Parasociological methodology – a first approximation

After investigating at length the parapsychological literature (particularly the one about spontaneous macro psi effects like poltergeist phenomenon (RSPK)) and explored in detail a number of UFO wave cases, I found a few methodological criteria that appear particularly useful to explore parasociological hypothesis.  These criteria still remain, of course, wide and allow competing analyses to emerge without being able to determine firmly which one is the most accurate. However, it should be seen as a step forward in that it provides some rigor and discipline to parasociological analysis, and can open the way to find additional criteria that would narrow down the number of possible competing analyses to explore the genesis of UFO events.

It is important to remember that these criteria for investigating possible parasociological effects (or social psi effects), are all attempting to circumvent the significant problem of absence of observable causal relationships between the social and the physical realm. They are:

1.       The observation system is social.

This means that the UFO phenomenon received enough attention from the general public to be noted. This is usually done through the mass media, but it can also be done through governmental agencies collecting data about UFOs, in which case the observation system would be the state. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology, where a psi phenomenon is considered to be the outcome of an emotional intent, which are making psi activities meaningful events. The key question is meaningful for whom? The range of visibility of psi phenomenon can be a good indicator to assess to whom is destined the psi effect, i.e. to whom the information is destined. Hence, a social psi event should be destined to society at large, or its governance if the state is the observation system.

2.       Chronological proximity

This means that a UFO event or series of UFO events should occur around the same time as a meaningful social event. It can be a few days before or after a particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. But such event is usually not known publically at the time. Chronological proximity can only be found out after the fact. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology where psi effects are believe to be emerging from the unconscious, which is by definition not observable; like the feeling of “something will happen” but not knowing what it is. At the social level, there are individual actions that will have a significant social impact, but their scope and nature cannot be known yet, but can be “felt”.

3.       Geographical proximity

This means that a UFO event or series of UFO events should occur in a geographical area that is around a particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. Like in the case of Chronological proximity and for the same reasons, such event is usually not known publically at the time. This criterion is based on the same notion that psi effects are information destined to “someone”, and that “someone’s” attention needs to be grabbed.

4. Symbolic relationship

The UFO event or series of events carry symbolism that can be related to particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. Such symbolism, however, is the one of the unconscious and can be quite subtle in nature, oftentimes only comprehensible through lateral forms of thinking, and usually much after the fact. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology where psi effects are the outcome of unconscious processes, and that the language of the unconscious is fundamentally symbolic.

5. Internal validity through mutually reinforcing criteria

These four criteria should reinforce each other. The yet unknown meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge should be considered as being such (i.e. meaningful and emotional) by the people who are part of the social observation system. The symbolism found in the event can also be found in the geography (e.g., name of the place where observations are made) and the chronology (e.g., a particular anniversary in the same timeframe). The “message” carried through symbolism is meaningful for the observation system if it can decipher it. Etc.

The parasociological hypothesis in a nutshell

Here is a short post where I am trying to summarize my efforts to make sense of what parasociology is all about.

******

I am also taking a break for the month of July, and I wish everyone a good and safe summer.

******

Parasociology is mostly about studying and understanding the sociological dimension of anomalous phenomenon, by integrating the concept of psi within its core analysis. Hence, it is starting from the key findings of parapsychology, but aims at extending them outside the realm of individual psychology. Below is a short description of the parasociological hypothesis.

At the individual level, parapsychologists who have studied spontaneous paranormal cases tend to think that there are mutual interactions between the subject (experiencer) and the phenomenon. For instance, in the case of poltergeists (RSPK), people are seriously impacted by the disturbances and oftentimes ascribe the phenomenon to an “evil spirit” or some sort of non-human entity. Yet, it is pretty clear that the main person around whom the phenomenon is occurring is influencing its nature, namely his/her deeply buried anger and frustration appear to be what gives the phenomenon its violent character. It can be graphically represented as follow:




At the social level, sociologists who have studied controversies, which includes paranormal claims, have found that such events put in motion a social dynamics where the meaning attached to the phenomenon is debated, and usually determined by the social and political status of the key actors involved, and by the existing social and cultural pre-dispositions. For instance, the case of cold fusion was determined by the scientific establishment as a hoax, while in fact there was something like cold fusion going on, but at a very low level. In the paranormal world, the children who saw the “lady” in Fatima did not know what to think of it at first. But through various social dynamics involving a debate between the Church and the republican lay authorities, it was deemed to be the Virgin Mary who appeared to the children. Hence, the phenomenon impacted social dynamics already occurring in the Portuguese society of 1917.

The question is whether there is a parallel to be made with the individual level, where society would also influence the shape of the phenomenon, so that the interaction is also mutual at the sociological level? For instance, during the 1896-97 airship wave in United States (and Canada), the phenomenon was first described as strange lights in the sky, but it was reported by the press, nationwide, as “airships”. Could the social expectations to see an airship in the sky influenced the phenomenon so that it took an airship shape in the days and months that ensued? This question illustrates the core of the parasociological hypothesis. Graphically, it looks like this:



If one accepts that the parasociological hypothesis is a valid field of inquiry, then one should also look into the possibility of mutual interactions between the individual and sociological levels. Some of those interactions, in fact, have been studied already. For instance, the individual-level reactions to a poltergeist outbreak can create social debates in a society about what is the “true” nature of paranormal events. Conversely, if in a particular society some views about the paranormal are already accepted, then it is likely to impact the individual reactions. The clear case is the one of Marian apparitions, which tend to occur among Catholic communities. Strange and bizarre events, which meaning is not that clear to the witnesses, will eventually become interpreted as Marian apparitions because of strong cultural views about such apparitions.

Another set of interactions that should be investigated out of the parasociological hypothesis is the possible mutual interactions between the individual and social layers of a phenomenon. For instance, how an individual UFO close encounter relates to an overall UFO wave occurring at the same time? Or, how a set of Marian apparitions to a few children relate to a series of anomalous lights and healing in the community around? How a particular haunting relates to an overall high rate of hauntings in a particular region (England and Scotland)? These challenging questions have received little attention so far by researchers interested in the paranormal. Graphically, this can be represented as follow, with the dotted lines showing relationships requiring some serious conceptualisation and empirical research:




It is also possible to think of other mutual interactions. For instance, can the particular shape an individual-level anomalous phenomenon have a direct impact on the social dynamics about the interpretation of an anomalous phenomenon ? Landmark cases like the Barney and Bettey Hill UFO abduction incident clearly had an impact on how UFO abductions are construed socially later on. But what about the interaction in the other direction? For instance, could the extra-terrestrial “flavour” and shape of a close encounter be determined by socially shared views about extra-terrestrial visitations and not by the individual psychological make-up and dynamics of the experiencer? This question is at the center of the debate between the French Bertrand Méheust and François Favre about whether we have UFO witnesses of a relatively objective (i.e. of a social origin) parapsychological phenomenon or do we have only “psi subjects” living and influencing directly the phenomenon’s shape. There is very limited research on this issue.

The last set of mutual interactions, between a social-scale phenomenon and individual psychological make-up and dynamics, is also split in terms of research. The impact of those large phenomena on individuals has been studied by people like Jacques Vallée in his seminal book Messengers of Deception. UFO wave can have an impact on UFO-related cults and their capacity to recruit new members. Similarly, Marian apparitions led oftentimes to create religious fervour among people who had little interest in religion before the events. If the relationship is taken in the other direction, could it be possible that the individual psychological make-up and dynamics of some individuals have a defining impact on the shape of a social-scale anomalous phenomenon? For instance, in one of my researches on the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67, there are some indications that the phenomenon was “responding” to a major politician’s series of key decisions, which were to have a very significant impact on the Canadian society but could not have been known at the time the phenomeon was unfolding. This is another area requiring much more investigation.

The overall parasociological hypothesis creates a relatively specific research programme, enough to keep many people busy for a long time. Graphically, it can be represented by all the dotted arrows shown below:




Eric Ouellet © 2010

The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 3)

This post, the third and last part of the tentative model presentation, describes the key elements of the model. It is in many ways a synthesis of many ideas found in a number of previous posts. The tentative model will be tested in the near future through another case study about the 1966-1967 UFO wave, especially emphasizing the Canadian portion.

Social memory
The concept of social (or collective) memory is not a new one in the social sciences. The French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs was one of the first to use it to study the working class of the 1920s and 1930s. He looked into the shared memories of people in the labor movement, especially about major events such as major strikes, and how such memories were transmitted over time and how certain elements of their collective history are kept while others are forgotten (in other words, collective memory is also selective, and such a selection is also a sociological process in itself). He used multiple methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative to assess the content of memories and evaluate how much they are spread across a given population.

This concept is critical for the proposed model because it offers ways of establishing a baseline to distinguish between the conscious and unconscious elements of social psyche. For instance, the older science fiction stories that Bertrand Méheust[1] identified as providing the basic narrative for UFO reports and experiences were not part of the collective memories anymore in the 1940s and 1950s. Yet, those stories were not so old that no one would be aware of them; they were in the collective unconscious. Methodologically speaking, a number of empirical methods can be used to assess the content of social memory, but the main ones remain focus groups and text analysis.

Social unconscious
As discussed in numerous posts, the content of the social unconscious[2] provides both the content for social psi events (fairies and demons in the past, good and bad aliens today; airships yesterday, spaceships today). But if psychoanalytical parapsychology[3] is right, it is also the source of the tensions or desires leading to a social psi effect. I just found an interesting author that looks into the social dimension of the unconscious, Clotaire Rapaille, who runs a major marketing business build on uncovering collective archetypes. He wrote a book on Culture Code and I will review it in the near future. His methodology is very similar to the one used by Ginach[4] and by those practicing group analytics[5], discussed in previous posts, using focus group to “extract” the content of the commonly shared unconscious, as well as text analysis.

The challenge in investigating spontaneous psi effects, as Batcheldor and other parapsychologists [6] have found, however, is that consciousness needs to be bypassed. Hence, the very fact of studying the unconscious can bring elements to the consciousness and preventing psi effects to occur, or reducing substantially its potency. The outcome of this is that the unconscious in the case of UFO studies might be only researchable post-facto by looking into how new representations are created.

It is interesting to note that those who study collective creativity in business organization underline that creativity is an emergent phenomenon and occurs when people from different parts of an organization meet and discuss. In the normal non-psi realm, the problem becomes part of the collective consciousness of the organization and a creative solution is negotiated.[7] Yet, the seeds of the solution were already present unconsciously, spread across various components of the organization.

In the case of spontaneous psi effects, people do not talk to negotiate a solution so there are no directly observable emergent effects. Yet, a “psi solution” (so to speak) emerges through creating something that will surprise everyone, and yet it is their collective creation. It is in those terms that psi effects can be construed as acts of creation.[8] In the case of UFOs, at least in the early days of the phenomenon, this non-local (in the sense of quantum physics) type of “solution” implies odd symbiotic relationships between various groups like the civil servants and the military in the 1952 Washington case. Similar strange symbiotic relationship seemed to have occurred between the Roswell believers and elements of the national security apparatus, as described at length by Gregg Bishop [9]. The same might have occurred between the Catholic believers and the rationalist republicans of Portugal during the Fatima events of 1917 [10].

Could it be that the decline in the social interest in UFOs, intimately linked to a lack of major UFO events for many years, be symptomatic of a degradation of a basic symbiotic unconscious social relationship at the centre of the UFO phenomenon? To be more specific, on one hand the authorities are more open than ever before about UFOs (France, UK, Canada, Russia and others declassifying and making available lots of UFO documents), and on the other hand the excesses of the Roswell ufological hysteria just turned off so many people interested in UFO and conspiracies theories that the “biggest story of our time” is no more. Could the symbiotic relationship simply collapsed due to the power of indifference? Difficult to say, but it is a hypothesis generated by the model.

Social consciousness
This concept is as old as sociology itself, and has been described extensively by the classical French sociologist Émile Durkheim. The importance of this portion of the model is once again to distinguish what remains below the threshold of the observable. The tension or desires found in the social unconscious should not be found in the discussions and debates of a community in any great extent. The relative absence of a thorny issue in the public realm, but possibly found in the margins, is thus a key indicator for potential social psi effects. It is also important to note that the content of the social unconscious can be about a future event having strong emotional power, like in the case investigated by John Keel in the Mothman Prophecy [11]. In such case, it cannot be known publically as it has not occurred yet.

The key methodological outcomes of this is that once the investigator has found something in the social unconscious that could be at the source of social psi effects, then he or she has to confirm that it is not present in the social consciousness of the concerned community.

Social representations
The concept of social representations has been developed by yet another French social scientist, Serge Moscovici. Social representations are more focused elements of the social unconscious, and are outcomes of social creativity. Moscovici’s main interest was to study how certain views and ideas move from being the purview of a few to be held by the many (for instance the language of psychoanalysis became part of everyday conversations through the 1950s and 1960s), and the associated translation process of jargon becoming everyday concepts (what he calls common sense). One of the key issues is that if some ideas and views resonate with already existing socially shared but unconscious views, they are more likely to be adopted. Moscivici and his followers use both focus group and text analysis as a key method to uncover social representations and the translation processes.

Once again, for spontaneous social psi effects, the new social representation (i.e., the specific solution or creation) remains below the threshold of the unconscious and coagulates in what I call the social psi pathway. The production of psi effects, even in a spontaneous context, remains something rare and probably difficult to do. However, once some forms are created it is easier for psi effects to repeat themselves through the established forms. In other words, once the notion of flying saucers has been established, it provided a common form-pathway that can ease the production of psi effects. The key for the tentative model is that social representations do not get translated into what it is, but it is translated into something else (like a UFO). This notion is very similar to the notion of displacement, so central to understand poltergeists [12].

The same can be said for ghosts, Marian apparitions, but also of the séance setting of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The pathways are collectively shared social representations (or idiosyncracies) that can be used as “platforms” for social as well as individual psi creativity for various types of unconscious tensions or desires. Hence, investigating the internal symbolism of a social psi effect is likely to be only useful at the early stages, when a new form emerges. Once the pathway is established, it can serve a variety of underlying tensions or desire in producing psi effects. The concept of morphic field developed by Rupert Sheldrake [13] is here quite useful to describe the pathway development process, and Sheldrake as shown that psi can behave as a morphic field. The more something is used the stronger and established in its form it will be; hence the enduring forms found in UFO reports.

Social behavior
This is the most ostentatious part of any sociological study. Yet, in the case of studying social psi effects, the behavior that would lead to resolving the unconscious tensions or desires tends to not occur right away. Even if the psi effect has a comprehensible symbolic meaning, it is usually ignored or completely misunderstood. Once a pathway is established, then the symbolic meaning becomes extremely hard to decipher as the form used becomes institutionalized (like Barney Hill’s challenges with racist America being at the source of his experience eventually becomes the prototype of the Greys, which has nothing to do with racism in later psi events).

Should the social behavior resolves, even only partially, the underlying social tensions or desires leading then the psi effect should ceased immediately. This is seen in poltergeist cases when people realize that it is their inter-personal issues that are at the source of the phenomenon. In the 1952 Washington UFO incidents, the military got involved and interested (too much would say some people), and the UFO story was even able to displace from the headlines the coverage of the Democratic Convention for a day; this was the beginning of the end for that UFO wave.

In general, spontaneous social psi event tend to be an alternative channel for social communications that is rather symptomatic of a collective inability to communicate about difficult underlying social issues or tensions.

Notes
[1] Méheust, Bertrand. (1978). Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes. Paris: Mercure de France.
[2] Studied by people like Leledakis, Kanakis. (1995). Society and Psyche: Social theory and the unconscious dimension of the social. Oxford: Berg; Main, Roderick. (2006). “The Social Significance of Synchronicity”. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11: 36-53; Machotka, Otakar. (1964). The Unconscious in Social Relations: An analysis of unconscious processes in personality, society, and culture. New York: Philosophical Library.
[3] In particular, Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Book; Fodor, Nandor. (1959). The Haunted Mind: A psychoanalytical look at the supernatural. New York: Garrett.
[4] Ginach, Michal. (2004) “War Against or For Terrorism?: The underlying fantasy behind the Israeli pattern encounter with the Palestinian”. Discourse of Sociological Practice 6: 1-12
[5] For instance, Dalal, Farhad. (2001). “The social unconscious: A post-Foulkesian perspective”. Group Analysis 34(4): 539-555; Powell, Andrew. (1991). “Matrix, mind and matter: From the internal to the eternal”. Group Analysis 24(3): 299-322; Zeddies, Timothy J. (2002). “Unconscious experience in social and historical context”. Group Analysis 35(3): 381-389.
[6] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122; Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse; Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row; Reihart, Philip B. (1994). “PK induction: An extension of Batcheldor approach”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 88: 137-145.
[7] For a good overview of this literature, please see Watson, Elizabeth. (2007). “Who or What Creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity”. Human Resources Development Review 6(4): 419-441.
[8] See in particular, Favre, François. (1978). “Caractère généraux des apparitions”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/cargenapp.htm]; (2004). "Psi et intentionalité". Unpublished text available on Internet at http://www.sciencesphilo.fr/uploads/doc/psi_et_intentionnalite.pdf; Viéroudy, Pierre. (1978a). “Vagues d'Ovnis et psi collectif”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_VAGUEOVNIS.htm]; (1978b). “Les témoins d'Ovnis sont-ils des sujets psi ?” Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_TEMOINSOVNIS.htm]; (1983). “Signification archétypique des apparitions OVNI”. Revue de Parapsychologie 15 (August). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA15_VieroudyOVNIS.htm].
[9] Bishop, Greg. (2005). Project Beta: The story of Paul Bennewitz, national security, and the creation of a modern UFO myth. New York: Paraview.
[10] Fernandes, Joaquim and F. D’Armada. (2005). Heavenly Lights: The apparition of Fatima and the UFO phenomenon. San Antonio: Anomalist.
[11] Keel, John. (1975). The Mothman Prophecies. New York: Tor.
[12] Lucadou, Walter von. (1995). “The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI).” European Journal of Parapsychology 11: 58-75; Lucadou, Walter von and F. Zahradnik. (2004). “Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK”. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004.
[13]Sheldrake, Rupert. (1981). A New Science of Life. London: Victoria Works; (1987) The Presence of the Past. New York: Bantam; (1991). The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and god. New York: Bantam; (2006). "Morphic Fields". World Futures 62: 31-41.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 2)

This post is describing in greater details the proposed model to study the social dimension of psi effects, and UFO events in particular. The emphasis is placed today on the overall architecture upon which the model is built, and the rational for such architecture. The next post will look in more details at the individual elements of the model.

Architecture

Split between the empirical and the interpretative
The overall architecture of the model is based on a synthetic view of a number of researches in parapsychology, and especially research on psychokinesis (PK). One important finding in parapsychology is that psi effects are most likely the outcome of unconscious mental processes. This conclusion was expressed by the founder of the discipline, J. B. Rhine, already in 1954[1], and remains one of the most enduring issue in parapsychology. The issue is that if unconscious processes are at the centre of the phenomena, then it becomes very difficult to study it. North American psychology is particularly adverse to the study of the unconscious, as cognitive psychology (emphasizing conscious perception) and behaviourist psychology (emphasizing a “black box” approach through an input-output stimulation view of the human mind) are the dominant perspectives. North American parapsychology also suffered from this problem, and it can be clearly noted by the undervaluing of researchers who focussed on the unconscious such as Fodor Nandor and Jule Eisenbuld. In spite of these internal debates within psychology and parapsychology, any models of psi (and social psi included) need to locate the most dynamic portions of the phenomena under the threshold of empirical observation.

It is for this reason that the proposed model for social psi has a built-in ontological assumption that divides between empirical sociology (i.e., what can be observed through social behaviour), and what requires interpretation to understand such behaviours. The interpretative sociology has a long history and is well-established but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to present such history here. Suffice to say that there are many sociological tools available, developed by classical sociologists such Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and more recent ones like Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer, Alfred Schutz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as well as all the research conducted in the present field of “cultural studies". The key here is to not ignore what is beyond the threshold of direct observation, which would otherwise lead one to the same trap as the one positivist psychology found itself, and in my opinion the greatest barrier to the advancement of parapsychology.

The role of consciousness
The proposed model is also synthesizing some of the key findings on PK research. If unconscious processes are at the centre of psi effects, then consciousness is very much in the way when it is time to produce psi effects. It is for this reason that most parapsychologists think that spontaneous psi effects are stronger than the ones produced in laboratory or experimental settings, and that “ongoing psi on demand” is all but an impossible task. Batcheldor[2] noted that in his group PK experiment he had to use all kind of tricks to get people mind off the experiment (like using humour, playing illusionist tricks, etc.) so that the unconscious can act without interference from the consciousness. Pamela Heath, in her extensive survey of PK research[3] found that the suspension of the intellect, altered states of consciousness, dissociation, openness to emotions, meditative states were keys to produce PK effects. Once again, the conclusion is that consciousness has to be circumvented.

This fundamental issue in parapsychology is represented in the model by the difference between the red and green lines. The red line represents spontaneous psi effects which are circumventing consciousness, while the green line represents the conscious task to produce psi effects in experimental conditions that is then setup in a way where the unconscious is given a chance afterward to circumvent consciousness. Batcheldor was able to do so in his group PK experiment, although it was not easy. It is less than clear if a social-level experiment could be produced in such a way. The fact that an action would be socially known as being “an experiment”, and then finding “social-level distractions” afterward to make the social consciousness “forget” about the experiment so that a social psi effect could occur might be impossible. In other words, given the nature of social relations and social communications, I think it is nearly impossible to do social psi experimentation. The only exception would be to use unethical deception (for instance hooking up with a group of UFO believers, feeding them with believable stories about UFOs having a very particular content, and then see if some of that content emerges in future sightings where a degree of objectivity can be assessed—like multiple unconnected observers). [4] The net result, however, is that there are serious reasons for limiting research on spontaneous social psi. In turn, this has serious consequences. Predictive statements cannot be verified experimentally (the preferred approach in Western science), but only through confirming after the fact how a social psi event unfolded. This is essentially the approach used in the 1952 Washington case study.

Circular nature
The model was not presented as circle essentially due to my very limited artistic abilities. But once a psi effect occurs, it can modify behaviour, which in turn becomes a new element of one’s memory about psi. If one sees a UFO, or has a telepathic feeling, it is very likely that he or she will have a much different attitude in the future about UFOs or ESPs. The circular nature of psi is certainly validated through the well-known notion of declining results in parapsychology. When someone tend to guess correctly more often than normal, then his or her confidence is boosted which in turn is both helping the process in reinforcing the unconscious belief in psi and disabling the process by causing stressful expectations to perform. The more loops in the circuit are completed, the less likely someone will perform because the conscious stress eventually overrides the unconscious belief. In cases where expectations to perform are neutralized, then it is boredom that replaces stress but with the same declining results in the end.

In the case of spontaneous psi, however, the circuit works somewhat differently. A psi event will reinforce the belief in the paranormal, which reinforces the unconscious belief that there is “something” to it. Yet, this “something” has to be attributed to a non-human force or entity so that there is no stress related to performing (it is not me but “it” that does that), and no boredom as it is seen as something extraordinary. This issue is clearly addressed in von Lucadou’s model with the notion of “displacement”, and discussed at length in the 1952 Washington case study. From a social psi perspective, it is critical for spontaneous social psi effects to continuing occurring to have a community of believers, be it about aliens, ghosts, demons, etc., to create such a displacement. In the proposed model, this translates in the creation of new social representations, or the reinforcement of existing representations. UFOs, which are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, were rapidly equated with extra-terrestrial visitors in spite of having very little evidence to support such a view. But without such social representations, a “semi-permanent” displacement towards the non-human to explain social psi effects cannot occur at the social level. In other words, contrary to von Lucadou’s model which is dealing with small groups of people’s (family or co-workers) belief that a ghost is responsible for the events and where the events eventually dissipates , social-scale phenomena like UFOs need to be continuously reinforced by an ongoing active belief system (what would be in von Lucadou’s terminology an “ongoing displacement”). That’s one of the key differences between the individual level and the social level.

This synthesis from parapsychology plays in particular ways at each step of the circuit, and these will be discussed in the next post.


[1] Rhine, J.B. (1954). “The science of nonphysical nature”. Journal of Philosophy 51: 801-810.
[2] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.
[3] Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse.
[4] For those who are strong believers in conspiracy theory, such an experimental scenario might be the most realistic one about UFOs, science, and governmental authorities.


Eric Ouellet © 2010

The social psi circuit: A tentative model (Part 1)

This post is proposing a tentative model to explain social psi effects based on the literature surveyed up to this point, and some afterthought emerging out of the historical case studies presented here. The model is presented as a “circuit” because there is an apparent recurrent component to psi effects.

Preliminary remarks

There is one challenge linked to parasociology in general, and UFO studies in particular, that needs to be highlighted. Knowledge is usually produced by alternating between induction and deduction, or by observation and conceptualization. New data are required to validate or modify concepts and models which are necessary if one is to produce more than mere description (i.e., producing an explanation). Concepts and models are required to assess which data are relevant, as data about the entire reality cannot be collected without being quickly overwhelmed (i.e., distinguishing between the signal and the noise). Overtime, there is a synergy between more accurate observations and better conceptualization, ultimately leading to better explanations. This is the ideal model of scientific knowledge production.

The reality, however, is that there are cultural preferences within the Western world about induction and deduction. Namely, in the English-speaking world there is a clear preference for induction (i.e., the portion starting from observation and moving very slowly towards conceptualization). People who are from cultures that are linked to those of continental Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) tend to have a preference for deduction (i.e., it is more important to spend energy to have good concepts so that most of the noise is removed when it is time to observe). Deduction also means to adapt existing concepts developed and tested for comparable problems so that one avoids re-inventing the wheel. For those who are familiar with philosophy of science, it is illustrated by the David Hume versus René Descartes fault line, which has been at the source of many misunderstandings. In the end, however, both induction and deduction are needed to make sense of the world around us.

This brings us to UFO studies. In the United States, most of UFO research is very much influenced by the cultural preference for induction, sometimes taking the shape of a militant ideology. The problem of such approach is that one is at serious risks of never moving beyond description, and so never reaching a sound explanation. This problem is even further compounded if one relies on the highly speculative notion of extra-terrestrial visitations for an explanation, over which “visitations” we have no control anyway. Hence, induction would be at the mercy of somebody else’s incomprehensible idiosyncratic wishes.

Parasociology, as discussed here, is very much influenced by a preference for deduction. This may cause “cognitive dissonance” to many interested in UFOs. But this choice for a more deductive approach is not just a cultural preference. Since the late 1940s, there have been a lot of observations and reports about UFOs, probably in the hundreds of thousands. Although the quality of such observations varies considerably, it is fair to say that there is a very healthy amount of good reports out there. But the question that everyone should ask is: what kind of serious conceptualization did occur to further refine observations since? Unfortunately, the answer is not a whole lot. More observations of the same are not what is needed at this point, as it cannot bring a qualitatively different type of data. This can only serve to reinforce the present situation where many have given up and essentially camped on the position saying “what else could it be but ETs?,” and then waiting for ET to show up and or the government to “reveal everything” (assuming they really know something worth of mention). In other words, ufology is stuck, and it has been stuck for quite a while. A major dose of serious deductive work, as described above, is now required before engaging in further observations. It is how I interpret Jacques Vallée’s point stated in a 2006 interview:

“SR: What are your thoughts on the state of ufology in 2006?

JV: It’s a mess. There is valuable research going on, but it is carried out by individuals working with almost no financial or logistical resources. The few scientists who are still actively involved are forming a new version of the old “Invisible College,” communicating privately to stay away from the sensationalism that has taken over the field. As for what remains of the organized groups, they are not playing the role of disseminating information, conducting field research or encouraging critique and open debate. They are little more than lobbies for a particular point of view. This is a pity, because periods of low UFO activity like the current one present the best opportunity to do quiet research. By centering the whole discussion of the phenomenon on highly-charged, but poorly-researched issues like Roswell and abductions, ufologists have lost credibility, alienated the scientific public and opened the floodgates to hundreds of Internet sites where the wildest rumours circulate. No wonder serious researchers are going underground!”[1]

Parasociology is dedicated at getting UFO and paranormal research out of the underground, but ufology has to be ready for a new type of research. Once again, let’s emphasize that deductive work is not based on pure speculation, as most inductive-thinking people tend to believe. It is based on borrowing and adapting research on what is known about other realities that share similar characteristics to what is to be studied. This way we can move from the known and go towards the unknown, and avoid re-inventing the wheel, whenever possible. The most difficult part of all this, however, is that when “similar characteristics” are compared, it is not necessarily at the observation level, i.e., on the superficial level. It is oftentimes at the deep or “structural” level where the similarities can be found, and this requires a fair bit of lateral thinking. A simple example is the physics of weather. On the surface, snow, drizzle, fog, wind and drought have little superficial resemblance, but it is the same physics that explains them all at the deep structural level. Parasociology approaches the UFO phenomenon with the same spirit that weather physicists are approaching climate issues, (and I would say that climate issues are as controversial as UFO research...).

So, the following model should be seen as an attempt to synthesize existing knowledge established in a number of various fields where there are structural similarities with paranormal phenomena, UFO included. As well, this model should also be seen as a step towards better identifying the signal from the noise, to be verified in future empirical research. Hence, deduction, like induction, should not be an end in itself. We need both.

Foundational notions

The proposed model is based on research and observation conducted by a number of serious researchers, and is trying to move from the known in order to move towards the unknown. Without repeating the content of all previous posts dealing with reviewing the literature on the nexus paranormal-UFO phenomena, it is important to highlight what is known.

The paranormal-UFO nexus

Jacques Vallée’s research is well-known in ufology. He found that many witnesses had paranormal experience before, during and after a sighting. Furthermore, the narrative structure of encounter with what has been construed as non-human entities shares a lot of similarities with folkloric myths. John Keel, coming from a different angle, considered that UFO phenomena are difficult to distinguish from other paranormal phenomena, and that it is probably wiser to see them as part of continuum rather than being discreet realities. The younger Jerome Clark provides also an interesting overview of the observational similarities between UFOs and paranormal phenomena. On the other side of the Atlantic, John Spencer and Albert Budden also found many similarities between the two, confirming empirically the findings of Vallée and Keel. Jenny Randles is famous for her concept of “Oz Factor”, which is essentially about altered states of consciousness (ASC) found in many UFO events. According to many parapsychologists, ASC is considered a key psychological state in psi events. A few parapsychologists, in particular Scott Rogo and Manfred Cassirer also ventured in the UFO territory and found extensive similarities. French authors François Favre, Bertrand Méheust, and Pierre Viéroudy coming from very different directions also found that “paranormality” is at the centre of the UFO experience, also confirming findings by researchers in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a number of other less known researchers who came to similar conclusions, also based on empirical research.

The fact that the few researchers who cared to explore the paranormal-UFO nexus found so many similarities shows that it cannot be ascribed to coincidence or wishful thinking. There is a serious empirical base behind their assertions. Ignoring it is simply moving away from scientific work.

The social dimension

Many of the above researchers could not help but also notice that there is a social dimension to the paranormal side of the UFO experience. Once again, Vallée was deeply impressed at how the UFO phenomenon changed the life of so many people in such a deep way, and that many appeared to gain psychic abilities. The younger Jerome Clark was one of the first to push for an exploration of the social unconscious and the UFO phenomenon, as there are clearly “social constructions” embedded in the UFO experience that closely intertwined with the paranormal dimension. Randles, through her research, reinforced the notion that the apparent technology perceived in UFO tend to be just a few years ahead of technological progress on Earth, and therefore social representations seem to play a key role in the experience. Méheust provided the most serious analysis to date about the intimate link between social representation (i.e., science fiction) and UFOs. Viéroudy found a number of strong correlations between major social events and UFO waves. On the social dimension too, there are other lesser known researchers who came with similar findings.

The weaker link in this case is from parapsychology that has not spent much energy trying to understand the social dimension of psi. The notable exceptions are the small group experiments conducted by Batcheldor, Owen and Sparrow, and the Globe Consciousness Project. This last research effort has been described by leading parapsychologist Dean Radin in Entangled Minds as a first step in investigating “social psi.” However, it is fair to say that parapsychology has been able to show that there is enough evidence to seriously consider that psi effects is likely to occur at different levels: individual, small group, and large group.

Joining forces

In light of the above research about both the paranormal-UFO nexus, and social dimension of UFO and paranormal events, it appears clear that ufology would benefit from investigating in more depth how its social dimension intersects with the paranormal one. In other words, ufology, parapsychology and sociology should join forces, as existing research points towards an unexplored research potential to uncover. The question is then how to go about it? It is where a trans-disciplinary model becomes useful and critical to generate research hypotheses.

Graphic Representation

Below is the model’s graphic representation, which will be explained at length in the next post. However, let’s note that it is integrating the previously presented PEMIE model, which also take stocks of what is known about the materiality of UFOs.





[1] The rest of the interview can be found at http://www.dailygrail.com/node/3252.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Parasociology: An update

After over a year of active posting, it is time to provide a comprehensive update as to where parasociology stands. I think it is possible to say that the foundations, challenges and future opportunities are now better known, and that the research agenda is clearer. As well, it is possible to affirm that the case of UFOs and related phenomena remains a useful test case for the new discipline.

UFOs and parasociology

Most theories in ufology have a limited empirical base to support their arguments, and it is especially true for the ETH. The ETH being a materialist hypothesis (nuts and bolts spaceships and flesh and blood aliens) require a fundamental material proof, which has not been found so far. Any other discussions about what a spaceship or an alien could or should look like can only be conjectures in the context of such materialist hypothesis. This fundamental incoherence of the ETH should be enough for any serious researcher to stay away from what the ETH has produced so far. As well, most of the empirical data is at best shallow and purely descriptive and at worst built in a Hume-like empiricist construct that forgoes any non-superficial explanation. It is therefore critical for parasociology to start from what is known to investigate the unknown.

A number of serious ufological authors (Randles 1983; Hufford 1977; Schwartz 1983; Spencer 1994) have clearly showed that there is an ontological difference between seeing an unknown object in the sky and having an encounter with non-human entities (believed to be of extra-terrestrial origin). As well, these two types of experience are oftentimes quite different from a phenomenological standpoint. It is therefore important to distinguish them appropriately. Yet, if one looks at the existing evidence, it is not possible to clearly separate physical and psycho-social dynamics, as one or both can be present in their entire spectrum from CE1 to CE3.

Some dynamics part of a larger explanation

Electromagnetism
The research has found so far that a somewhat material reality is present, and that unusual electromagnetism is often at play. A number of authors have noted that electromagnetism, either natural or artificial, is often associated with UFOs as well as with other ostentatious psi phenomena (Braud & Dennis 1989; Brovetto & Maxia 2008; Budden 1995, 1998; Devereux 1982; Fort 1923; Foshufvud 1980; Hecht & Dussault 1987; Keel 1968; Klass 1966a, 1966b; Persinger 1975, 1979, 1987, 1990; Persinger & Koren 2001; Pelegrin 1988; Poher & Vallée 1975; Schaut & Persinger 1985; Shneiderman 1987).

Common Narrative Structure
Other authors (Evans 1984; Favre 1978; Graystone 1969; Harvey-Wilson 2001; Keel 1975; Rogo 1982; Vallée 1969, Viéroudy 1978b) have noted that sightings of ETs are showing the same deep narrative structure as other non-ET apparition experiences, which points towards a common psycho-social dynamics. They tend to agree that the content of such experiences appear to be idiosyncratic and that the invariant is the structure of the experience rather than the content. To reject their arguments would require that one must explain why Marian apparitions, CE3, hauntings, etc., have so much in common while the witnesses would be supposedly dealing with completely different types of non-human entities. I am not aware of any ET ufologists or spiritualists that can offer a valid critique to reject the arguments of the authors mentioned above. As far as our knowledge extends, it is possible to say that the witnesses are somehow stimulated by an external source and they then provide the content of the experience, either through psi effects or by means of post-event interpretation.

Psychokinesis as human activity
One possible counter-argument would be that we, human, can only detect non-human entities through psi means, and that those means are always mixing up the signal with our cultural and social referents. The problem with this counter-argument is that it is improvable, as discussed in the last post. As well, we know based on the research on PK and RSPK (Fodor 1959; Gauld & Cornell 1979; Geley 1924; Heath 2003; Houran & Lange 2001; Lucadou & Zahradnik 2004; Osty & Osty 1932; Owen 1964; Puhle 2001; Rogo 1977, 1987; Roll 1972, 2003; Roll & Persinger 2001), including the Philip Experiment (Owen & Sparrow 1976), that the human mind can influence matter, to include creating or teleporting object and temporary apparitions of non-human entities through psychokinetic means. The central issue here is that any explanation of these strange events does not require the participation of any non-human entities. This is part of what is known, while hypothesizing the existence of ETs, surviving souls of the death people, etc. remain to this very day only improvable hypotheses. However hard this may be to accept for the believers, this is reality.

Belief and acceptance of the paranormal
Another dynamics could be generally labelled as “belief”, but understood as a general acceptance, consciously or unconsciously, of the possibility of paranormal events. Such belief has been found critical in a number of ways and linked to the witnesses’ prior experience (Basterfield 2001; Basterfield & Thalbourne 2001; Heath 2003; Keel 1988; Lucadou 1995; Phillips 1993; Schmeidler 1952; Spanos et al. 1993; Wiseman & Smith 1994). At a sociological level, the role of prior plausibility structures has also been shown as important in providing the basic material for making sense of these experiences (Bishop 2005; Carroll 1985; Fernandes & D’Armada 2005; Goode 2000; Méheust 1978; David-Néel 1929; Winkelman et al 1982). Furthermore, as belief plays a key role, the distinction between fraud and genuine effect has been found as unhelpful, as fraud and cheating is often necessary to stimulate genuine effects (Batcheldor 1984; Fodor 1958, 1959; Hansen 2001; Reihart 1994; Schrenck Notzing 1913). It is also quite clear that the unconscious dimensions of such belief plays the most important role in producing such effects (Eisenbud 1983; Favre 2004; Fodor 1958, 1959; Jung 1958, 1964 Rhine 1954), and therefore witnesses can be active participants in these events without even be aware of it, while attributing the events to an external force (like ETs, Virgin Mary, ghosts, etc.).

Triggers
There are two types of triggers that have been identified to explan how involuntary psychokinetic effects are created. The first one has been covered in the RSPK literature cited above, and relates to micro social dynamics dysfunctions, as well as personal trauma (Reiner 2004).The second set of triggers identified is related to macro social dynamics, which have been described as either expressions of a collective unconscious or national gestalt (Broad 1953; Clark & Coleman 1975; Fodor 1959; Freixedo 1977; Fuller 1980; Kottmeyer 1996; Radin 2006; Vallée 1992; Viéroudy 1978a), as activation of archetypical numinosity and synchronicity (Brunstein 1979; Combs & Holland 1996; Fowler 2004; Jung 1958, 1964; Rojcewicz 1987; Viéroudy 1983), or as telepathically shared events (Gurney, Myers & Podmore 1886; Orme-Johnson et al 1988; Schwartz 1983; Warcollier 1928, 1962). The diversity of explanation to make sense of the macro social triggers points to the equivocal empirical knowledge on this issue. The question, however, is not a matter as whether such macro social trigger exists as the evidence pointing in that direction is quite strong, but it is rather how does it work?

Challenges and opportunities

To answer this last question, a number of avenues have been explored. One of them was to establish a closer linkage between the individual unconscious and a collectively shared unconscious. If the sociological notion of collective consciousness and the psychoanalytical notion of collective unconscious shared the same intellectual origin (Greenwood 1990; Staude 1976), the empirical evidence to link them is sparse. From a bottom-up perspective, the tradition called group analytic offers good evidence of the impact of the collective consciousness on the individual unconscious (Dalal 2001; Furth 1992; Weinberg, Nuttman-Shwartz & Gilmore 2005; Zeddies 2002), to include creating possible psi effects (Powell 1991; Thygesen 2008). From a top-down perspective, some social scientists showed that the collective unconscious influences the individual unconscious (Anderson 1983; Castoriadis 1975; Ginach 2004; Irwin 1994; Leledakis 1995; Lévy-Strauss 1963; Machotka 1964; Senghaas-Knobloch & Volmerg 1988). There are no known researchers, however, who attempted to provide an articulated explanation as to how the collective unconscious may create individual psi events. This issue remains the crux of the matter.

One of the key issues to move forward is to develop operational concepts for empirical research. Given the amorphous nature of what is described under the label “collective unconscious” and other similar labels, most methodologies can only provide approximations (Elias 1978; King 1996; Main 2006; Shewmaker & Berenda 1962). On the other hand, there are a number of PK phenomena (including UFOs) that can be pinpointed to specific physical events. Once again, there is here an obvious ontological discrepancy between two realms of reality which requires to be bridged. Psychoanalysis, anthropology and qualitative sociology have proposed to use symbolic interpretation to bridge similar gaps. It is a step forward, but it is clearly a one-way bridge that provides an incomplete answer. As Dean (2002) as shown, interpretation can be highly problematic and might be linked to the radically non-deterministic nature of human creativity, which in turn would preclude any bridging from epistemological standpoint.

There is, however, a promising lead in the concept of morphic field developed by Rupert Sheldrake (1981, 2006). It could provide the missing elements to complete the “ontological bridging”. It will be explored in a more detailed way in future posts.

Eric Ouellet ©2009

Essay on the Sociality of UFOs

This post is proposing a review of the literature surveyed so far on the social dimension of the UFO experience. However, contrary to most sociological research on UFOs, it is not focussing on the socially shared belief in UFO per se. It is not, either, assuming that the debate about the actual reality of the phenomena is to be ignored (or worst, ridiculed). Instead, this review is building on the post on the “Materiality of UFOs”, in which UFOs were described as PEMIEs (Psi/Electro-Magnetic Induced Experiences). In other words, it based on the assumption that the UFO experiences are caused, in part, by factors external to the experiencers that are beyond conventional explanations. It is also based on the assumption that social realities not only provide narrative contents for the experience but also that it might at the source of some of those external factors. The materiality and “sociality” of the phenomenon are therefore understood here as being two interdependent dimensions of the same experience.

The literature that addresses directly the social dimension of the UFO phenomenon is much less developed than the one about its materiality. It is not surprising. Not only the dominant Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) in the ufological literature tends to ignore the social dimension of the phenomenon because it is threatening its core beliefs, but also because many of those who wrote seriously about UFOs tend to have a background in natural sciences or engineering (e.g. Karl Brunstein, Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallée).

This particular literary context presents other challenges. There is also a useful literature that is not directly linked to UFO research. It is the parapsychological research on macro psi effects, which has a lot to offer, and reinforces in many instances the findings found in the limited literature on the social dimension of the UFOs. Hence, wherever it is appropriate, the parapsychological literature is also introduced within this discussion on the sociality of UFOs.

Central role of belief

It is now well established in parapsychology that the belief in the paranormal is an important enabler to produce psi effects. The famous sheep-goat effect identified by Gertrude Schmeidler (1952) is now known for over 50 years. If one believes in paranormal effects (sheep) he/she tends to have higher score in tests, while the disbeliever (goat) tend to have lower scores. It has been replicated numerous times, and it is clear that the cognitive dimension of believing in psi is the key to produce psi effects (Wiseman & Smith 1994). More recently, Heath (2003) also identified that a general positive attitude towards the paranormal is an important enabler for psychokinesis (PK). Batcheldor (1984) and Reihart (1994) also noted that self-convincing through trickery can also be an important way to reinforce beliefs and increase the potential for psi effects to occur. In the same vein, some studies found that a strong proportion of people who saw a UFO had other paranormal experiences before the sighting (Phillips 1993; Spanos et al. 1993; Basterfield & Thalbourne 2001). As well, Rogo (2006) and others have noted that UFO experiencers oftentimes have repeated experiences of sightings. Although more research is needed, it appears that the UFO phenomenon shares the same general characteristics as other psi-related phenomenon with regards to the centrality of belief in the paranormal. According to Spencer (1994), this is correlation is more pronounced in case of people experiencing close encounters. This is an important indicator pointing towards social dimension of the UFO phenomenon.

An interesting empirical illustration of this issue can be found in the Barney and Betty Hill story, as the witnesses provided substantial information about their inner state of being through hypnotherapy. Betty, although she appears to have no conscious interest in UFOs prior to her September 1961 experience, it was clear that from the onset she established that the light in the sky was a UFO (read here: aliens in a spaceship). She immediately linked that experience with the one of her sister Janet, who saw a UFO during the 1950s. Indeed, Betty called Janet on the day she arrived home to discuss her UFO experience. As well, a fact rarely underlined by ufologists is that Betty engaged in informal telepathic experiments with Barney before their UFO event (Fuller 1966: 243-244), and her family has a history of dealing with paranormal events (Schwartz 1983; 273-281). Lastly, she had other UFO sightings afterward in 1966-67 (Friedman & Marden 2007: 211-218). Barney, on the other hand, was clearly struggling to not believe it was an “alien spaceship,” and this inner struggle was obviously perceptible in the debate he had with Betty in the car while watching the UFO in the sky in 1961. This struggle was also obvious while he was under hypnosis with Dr. Benjamin (Fuller 1966: 33, 101, 108). Such a struggle was clearly indicative that he unconsciously accepted the possibility of an “alien spaceships”, but consciously he was trying to resist such “irrational belief”. In the end, they had a different experience. While Betty had a full experience with the aliens and the spaceship, Barney had his eyes closed for most of the event, as they told Dr. Benjamin while being under hypnosis.

The psycho-social dynamics

Another important social dimension of the UFO phenomenon is the actual psycho-social dynamics surrounding the event. Such dynamics has several layers with their own distinct internal logic; as well as showing interdependencies among the various layers.

The shared psi event at the local level

One of the interesting speculations of Berthold Schwartz (1983) is that the context of multiple witnesses of UFO sightings appears to be a telepathically shared psi event. Such event could occur irrespective as whether the UFO is a materialized phenomenon through PK effects or simply a transfer of images and feelings through ESP without having any particular material basis. This phenomenon of telepathically shared psi effects is known for quite some time in parapsychology, and can be traced back to the landmark study of Gurney, Myers and Podmore (1886) Phantasms of the Living. Warcollier (1928, 1962) also noted that images can be communicated to a wider group through telepathic means. Favre (1978) also proposed a similar set of ideas for various types of apparitions, to include UFOs and alien sightings. This notion of telepathically shared psi effect certainly requires further research, but it is an interesting hypothesis to investigate as it highlight that psi induced events are not only related to the individual but it is also a micro social event.

The active nurturing of the phenomenon

Spencer (1995) notes that UFO events, and close encounters in particular, appear to be very strange and hard to describe events, but that witnesses ultimately end up interpreting them as “aliens-in-spaceship” events because it provides a convenient set of notions to describe something that is beyond description. Some authors have found that experiences very similar to the UFO ones have been interpreted in other cultures in different ways (Harvey-Wilson 2001, Vallée 1969). However, it is important to note that for such interpretation to emerge, the social and cultural conditioning existing in Western societies about the ETH is required especially through the diffusion of the science fiction genre. In other words, if a society provides appropriate “plausibility structures (Goode 2000), then we can collectively nurture such conditions to interpret psi events as “aliens-in-spaceship” events. In this regards, it is important to underline that historically witnesses first talked about strange objects in the sky, and it was only after a few years of speculations about the possibility that they might be of extra-terrestrial origin that close encounters with aliens were reported.

In parapsychology, Walter von Lucadou (1995) and von Lucadou & Zahradnik (2004) have develop an interesting model to understand the social dimension of poltergeist events that could be borrowed to study UFO events. Although their model is more akin to social psychology (i.e. small groups), there is a number of links that can be made with the sociological dimension of nurturing the “aliens-in-spaceship” scenario. For them, it is clear that a poltergeist is a psi event that tends to last longer because the focus person and his/her immediate entourage are confirmed in their belief that there is an evil spirit in their house. Among the people who play an important role in reinforcing such particular belief are what they called the “naive observers” (i.e. self-appointed psychics and parapsychologists). The naive observers are in a way shielding the phenomenon from disbelief so that the focus person and his/her entourage continue to maintain the conditions necessary for the poltergeist event to occur. One cannot escape thinking that the ETH ufologists play the same role as the naive observers, but at a societal level. Von Lucadou’s model appears to be even more applicable to the repeat abduction scenario, as individual ufologists who study particular cases only reinforce the belief by the experiencer that they were abducted by aliens.

One could also see some interesting similarities between what Spencer found about the mythmaking process of UFO construed as “aliens-in-spaceship” and the parapsychological experiment of creating from scratch a ghost by Owen and M. Sparrow (1976), as described in their famous book Conjuring up Philip. Nurturing plausibility structures, therefore, can be construed as working both at the small group level, as well as at the societal level. Furthermore, it can be speculated that when the two levels are in line, with respect to their content, then there is a reinforcing effect. The active participation of people, either as individual, circle of believers, or socially shared belief, appears to be key in producing psi effects.

Social anxiety and UFOs

The notion that UFOs represents some sort of reaction to socially shared anxieties constitutes the core of Jung’s (1958) analysis of the UFO phenomenon. However, it appears that this issue can be analyzed from two distinct angles. First, Pierre Viéroudy (1977) and Martin Kottmeyer (1996) found a correlation between national crises and UFO waves. As well, it can also be said that UFO-like events such as the Marian apparitions in Fatima in 1917 were occurring during a national crisis, i.e. the first deployment of Portuguese troops on the Western front (matching almost perfectly the spread of the apparitions), which was completely occulted by ufologists who studied the events (such as Fernandes and D’Armada 2005). Jacques Vallée (1992), who visited the USSR in its last days, speculated that the UFO wave they were experiencing at the time might be caused by the incoming national crisis.

Second, it is also possible to see the UFO phenomenon as the expression of a general anxiety about technology and its impact on our lives (Méheust 1978). In this case, the phenomenon appears to have developed a dynamics of its own, where it is quite difficult to predict sightings, as they may be linked to a multitude of factors hard to measure and monitor.

The macro social dynamic and the collective unconscious

The notion that UFOs would be an objectified expression of the collective unconscious is not a new one, and was contemplated by Jung (1958). A few other authors have made such a suggestion (Freixedo 1977; Viéroudy 1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1983; Méheust 1978; Stupple in Fuller 1980; Rojcewicz 1987), but none of them has pursued it to any significant extent. What these authors imply is that collectively, through shared unconscious processes, we produce macro level PK effects (including materialization) that are partially autonomous from the individual witnesses. As well, our commonly shared frames of reference provide a specific content to these PK effects (i.e., drawing from existing plausibility structures). UFOs and aliens are thus understood as PK effects specific to our technological world dreaming of deep space exploration. To understand how the collective unconscious could be producing PK effects, one has to search into a literature further remote from the study of UFOs and parapsychology.

Collective unconscious and social unconscious

These two terms have been used interchangeably, and in the sociological literature it appears to not cause much problem if one is doing so. However, psychologists do make a distinction between the two. The collective unconscious is a concept directly linked to Carl Jung and his followers. Although there have been some attempts to link his concept to sociological analysis (Staude 1976, Greenwood 1990, Main 2006), it remains essentially a psychological concept. The problem with Jung’s concept is that it is a very rigid one that identifies a number of specific archetypes (deep genetically rooted ways of thinking and feeling) which have failed to be empirically tested when it comes to socially-shared ways of thinking and feeling. Societies have shown instead very wide diversity in this regard. Yet, Jung’s concept is still useful because it opens a door to the study of paranormal effects through the notion of synchronicity (see Main 1997 for a detailed discussion). For Jung, synchronicity is a correlation between two events that are not linked by a cause-and-effect chain, but that are meaningful to each others. Jung proposes that synchronicity is an expression of the collective unconscious “making thing happen”.

Hansen (2001), a parapsychologist, proposed that paranormal events are a particular expression of the collective unconscious under the archetype that Jung named the trickster. The trickster is a metaphorical description of our dealing with ambiguity. As the human mind is not able to comprehend the entire reality, we have to make assumptions, to speculate, and belief in a lot of things to go through life. The net result is that our relationship to reality is always marked by a fair degree of ambiguity. The trickster is therefore this common human experience of having other parts of our mind challenging in unexpected ways the conscious but improvable assumptions we made about reality to deal with its inherent ambiguity. For Hansen, psi effects occur when the trickster archetype is activated because it creates a liminal zone between old certainties and new certainties. Within that liminal zone, for a brief period, everything becomes possible, including psi effects. It is in this context that Hansen considers that UFO events occur when the trickster archetype is activated within the collective unconscious at the social level. Although Hansen provides an interesting analytical approach to the UFO experience, it remains too generic, like all other attempts to link Jungian archetypes to the sociological analysis.

To develop a less generic approach to understand the impact of the collective unconscious, there are a number of avenues that remain to be explored. For instance the work of sociologists like Castoriadis (1975) and Leledakis (1995) on how social innovation occurs through the unconscious and the imaginary, and the work of people involved in group analytics such as Powell (1991), Dalal (2001), Zeddies (2002), and Thygesen (2008), may provide further thought to develop a more comprehensive model as to how the collective unconscious work. Such a model may, in turn, help to understand the processes behind the generation of social psi.

A proto-model

Based on the literature surveyed so far, it is possible to propose a tentative modeling of the social dimension of the UFO phenomenon. It appears that all three usual levels of analysis (i.e. individual, group, and society) have a part to play in various PEMIE events. It is not to say that they always play a role in each case, but they all can potentially play a role. It could be speculated that the most spectacular PEMIE events such as major Marian apparitions would occur only when the three levels are aligned cognitively and emotionally.

The proposed model could construed as a concentric graph moving from the most concrete elements of the experience towards the most subtle and yet most structuring elements. As well, two distinct sets of variables seem at play. One set I would qualify of cognitive, which includes individual beliefs, small group nurturing of the phenomenon, and the societal plausibility structures. The second set is more in line with other enablers to psi effects such as individual sensitivity to the paranormal, telepathic sharing, and social anxiety within the collective unconscious.



This remains, of course, only a tentative first cut at modelling UFO events based on the literature surveyed. However, it appears quite clear that the social dimension of the UFO experience cannot be ignored, and it appears to play a fundamental role in defining the phenomenon.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Ouellet

Interim Summary and First Draft of an Analytical Model – Part 2

The ontological levels cannot be reduced to one another. For instance, physics is not of much use to study environmental ecosystems; biology is not effective to understand cultural variations; psychology is not very good at explaining social phenomena such as social classes, etc. Yet, ontological levels do interact, and at times overlap. Any attempt to provide an analytical model for the study of UFO waves, must also take into account such interactions. In fact, any scientific progress is likely to occur by exploring those interacting and overlapping dimensions of reality. So far, it is possible to envision the following linkages.

Physical and Biological ontological intersections

Following Budden here, it appears that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) can cause biological hypersensitivity to EMF, as well as other diseases like cancer. EMF can also induce altered state of consciousness. Conversely, it is known that living organisms produce also their own, albeit weak, EMF. It is important to underline that the intersection works both ways, as the biological can influence the physical too. Hence, one should expect, at least in theory, that balls of light might also react to living organisms’ EMF. Although this is internal coherent with what is known, there is little empirical evidence available to support this. But this could constitute an interesting avenue for research.

Physical and Psychological ontological intersections

Following the work of Persinger, it is clear that EMF can have an impact on human perception. Research in parapsychology has also shown that the human mind can also have an impact electrical apparatuses like computers, light bulbs, and of course random number generators. Paul Devereux in his research on Earthlights (Earthlights (Wellingborough: Turnstone Press, 1982)suggested that they seem to react to human action and thought. Pierre Vieroudy came to the same conclusions while doing his empirical research on psi generated UFOs. This is certainly an important aspect of the UFO phenomena that the interaction between balls of light and the human mind can go both ways. This also opens the possibility that the actual content of UFO experience is in part objectively created by the human mind.

Another aspect of mind-over-matter, but more controversial, yet with some evidence to support it, is the issue of materialization. As the historian of science François Favre has shown, there was a lot of quality empirical research done in the early 20th century on materialization that is now almost completely forgotten. These materialization included also manufactured objects. Carl Jung in his book Flying Saucer discusses himself witnessing materialization without having any doubts about it. Research on poltergeist also discusses of cases of materialization. For instance, during the famous German poltergeist event of Rosenheim in 1967, bricks were seen coming out of a house while no bricks were found on the front lawn. As well, a police officer claimed that every time he was getting in the house he saw a bucket of water materializing in front of him.

This may appear outlandish, but it could explain the UFOs seen as having a manufactured shape and leaving geometric marks on the ground. There is some evidence to support this view, as shown above, and this would be more consistent with what is known of UFOs, if compared with proposals coming from the ETH.

Physical and Sociological ontological intersections

At a general level, it is possible to say that physical structures can create particular social forms. For instance, easy communications caused be flat terrain tend to create wider social networks of people and more complex social structure than mountainous terrain were the equivalent of insular mentality is commonly found (think of Switzerland). Conversely, people can change physical environment because it serves better it social organization. The Western way of adapting the environment is quite different from the aboriginal way in the Americas, and this difference is due to a difference in social structure and outlook.

There seems to be also an intersection in the psi realm. One can think about the Global Consciousness project lead by Dean Radin. A form of social psi (i.e., that cannot be reduced to individual psi) seems to affect random number generators. This was seen in a very spectacular way, starting 8 hours before the first attack against the World Trade Centre, on 11 September 2001. Carl Jung has also theorized about the collective unconscious, and other have speculated that it is a form of absolute knowledge that individual can access through psi-related means, but the absolute knowledge itself could only be understood as a social object. Others have speculated, but not research it, that UFOs might be a form social psi, gaining a temporary autonomy that cannot be understood in terms of individual psi effect. There is some evidence to support this, as some have noticed that UFO waves tend to occur where there are national or collective tensions, or just before (like the Iranian UFO incident of 1976 – similar to the Belgian one of 1989-1990, a few years before the Islamic Revolution). This would be also coherent with what is known.

This is one of the key contribution that parasociology can make in the study of not only UFOs, but other so-called paranormal events.

Biological and Psychological ontological intersections

At a general level, it is known that brain injury, for instance, can affect perceptions and consciousness. Conversely, it is also known that diseases and illness can be created by psychosomatic disorders. With respect to UFOs, one cannot exclude some report of strange illness and cure caused by aliens/UFOs. There has been research about psi healing, and psi-induced illnesses. Again, this would be consistent with is known.

Biological and Sociological ontological intersections

At a general level, it is known that the biological environment influences social structures. Fishing communities, for instance, are very different from hunter-gatherers’ societies. Social structures can also have an impact on biology like industrialism and environmental pollutions, but also advance capitalism causing epidemics of stress-related diseases.

There is also the Gaïa theory, which assumes that the Earth is a living organism too. By extension one can think that maybe this living organism is also producing psi effects that influence the collective unconscious. This is a popular New Age idea, but it has no supporting evidence. On the other hand, it is theoretically in line with the known interactions between the social and the biological, if it is embedded into a collective psi construct. This would be an interesting project for parasociology, but it requires firming up quite a bit the notion of collective psi. Yet, the implicit idea would be that UFOs are “psi reactions” of the biosphere to human activities. So far, the symbolic meaning attached to UFOs sightings seems pointing instead towards something internal to human affairs and not the issues of the biosphere.
Sociological and Psychological ontological intersections

At a general level, it is known that culture and socialization influence the type of personalities found in a given society. Conversely, so individual can have profound influence on social constructs (e.g., Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Picasso, etc.). The intersection is also possible in the realm of psi effect. For instance, the famous sociologist Max Weber implied that political leadership could be a form of psi (and this has not been noticed by many sociologists). Conversely, the “epidemic” of Gray alien visitations could be explained as individuals being “struck” by social psi.

There is very little research done so far on the intersections between individual and social psi beyond the groundbreaking work done by Carl Jung. But it is clearly in line with what is known. This is certainly the other key task of parasociology, with obvious application to UFO research, if successful in developing an empirical research agenda.

Interim Conclusions

When dissected as above, the UFO phenomenon is indeed complex, as not all the variables are known. Parasociology does not have all the answers, but it certainly focuses on the blind spots, the neglected areas of the UFO phenomenon. From this point of view, it is reassuring that the research agenda is indeed attempting to fill existing gaps in our knowledge, and that this gap has been identified by being as multi-disciplinary as possible.

The two priority areas are intersection between the physical realm and the social, and between the psychological realm and the social. In both cases, “science of the extreme” (i.e., the study of psi) appears more needed than normal social science (the “Newtonian” version of it).

It appears now too early to even propose a draft model, but some questions can be put forward. For instance, should I use “socialkinesis” instead of PK to describe the possible interaction between the social and the physical? Are UFO waves “Recurrent Spontaneous Social Kinesis”? Similarly, should I use “Extra-Sensorial Socialization” to discuss informational psi effect emanating out of the collective unconscious? I am not sure. But I know there is a need to develop a terminology that will help preventing reductionist attempts of considering social psi as simply an aggregate of psychological psi (a common problem already existing in normal sociology when engaging with normal psychologists and physicists and biologists).

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet

Interim Summary and First Draft of an Analytical Model – Part 1

I have covered some ground in terms of what is out there. It is time to do a summary what is emerging so far. However, it is first important to underline an obvious conclusion: UFO and alien sightings might be single events, but from an analytical standpoint they are multi-level realities. Hence, to propose a meaningful summary and a first draft of an analytical model, I need to firm up this preliminary conclusion. To do so, I decided to borrow from Cornelius Castoriadis, a French philosopher of Greek origin, who was very influential in the social sciences in France, and indirectly in North America when the ideas of the post-structuralist (or postmodern) thinkers were massively “imported” to the new world during the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-François Lyotard, etc.).

Ontological Levels

Castoriadis proposed an interesting theory of ontology (the nature of reality). For him, “being” is what can exist because we can imagine it. For an object to exist, it has to exist in our mind. To exist in our mind we have to imagine it first. Hence, for Castoriadis the human mind is constantly creating reality. This idea is in many ways similar to Immanuel Kant’s idea that our relationship with reality is always mediated by our language, culture, preconceptions, etc. Direct access to reality is not possible because we need all these mediating elements to access reality, to make distinctions between different objects so that reality is not just mass of confused stimuli; in other words, to make sense of reality we need lenses. Without language and culture we cannot name things, and if we cannot name them then we cannot understand them. An important point here, this is not to say that there is no independent or objective reality out there, it is simply that such reality cannot be grasped without our subjectivity. For both Kant and Castoriadis, a better understanding of our subjective tools to apprehend reality is therefore the key to generate better knowledge.

Castoriadis, however, adds that there are four fundamental levels of ontology that are not reducible to one another, and this constitutes an inherent characteristic of reality. These levels are: the physical, the biological, the psychological (or psyche-soma), and the social-historical. Castoriadis recognizes that this reality out there “reacts” to our gaze and our scrutiny, and that our imagination faces constraints; our creative capacities may be unlimited in theory but when it is time to understand how our environment works we have to answer to reality’s unforeseen “reactions”. The famous French anthropologist of science, Bruno Latour who borrowed a lot from Castoriadis, stated in the same spirit that “reality is what resists” our imagination. In other words, reality tends to contradict what we imagine so that we have to work harder at it.

This is a bit of a long detour, but I wanted to be sure that this distinction in four ontological levels is not perceived as being arbitrary. It is based on serious ontological and epistemological foundations. This categorization of reality in four levels will be useful to classify what I found so far, and it will be useful to establish linkages between findings. It is also useful in order to be reflexive. Reflexivity appears to me as being critical when one studies the paranormal; pseudo-scientific attitudes created out of mimicry, or out of 19th century naive scientism attitude are still transmitted in present-day high schools and universities. It is also useful to deconstruct the excesses of positivist, empiricist and reductionist attitudes found in the scientific community at large, without falling into the trap of the New Age’s extreme relativism.

The classification of the information thus far amassed will be put through two usual epistemological tests. The first one is the external validity, by asking if there are empirical evidences to support the assertion. The evidence can be directly related or indirectly related to similar situations. The second test is about internal validity. Are the findings coherent with other findings? Or is it logically consistent with what is known, or does it requires a separate special explanation? Any special explanation would then require special justification.

The Physical Reality of UFOs

The physical evidence about UFO all points towards balls of lights in their various guises, which tend to be highly charged from an electromagnetic standpoint. As the Hessdalen project has shown, balls of light can be invisible to the eye, and yet producing a radar echo. When they are visible they look like nocturnal light (NL, in the Hynek classification), and silvery discs or balls during daylight (DD, diurnal discs). If we accept the rule-of-thumb that about 95% of all UFO sightings can be explained by more mundane sources (airplanes, meteorites, satellites, optical illusions, etc.), then we have also to underline that the vast majority of the 5% remaining is made of NLs and DDs. This is true for both single UFO observations and UFO waves.

Balls of light can accelerate very quickly to reach 9,000 meters per second (32,400 km/h). They can be produced by natural sources of electro-magnetism, or by man-made ones. As they are often highly charged electro-magnetically, they tend to cause dysfunctions to electrical equipment. There are at least 3 factors involved in the creation of balls of light according to Budden, their various combinations can lead to various types of balls of light with different characteristics. They can produce high degrees of heat and leave burn marks on the ground, and cause various types of injuries to witnesses. It is also possible that square wave radio frequencies make them taking 90 degrees square turns when the conditions for such behaviour are met. They are probably also sensitive to other sources of electromagnetism, like a fighter jet locking its radar on a UFO, might just “push” the ball of light further, and give the illusion that it is engaging in evasive manoeuvres. This explanation has a basis of empirical evidence to support it, and it is coherent with Newtonian physics and what is known about UFO sightings.

The only exceptions are the Close Encounters (CE 1 to 3) sightings from Hynek’s descriptive classification. These sightings are actually the only portion of the UFO experience where the ETH has any possible traction. If we decompose the problem, however, the room left for the ETH becomes even narrower. Most of the CE3 (seeing an ufonaut) and all of the so-called CE4 (alien abduction) occur when the witness is in a state of altered consciousness (or facing the “Oz factor” to use Jenny Randle’s terminology). It is important to note also that someone in a state of altered consciousness is usually not be aware of it. Hence, CE3 are still not offering any tangible evidence for the ETH, as in altered state of consciousness reality and fiction tend to get mixed up (the Kantian issue discussed above). Such situations can be caused by known physical source of energy applied to the brain, as research in laboratory setting shows (particularly Persinger). The physical marks can also be explained by self-action of the experiencer when he/she is a state of altered consciousness, and he or she will have no conscious memory of having done it. They actually tend to attribute, wrongly, these marks to the action of what was seen during the event. Psychiatry has extended empirical evidence about this type of unconscious behaviour.

Most CE 2 (leaving physical traces) can also be explained by what we know about balls of light. The only exceptions are the relatively rare instances where geometric marks (square, rectangles) are found leaving an imprint in the ground. CE 1 that involve seeing a manufactured object can at times be construed as misperceptions caused by altered state of consciousness, but not always, especially when there are several witnesses reporting the same description. As one can see, the room for the ETH is rather much narrower than most people think. From the point of view of physical evidence, there is nothing to support the ETH in these instances, as no materiel, equipment or biological tissues “out of this Earth” was ever found. It still fails the external validity test. As it will be shown in the next post, other explanations with some empirical evidence supporting them and more in line with was is already known can be offered to explain these last elements. The ETH also fails the internal validity test. Hence, given these two test failures and its relatively limited applicability, there are no rational at this point to maintain a special explanation such as the ETH.

The Biological Reality of UFOs

There is a biological component to the UFO experience if we consider “mind postures” more likely to lead to altered state of consciousness as a biological issue. There is now substantial evidence to show that altered state of consciousness plays an important part in the UFO experience, but such states are likely to occur to people predisposed to have a lower threshold between the conscious mind and the unconscious. Such threshold is in part biological, although it can be trained (like a muscle) through various techniques like meditation, yoga, etc. According to Budden’s research, some people have a greater sensibility to electromagnetism due to prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields. There are also people who neurologically developed dissociative personalities, oftentimes the result of a defence mechanism developed during a traumatic childhood. Lastly, there are people who seem to have an innate lower threshold, and they are oftentimes found in artistic and creative professions. The empirical evidence here is quite strong, and it is in line with what is known about UFO experiences, and parapsychology.

The Social-Historical Reality of UFOs

There is a social and historical component to the UFO experience in as much as its content can be traced back to sociological realities. UFOs are specific to our time, and appear to be closely related to our capacity of imagining flying machines. Some may argue that the Bible and ancient Hindu texts discusses flying machines, and this is quite true. The possibility of imagining flying machine is in itself not time bound, but “seeing” strange objects in the sky on an ongoing basis is unique to our time. The content of UFO sightings seems also to be related to social dynamics. From the Airship story of 1896, to the Kenneth Arnold’s sightings of flying objects wobbling like flying saucers, to the rash of contactees emerging after George Adamski published Flying Saucers Have Landed in 1953, one can only see that the content of UFO experience is at least partially socially constructed.

Only one unusual sighting or experience (actually alleged sighting or experience) is enough to create a series of similar sightings that can last for decades. A case in point is the Betty and Barney Hill experience with the so-called Grey ETs. It was a first, and it became publicly known in 1966 with the publication of Interrupted Journey. Then, the Becky Andreasson case occurred in 1967. But the real “epidemic” of Grey ETs abductions started in the mid 1970s, coinciding with the broadcast of a TV film entitled The UFO Incident, aired the first time on NBC in October 1975, and relating the story of Hill couples’ experience. As well, Bertrand Meheust has provided extensive analyses to show that science fiction impacts the content of UFO experiences. The evidence for a social-historical dimension to the UFO experience is very strong and it is in line what was is known about other paranormal phenomena like the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Catholic countries or areas, the Chupacabra in Spanish speaking countries, etc.

The Psychological Reality of UFOs

Here it is at times difficult to separate the physiological aspect of altered states of consciousness, and the actual experience. However, to provide an analytical distinction, the psychological aspect of the UFO experience is understood as the intrapsychic component, and this relates to our understanding of both consciousness and the unconscious. This is, in turn, links directly to the question of imagination, as it appears to be the bridge between the two. The conscious mind creates reality through imagining, correcting the creation as it rubs itself against reality. The unconscious processes, stores and sends back the results of the imaginary process to the conscious mind in a subliminal and/or symbolic way. Hence, the distinction between imaginary realm and reality is much more subtle that most people think. An obvious example of this is when people get into an accident and feel no pain until they realized they are injured. It is on this bridge that the question of psi needs to be understood. Psi can be construed as the reverse process described above: reality is created in the unconscious mind, and the conscious mind uses imagination to make sense of it, which in turn may affect reality. Certainly, the remote viewing process appears to work that way and there is some empirical evidence to support this.

It is quite clear that there is an important psi element in the UFO experience. For instance, altered perceptions seem to be telepathically shared when there is more than one witness. There are too many similarities in the experience for a regular psychological explanation to hold. Although there is some research on the “folie à deux”, such research shows that “folie à deux” only occur when one witness is having a particularly strong psychological hold on the other, and thus influence him/her to believe in a particular perception. It is not to say that it cannot happen in UFO cases, but when there are several witnesses, physically apart and not knowing each other, the “folie à deux” cannot be invoked.

Psi research shows that believing in paranormal increases the probability of psi effects, and there is no reason to think that it is any different with the UFO experience. This actually relates directly to the question of imagination. These beliefs play an important part in establishing a bridge between the conscious and unconscious mind, although it is not a mandatory one. Some research empirically supports this statement, particularly the Anamnesis Project.

Yet, contrary to remote viewing and many other forms of psychic experiment, UFO experiences are spontaneous and not predictable. It appears as if an external psi source is involved in creating the psi experience (in one’s own unconscious). It is also contrary to RSPKs experiences, where clearly a particular type of dysfunctional personality is usually involved. Furthermore, in the case of UFO waves there seem to be multiple or no focus persons involved in the event. Certainly, it is this aspect of the UFO experience that also keeps alive the 2nd degree ETH, and the paranormal explanations (PNH) proposed by Jacques Vallée and John Keel. Unfortunately, there is no possible evidence for such approaches. If one assumes that non-human entities are involved, then it also implies that these entities can “play” with the experience at will. Thus, it is beyond the reach of any analysis. This is the analytical position taken by parapsychology, and it paid off, as our knowledge of paranormal has advanced under parapsychology while it remained stagnant with the old fashion psychical research. Following this approach for UFO, is therefore consistent with what is known.

There are a fair amount of empirical evidence to link UFOs and psi effect, and many of the UFO experience characteristics are coherent with was is known about psi effect. However, the issue of an external source of psi appears to not fit what is known in parapsychology. On the other hand, parapsychology tend to shy away from the study of paranormal phenomena that seem to have an external source to a specific individual(s) unconscious mental processes.

Part II

In the second part, in an attempt to answer provisionally some of the questions left pending in Part I, the interaction between ontological levels will be explored.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet