or indeed any other in a sincere spirit of enquiry. What I don't want to do is trade my bullshit with someone else's, unless both parties know we're extrapolating way beyond the data and each agree to play nice. That was always the case, the board consisted of guys who'd been round the block, came to similar conclusions that weird shit does indeed happen, and sketched in the consequences however they saw fit.

What's changed is now anything goes, and the further the better. I'm cool with that, it isn't my forum, I certainly don't want to run it but I'm no longer interested in being Banquo's ghost, moaning and rattling my chains. The anti-Christian sentiments are just a foil for the bigger picture, and have coincided with a general trade off from philosophy, science and a general respect for established thought, into any riffs so long as they offer novelty. I don't think that's a fair swap for better ideas just because they might be boring to someone unversed in their foundations.

Well, if we are honest, the forum has always been rife with members who cling to very staunch belief systems on all sides of the circle.

 

[Far.From.Here]

How much integrity can there be though if one is not 'following the data'? I know we're all supposed to be post-Truth now but that doesn't mean that such a thing as a fact does not exist. What you believe after you accept the facts is up to you maybe but if we're talking about making up our own Truth I think that's part of the problem we're skirting around in the discussion.

What kind of "facts" are there as related to UFOS?

 

[Typoz]

How much integrity can there be though if one is not 'following the data'?

There is a universe full of data - we may each choose which data interests us. To follow something because it interests someone else but not ourself could be considered folly.

 

[Tarquin Rees]

What kind of "facts" are there as related to UFOS?

There are facts about everything. The question is more whether you want to pare back any bias/belief you might have to look at the baseline.

• Person X claimed to see Y on date Z
• Person X described an experience in the following manner....
• Person Y was with Person X at the time they claimed the experience and verified/denied/contradicted/supported the account
• Etc....

 

[Tarquin Rees]

There is a universe full of data - we may each choose which data interests us. To follow something because it interests someone else but not ourself could be considered folly.

Obviously. It would also be folly to hang out on forums where one had not the remotest interest in the discussing or relating to the subject matter. I was just assuming none of us here fell into that category of folly.

 

[dwm]

Thanks again to Alex and the Skeptiko community for having me over for a conversation about my work.

While the conversation at this point has taken some turns into questions of monotheism v polytheism, the validity of religion, and the general direction of the Skeptiko forum (which as a new participant I am not really qualified to opine upon), I very much appreciate the level of discourse that I've seen and the quality of insights and challenges that have been offered in engaging with my assertions and hypotheses.

I personally grow from engaging with different perspectives and rebuttals, and it helps me very much in my personal research and analysis. I also believe that when more than one person gathers around a subject to discuss it (even if "gathering around" in a virtual space as opposed to a campfire) then something emerges which is more than what could emerge from the individual participants researching or thinking by themselves in an isolated fashion (my mythical parallel for that is the myth of Kvasir in Norse myth, which I wrote about in a post here).

While we've gotten into some speculations and opinions, I would like to return to my first couple of posts here, where (in an effort to try to more clearly explain what I am talking about, as a response to comments that were saying things like "really not sure exactly what this guy is saying") I tried to emphasize that the main "provable" or "empirical" part of my research concerns the massive amount of evidence I've found suggesting that the world's myths are built upon a detailed system of celestial metaphor. This evidence is present in the myths themselves, which contain references that match directly with specific characteristics of certain constellations. The evidence is best seen when using the system of outlining the constellations that H. A. Rey published in 1952. The evidence is reinforced by artwork stretching back to ancient times which, I allege, matches up with the same characteristics which pertain to specific constellations. There is so much evidence to support the existence of this shared system of celestial metaphor that I feel it is difficult to dispute, if examined honestly and thoroughly (cursory dismissals should look at the full extent of the evidence across many cultures). It should also be pointed out that the existence of these connections have been understood (or at least sensed) by many writers in the past, even going back to ancient times.

From there, the rest of the interpretation and ramifications are subject to debate. I personally argue that this system appears to be a sophisticated metaphor which uses the heavenly cycles to portray the interplay of an invisible realm and this visible realm: the interaction of an infinite realm and a finite realm, a spirit world and the material world, a world of "potentiality" and a world of "manifestation," or an "implicate order" and an "explicate order." I find a lot of reasons to believe that this is part of what these ancient myths are doing -- but I could be wrong.

Other ramifications that appear to flow from the first "empirical" observations include the evidence that this system is extremely ancient -- arguing that it greatly predates earliest texts of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia -- as well as the assertion that if the myths are all based on celestial metaphor then they probably were not originally intended to be understood literally. I believe that familiarity with the "language" of celestial metaphor can help us better understand what the myths are saying, if they are indeed speaking a language of celestial metaphor (as I believe the evidence strongly argues them to be). I further believe that if they are speaking a metaphorical and celestial language, then trying to filter their message through a lens that demands them to be speaking of literal, terrestrial history risks misinterpretation or even inversion of their message (I believe the "Revelation 12" video that was offered in a comment is evidence of this -- thank you for that question as I had not seen that particular video previously).

From there, we can go in many other directions, but those are some of the main aspects to what I'm trying to explore in my own research and writing.

Again, big thank you to Alex and to everyone for "having me over" to this space -- I think it is a very valuable and positive place to discuss important subjects!

_/\_

 

[Typoz]

Obviously. It would also be folly to hang out on forums where one had not the remotest interest in the discussing or relating to the subject matter. I was just assuming none of us here fell into that category of folly.

These forums cover a very wide range of topics. One can tell by skimming through some of the threads that different people are interested in different things. Collectively this can mean the forums gathering momentum in one direction or another, and as the focus shifts, naturally people will join or leave according to that focus. In turn, this can emphasise or accelerate any shift in focus. There isn't any right or wrong in this, but it does mean that some topics which were prominent disappear from centre-stage, and other topics may not even be discussed at all. Sure, anyone can start a thread, but that doesn't mean that other people will join in. But if key topics are not discussed here, then clearly one is obliged to seek elsewhere.

 

[Far.From.Here]

There are facts about everything. The question is more whether you want to pare back any bias/belief you might have to look at the baseline.

• Person X claimed to see Y on date Z
• Person X described an experience in the following manner....
• Person Y was with Person X at the time they claimed the experience and verified/denied/contradicted/supported the account
• Etc....

Right. But to take one case for example from Ryan Sprague's "Somewhere in the Skies":

(I'm quickly summarizing from memory.)

1. A woman sees an object in the sky. She calls her daughter out to look. The mother and daughter both see an object but have differing objective and subjective experiences. (The mother experiences a kind of joy, the daughter a kind of dread.) But the object is at close range and unlike anything either had seen before.
2. At some point the two daughters in the house begin encountering dark shadow like entities.
3. The mother has her own encounters inside the house.
4. There is another object in the sky at some point.

What kinds of facts are those? What do you do with them? It's endlessly fascinating of course, but isn't that part of the problem?

Then what about all the "facts" surrounding the Allagash Abductions? Now that one of the four involved has said some of it was made up or exaggerated?

What's my point? I don't know. It's almost like the double slit experiment writ large. It appears to be one thing on the surface, but when you dig in there is a kernel that just is not explainable via "facts".

 

[Far.From.Here]

I guess my point is that a lot of the subjects discussed here may seem like fringe nonsense. It's easy to dismiss UFOs or alternative 9/11 theories away with a a wave of the hand. And I have no problem with folks who do that. But the "fact" remains, that these are genuine mysteries. (Of two different types, when considering UFOs and 9/11.) The UFO subject itself is so deep that years of study can only scratch the surface. So it can be hand waved away, but when you do you are waving away a true mystery and that seems antithetical to the idea of searching for the "truth" about reality.

Even approaching the most fringe of the latest topics, Pizza-gate. I would much prefer to remain agnostic on the subject given what I do know about child sex abuse cases like the one surrounding Boy's Town. I'm not going to "believe" one way or another. But I'm not going to hand wave it away. I don't have all the facts to really make a case one way or another.

That was what kind of bugged me about Gabriel's mention of the trickster. He doesn't "buy into it." Well first of all, I wonder how much Gabriel has actually studied it. Have you read Hansen's book? I prefer not to "buy into" anything. But I also prefer not to "not buy into" anything either. It's not a popular position, not really particularly believing in anything, but I've found a comfortable home here.

 

[Tarquin Rees]

I guess my point is that a lot of the subjects discussed here may seem like fringe nonsense. It's easy to dismiss UFOs or alternative 9/11 theories away with a a wave of the hand. And I have no problem with folks who do that. But the "fact" remains, that these are genuine mysteries. (Of two different types, when considering UFOs and 9/11.) The UFO subject itself is so deep that years of study can only scratch the surface. So it can be hand waved away, but when you do you are waving away a true mystery and that seems antithetical to the idea of searching for the "truth" about reality.

Of course, the mystery of life is what makes it so wonderful. Imo. It's all stories in a way... stories we are telling ourselves using life as the canvas. There may not actually be a 'truth' in any absolute sense and may not need to be.

That was what kind of bugged me about Gabriel's mention of the trickster. He doesn't "buy into it." Well first of all, I wonder how much Gabriel has actually studied it. Have you read Hansen's book? I prefer not to "buy into" anything. But I also prefer not to "not buy into" anything either. It's not a popular position, not really particularly believing in anything, but I've found a comfortable home here.

I hear you. The 'trickster' is I think a key element in all this - and one which links disparate fields like the UFO mystery, other paranormal issues and 'enlightenment'. It is THE key theme. And it links them all.

 

[gabriel]

I'm familiar with the trickster archetype via Jung, I haven't read Hansen's book. Until about 15 years ago I was very well versed in the UFO literature and conversant with what was going on until recently, including the nuts and bolts vs interdimensional schools of thought and the conspiracies that accompanied them. More widely read on unusual phenomena and modes of enquiry than most on the board, but obviously can't compete with specialists except on NDEs, apparitions, cryptozoology, folklore and myth with an extensive and continuing collection of books and cuttings. I also try to keep up with what's going on in philosophy. However this isn't a pi55ing contest and I'll follow the data anywhere except down the rabbit hole. There does need to be hard data to pique my interest, not just supposition unless it's very well considered or wittily argued.

The "it's all one"/new age approach is a white flag in the face of difficult and often conflicting evidence, and is basically weird porn, a form of entertainment IMHO. There is nothing that links crop circles containing cyberpunk glyphs and anything I'm interested in, except sociologically, and that goes for any manifestly tin foil hat topic. Judge a subject by the company it keeps is a useful motto, and that includes the material science gatekeepers. No serious contemporary folklorist believes Proppian analysis of myth exhausts its meaning, but that's exactly the line Mathisen is taking.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Sure... it was the 'repel me' bit that occasioned my 'though'. I took it as implying that you somehow thought that the doctrinal stuff was somehow inherently bad or repugnant whereas - for me - it is merely something good that has been misunderstood. Subtle difference.

I don't know how you understand the term. I was using it in the way I understand the term and assuming we were on the same page. I see that might not be the case so here's what I understand by it: esotericism is the journey to spiritual knowledge or an attempt at it, no matter how corrupted. It is not (imo) to be applied to someone who has completed the journey and achieved the goal that esoteric enterprises claim/intend to lead to.

So, yes, I do think Gurdjieff and occult/magical groups are representatives of it in this sense. As are many other things. Whether they lead to any fruitful success is perhaps another matter.

Perhaps this is not the place for a deep dive into that. I guess with any charismatic figure there will be followers seduced by the glamour though in Shah's case it has a special flavour because he was one of very few 'teachers' (for want of a better word) who actively deflected intending pupils, often in a very rude manner. So they were left high and dry as it were and either ended up hating him irrationally or slavishly aping, setting themselves up as teachers and doing the same thing. A quick look at the IS Facebook page and its contributors should be enough to pull this into sharp focus.

Sufism - my 2c (boringly orthodox): there is a perennial wisdom tradition which stretches back to the dawn of human civilisation and which teaches the methods of reaching 'enlightenment' through the medium of enterprises constructed by 'realised people' who might be the teachers of this tradition at any given time. They are always there. Whenever it appears in history it doesn't really have a name but only a (differing) method. Usually it is a teacher and a small circle of disciples (Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad etc). After they die it either disappears or gets corrupted and ritualised into a religion or other entity. Christianity is the fossilised remnant of Jesus' group and Islam of Muhammad's (to a certain extent). Sufism is the same (imo), a fossilised version of a pervious method. When IS used the word 'Sufism' he was using it as a peg..... he meant something else: ie the current 'nameless thing' but he had to find a name for it and chose that.

If you dig into Sufism, people who think they're Sufis or any traditional order, none of them anywhere would accept Shah. And he opposed them.

Perhaps if I hadn't used the term "esotericism" but instead the term "perennial wisdom tradition", there would have been a little less talking at cross-purposes.:)

Anyway, you have an interesting take: If I understand you aright, Shah wasn't a Sufi, but a practitioner of the perennial tradition in his own particular form who chose to use Sufism as a vehicle. That's interesting and it could be so, but there are a number of things that may make one pause for thought: his relationship with Robert Graves and the brouhaha over the Rubaiyat for example, or getting Coombe springs from Bennett for nothing and subsequently selling it for a housing development (but I don't know whether he gave Bennett any money subsequently). I can also remember being shocked to find out that books ostensibly written by disinterested others -- which verified him and his claims -- are said to have been written by himself and/or his admirers under pseudonyms.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of it all. Hence my agnosticism; and it's that rather than complete rejection because a lot of what he says in his books does indeed seem to connect and to shake up one's ego: I know it's had a profound effect on me personally. Who knows, maybe he acted in some ways like a rogue as a sort of malamati technique, which could perhaps also apply to his rudeness to people applying to join his group. For me, he's a bit of a riddle wrapped inside an enigma, but I'll say this for him: he opened my mind to all sorts of new data, and a lot of what he said finds echoes in what other people say or have said. Whichever way you slice it, he was a remarkable figure.

 

[Michael Harris]

As one of the people whose grounding introduction to these subjects was the work of Joseph Campbell back in my teens, I have a similar response when listening to this podcast as I do to the 'ancient alien' thing.

The problem is that there is this perfectly plausible explanation for the recurrence of these mythic motifs and themes among ancient cultures which had no direct interaction with each other that is grounded in the nature of our shared human psyche. As many people will know, Campbell borrowed heavily from Jung's ideas of essentially universal archetypes buried in the human unconscious.

It's almost as if this very plausible premise, which has been around for about a century now, came too early and just gets in the way for people who find even more esoteric, spookier explanations more appealing.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Campbell's and Jung's ideas are the final word on the matter or that other explanations shouldn't be considered or explored. But the total absence of these very established, comparatively non-spooky theories from the discussion suggests a too convenient omission of what some may consider a superior explanatory mechanism.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

On the question of consciousness research that used to be more of a focus for the show, I think the problem is we might have exhausted a lot of the introductory materials in mainstream philosophy and science as well as parapsychology?

Honestly even on some other consciousness-related forums/sites I feel like I'm seeing the same trend, everyone seems to be in a kind of sleepy Winter. Looking at guys like Hammeroff I think more than a few people have also "gone to ground" seeking applications for their consciousness theories. I mean if Orch-OR results in improved medical outcomes that's a powerful bulwark for a sea change.

I appreciate Alex keeping things going though to some extent this does require choosing a path and walking it, and not everyone is going to agree with every path. That said I do think it might be nice to consider two things:

-The idea that academia is completely hostile to non-materialist ideas, or that every materialist is the same, isn't an accurate picture. Searle, as an anti-computationalist, is a far different materialist than your run of the mill "skeptic" waiting to upload his brain. I mean he's wrong, as all materialists are, but he also did say there are no materialist theories philosophers just fear dualism.

-There are literally billions of immaterialists walking the earth, and there going to be more of them as the population increases. They will even thus be in STEM academia in places around the world. They just happen to ascribe to some religion or another, even the "dreaded" Christianity. Is it really necessary to ascribe a variety of prejudices on to such a massive group when they can be natural allies?