tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post6581292001103181278..comments2024-03-20T06:35:39.421-07:00Comments on hidden experience: audio conversation with Jason HorsleyMike Clelland!http://www.blogger.com/profile/11369575898695154728noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-82795856113018695272012-04-11T12:47:25.483-07:002012-04-11T12:47:25.483-07:00RPJ: thanks for noting that, it's encouraging ...RPJ: thanks for noting that, it's encouraging because it underlines my primary intent - to evolve and develop whitley's ideas and encourage him, and others to do so. You may be the first reader who's really done this, to the point i pretty much forgot that this had been my original motivation for writing it.<br /><br />trish - I never suggested whitley ever did anything for money, so I don't know what you're referring to - maybe a comment from one of the readers?<br /><br />as for the left brain comment, that's central to the piece's argument, so it's a bit ironic that you use it as a defense of strieber.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-39006605894733671372012-04-07T08:59:47.596-07:002012-04-07T08:59:47.596-07:00Part 2 at RS is very illuminating. I enjoyed it v...Part 2 at RS is very illuminating. I enjoyed it very much because my particular experiences, few as they are, always seem to suggest that they will be what I make of them in the future. All suggest they come from my psyche (are tailor made for me alone) and all have to do with where I find a level of stress at the time of their occurrences. <br /><br />Eventually, I always find something wanting inside me rather than with the world at large when I examine the experiences with the distance of time. It's very difficult to find one's own disconnects and personal mistakes in the shadows. but I see no way around looking at the experiences as our personal aids to epiphany, very, very personal epiphany. Maybe the more elaborate they are, the more we have to learn about ourselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-82874413765898877842012-04-06T20:24:09.678-07:002012-04-06T20:24:09.678-07:00I read the article on Reality Sandwich about Whitl...I read the article on Reality Sandwich about Whitley- parts 1 and 2. Here's what I find amusing: no writer says to himself or herself, Gee, I think I'm going to write a book that is going to get me an advance of a million bucks. That's not how it works in publishing. <br /><br />As a writer, you can't write to the market because by the time your book i published the market has morphed. So, sorry, that part about Whitley writing for his huge advance just doesn't cut it. <br /><br />Something happened to Whitley. Something happened to Betty Hill too. <br /><br />Back in the 80s, we spent a weekend with Betty while covering a UFO conference for OMNI magazine. I can't say she and Barney were abducted by aliens; I wasn't there. But what I can say is that something happened to her and Barney that defined her life from that moment forward. <br /><br />The same is true for Whitley. The contradictions in his writings? The material evolves as his consciousness evolves. There is nothing static about abductions/encounters. It's a constantly changing, evolving scenario. It's not some intellectual exercise. It's not something the left brain can dissect.Trishhttp://www.synchrosecrets.com/synchrosecretsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-917029966889616232012-04-06T13:38:48.551-07:002012-04-06T13:38:48.551-07:00I finished the 2nd essay, which I enjoyed even mor...I finished the 2nd essay, which I enjoyed even more than the 1st one.<br /><br />There are a great deal of points that should be explored, but I think I need to mull things over a bit in order to elaborate.<br /><br />What I can say now is how the essay seeks to follow (either consciously or unconsciously) a particular philosophical stance that sadly Whitley doesn't seem to mention anymore: I'm talking about the Triad.<br /><br />As you say in your comment, your essay was not meant either to please the people who believe unquestionably Strieber's accounts (the positive force) nor to support the debunkers who claim he's nothing but a charlatan or a schizophrenic (the negative force). I perceive in the essay a desire to become the third force that reconciles the opposites of the two in order to form an integrated unity. Like I said, Strieber used to apply this reasoning of reconciling forces in his early work and that resonated with me in the past.<br /><br />Also during last week I thought about something mentioned at an old Radio Misterioso podcast, of how an amazing experience can elicit very divergent outcomes depending on the person: how on the one hand you have someone like Edgar Mitchell, whose lunar experiences brought him something akin of a techno-induced enlightenment; and on the other you have someone like Buzz Aldrin, ready to punch the face of any annoying philistine and Doubting Thomas. Same experience, <b>very</b> different outcome ;)<br /><br />And if you're still in the mood to explore divergent conflicting personalities in the UFO-Contactee world, another interesting study case would be that of Ray Stanford; a man who as an adolescent was a bonafide Contactee spreading the Space-brotherly message of universal peace and practicing channeling and spiritual healing, but who know is one of the last 'hard-science' researchers of what he calls AAOs (Anomalous Aerial Objects) using very sophisticated equipment to prove the physical reality of UFOs, yet stubbornly unwilling to share any of his alleged fantastical material evidence until he finally manages to fulfill the dream of submit it for academical peer-review. Stanford too is a person quick to anger when confronting dissent or criticism; whether this is a natural manifestation of his character, or the result of his long career as a contactee-turned-scientist ditching hokey spirituality in favor of materialism is something I cannot say.Red Pill Junkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738203580562140501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-23405195583141582762012-04-05T00:13:57.404-07:002012-04-05T00:13:57.404-07:00Great essay on Reality Sandwich Jason.And to quote...Great essay on Reality Sandwich Jason.And to quote you;<br />" The solution to being overly credulous isn't to close one's mind but to learn discernment about what we let into our minds, and above all, what we take to heart and what we adopt as our own truth. The poet John Keats wrote, "The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." To make up one's mind about nothing means to believe without believing and to disbelieve without dismissing. In the words of Strieber, it entails learning "to live at a high level of uncertainty. <br />For me, the means to approach the strange case of Whitley Strieber has been to keep in mind that, whatever may be happening to him, it is a reflection and expression not only of his psyche but of the collective psyche, and therefore, of my own. "<br /><br />That passage could quite easily have been pulled out of my own thought stream,because you have pretty much articulated my thoughts into words,and not just about Whitley,but about everything.<br />Maybe that's why I experience so many syncs,because that is how I think,I take my que from the flow. <br />It's not to say that I don't have my theories on how the world works,<br />e.g. 9/11,moon landings, Kubrick,etc.<br />But if somebody can truly show me how my theories are wrong,I'm willing to alter them,until then I'll continue building with the Lego blocks of my truths that I've come across.But I'm always willing to discard the blocks I've collected if someone can show me why their blocks are better. <br /><br />I'm looking forward to reading your book,and don't be discouraged by any criticisms in these sixty plus comments on this post.Your work is just as vital as Mike's,Whitley's,or my own <br />(not that I have much that I could call work.-)Brizdaz (Darren)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16218154629850982033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-27650317626110193552012-04-04T21:56:55.892-07:002012-04-04T21:56:55.892-07:00Well I can't provide the satisfaction of a per...Well I can't provide the satisfaction of a person whose thoughts on Strieber changed because of what you wrote BUT I can say that you have said what I have always accepted about him. I am a subscriber to the website and I have read most of his books and I know that he is like the weather, if you don't like what he is saying, just wait awhile, it will change, and quite often his thoughts are fascinating, often enough that I keep up with what he has to say.Obviously you care what he has to say as well or you would not have examined it so closely. So you did not offend me into wanting to defend Whitley or into wanting to hate you. I look forward to reading the 2nd part of your article and also the book of yours I ordered after listening to this interview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-68432599472771477192012-04-04T01:24:03.453-07:002012-04-04T01:24:03.453-07:00post at RS:
I have to say I'd love to hear ju...post at RS:<br /><br />I have to say I'd love to hear just once that someone who had dismissed Strieber as charlatan/shill/snake oil salesman or crank changed their opinion of him after reading my piece.<br /><br />That would be the best feedback I could get at this point, because it would counter the charges that the article was meant as an attack on Strieber. More to the point, it would mean that I was successful in what I was attempting to do: not only to cause doubt in those who blindly believe in Strieber's version of things, but also in those who, perhaps also blindly, dismiss it, and him. Part of my intention with the piece (and this is something I may not have acknowledged publicly) was to use the framework of a deconstructive, questioning piece to introduce skeptics to some of strieber's ideas, a bit of a Trojan Horse op. Ironic, eh?<br /><br />To this end, I was careful to choose quotes by Strieber that demonstrate just how profound a thinker he can be, and how novel and challenging his insights are, as well as choosing quotes for their contradictory content.<br /><br />It may be that I failed in this, although the fact that people who would rather ignore Whitley, as mentioned above, are discussing him is perhaps the best proof that the piece has been somewhat effective in keeping the Strieber case open.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-67823852269879434802012-04-02T15:52:28.210-07:002012-04-02T15:52:28.210-07:00@ Kephas & Jim:
[My previous comment got abdu...@ Kephas & Jim:<br /><br />[My previous comment got abducted by those dastardly machine elves]<br /><br />I do look forward to reading the 2nd part of the essay. The UFO field in general and Abduction research in particular are the areas where we find how patently inadequate language as a medium is when trying to apply it not only to the dealings of human beings with non-humans, but also how we judge and characterize those dealings.<br /><br />Because in the end what we --the people who make use of the Internet as a means to further our knowledge pertaining to these other realms and their denizens-- should really be looking forward to is a way to move the discussion forward. <br /><br />Like Jason said in the original interview with Mike, that we are always obsessing with the trees that prevent us from looking at the forest, we too tend to put much too emphasis in the persons who claim to have had contact with non-human intelligences, but all the arguments don't seem to take us any further into what we really want to know: who these beings are and what they want with us.<br /><br />Maybe it's impossible to separate the abduction from the abductee. As Mike and others are fond of reminding us outsiders, this is a communication with a heavily personal and intimate undertone. Maybe the only thing we *can* try to objectively study is how the experience slowly molds the character of the abductee in the long run.<br /><br />Christopher Knowles wrote one in his blog that the only real difference between the visionary and the lunatic is the outcome. People like Philip K. Dick, John Nash or Van Gogh are clear examples of how the drive of the message can easily erode the messenger if a proper balance is not managed.<br /><br />From that perspective, and looking at Whitley's documented experiences, I can say only this: I doubt I would have fared any better --and I don't think I would like to find out...Red Pill Junkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738203580562140501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-58202505501593803252012-04-02T11:18:14.135-07:002012-04-02T11:18:14.135-07:00@Red Pill Junkie -
I'd like to say that I con...@Red Pill Junkie -<br /><br />I'd like to say that I concur with your attitude re: Kephas' piece. My criticisms of it are very pointed, but nevertheless, my own view on it is basically the same: too much of Kephas' frustration bleeds through and that distorts (maybe hopelessly) the way the piece reads.<br /><br />What's puzzling/bothersome to me is the way that Kephas can't seem to admit that since it seems so obvious: Enough people have commented that the original piece comes off like it has an axe to grind that sooner or later you'd think the author might wonder if it might. Also troubling (to me) is here in the comments, where Kephas has found it easier to say critics are either cult followers or secret Strieber collaborators than actual critics.<br /><br />Anyway, whether or not Kephas meant the first article to be a 'hit piece', or whether he did but his views have changed, when you read the first piece and put the frustrated tone alongside the skimpy or misleading evidence, a person isn't wrong for thinking it might <i>be</i> a hit piece.<br /><br />I'm not wedded to this view, though. There's no way to be certain. I observe that Kephas has moderated many of his claims in the new version (though he has not improved his use of evidence). The new piece is padded out with more qualified language, which takes the force out of some of the original buzzwords like 'schizophrenic', 'unbalanced', nad 'obsession'. So it's possible that the new version is a less frustrated piece, and so some of Kephas' claims can be for the first time evaluated on their merits.<br /><br />To me, an author's claims have to rest on the evidence presented -- not simply because the premises sound reasonable. It isn't hard to claim, after all, that there are inconsistencies in Whitley Strieber's work. But Kephas, perhaps because he wasn't writing for an audience that would scrutinize his work, doesn't really go to much trouble to faithfully represent trends in Strieber's work. He sort of picks and chooses lines and paragraphs that suit his piece's needs at that particular moment. Given that Strieber has such a complex body of work -- and given that there are inconsistencies, even complicated ones in it -- attention to detail is paramount. Kephas' piece on Strieber doesn't really rise to that challenge. Maybe though it is a sign of "what is to come".Lord Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136450423776432401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-19803640684875895452012-04-02T10:30:32.708-07:002012-04-02T10:30:32.708-07:00Wow... this will be a relatively short comment. ...Wow... this will be a relatively short comment. I have not even listened yet... but Strieber seems to call up so many different voices it is curious... and fascinating! I havent even been able to read thru all the comments... I was re-directed here from a post on Luminosity... <br /><br />The obvious things about Streiber are that he is intelligent, articulate, a storyteller nonpariel in more ways than one. I have seen him in person, and used to listen to his interviews on Unknown Country every Saturday... when I had the time.<br /><br />I have wondered many times whether he is indeed telling the truth! Yet his own vacillations on his own truth, and what that encompasses, well has put my own doubts to shame. His own questioning goes far beyond my own simple wondering... so much so that I have been left behind. <br /><br />His site is aptly named. Unknown Country. If he is indeed an ambassador of sorts it is to that country... He now seems to me a very unknown quantity with astounding perceptions and many questionable 'valuations' and I cant make heads or tails of... he has often remarked about his capacity for living with uncertainty being stretched... and that is where I find myself when I consider him and his works.<br /><br />Kudos for an incredible romp on the sidelines of this 'war of souls'...Jameshttp://tormance.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-35339198645156453182012-04-02T10:22:02.719-07:002012-04-02T10:22:02.719-07:00(I had to delete this and correct a typo or two)
...(I had to delete this and correct a typo or two)<br /><br />Thanks for that, RPJ: a much-needed and well-timed voice of reason to restore balance to this space.<br /><br />I don't disagree with anything you write and you even make some points, the first few, that I'd love to have incorporated into the piece. A writer can't ask for more than that from his readers.<br /><br />As for the resentment, I think you exaggerate a bit, since there are people who read the essay and find nothing of the sort in it (one reader at RS even called it "lovely"!). So it can't be "a clear level of resentment," and perhaps "subtle undercurrent" would be more accurate? In any event, I am not proud of this, and I try and address it in part two of the piece. I hope I can get your comments on that, at RS, once it's up.<br /><br />Thanks again.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-41170993346714863282012-04-02T10:20:37.030-07:002012-04-02T10:20:37.030-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-85627382364422240672012-04-02T08:57:54.137-07:002012-04-02T08:57:54.137-07:00(Part 2)
The Second argument Jason makes is that ...(Part 2)<br /><br />The Second argument Jason makes is that Whitley's approach into understanding the reality of the Visitors was not the right approach. Here once again we find comparisons with Castañeda, and the admonitions given by Don Juan that trying to explain or understand what happens in 'the other side' is a futile and even dangerous endeavor. A shamanism is not meant to be a theoretical discipline but a practical one; a 'man of knowledge' is meant to act and approach his experiences from a standpoint of pure perception, without the unnecessary baggage of epistemology.<br /><br />Because what Jason seems to propose is that all manner of rationalistic conventions when dealing with these entities are utterly pointless, and even deceptive; in that perspective Strieber's personal swinging appraise of the Visitors is the result of this conflict between the rational part of his brain, and his intuitive one. This is what I personally gather when Jason judges Strieber as "not insane enough" --although IMO the choice of words might have elicited some explanation from Jason in order to make clear what he meant.<br /><br />For at the end of it the biggest flaw in Jason's essay is that his choice of words throughout it reveals a clear level of... resentment, toward Strieber. Since much of his study of Strieber is based on his personal (yet public) online journal, Jason's critique of 'Whitley the horror writer' and 'Whitley the alien abductee' spreads to a direct criticism of 'Whitley the man'. <br /><br />Evidently none of these 3 characters have risen to meet Jason's lofty expectations.<br /><br />Perhaps this is an inevitable problem of our current times, when technology has eroded the boundaries between the public and the private facets of individuals, even more-so with those who enjoy or suffer (probably both) a certain level of notoriety. We judge an author's legacy not only by the merits of its published writings, but also by its politics, pastimes, religious affiliations, sexual orientation, and even for what the author had for dinner last Saturday night.<br /><br />But since Jason willingly chooses to use such a direct approach as a way to try to come to an understanding of who Whitley Strieber really is, the reader is left with he feeling that the writer has departed from the realm of the objective essay and has entered the messy and unrestrained playground of the blog post. This probably is what fuels Lord Jim's comments of a lack of scholarly detachment on behalf of Jason.<br /><br />In the end, I think that Jason's rigorous study of Whitley's writings deserves to be read and applauded for its merits; but it also needs to be pointed out in its faults. <br /><br />As for me, like it was said in previous comments I will continue to read Strieber's work in search of things that resonate with my own personal search for answers; but as with anything else, I'll take it all with a healthy grain of salt.Red Pill Junkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738203580562140501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-58933797722865601942012-04-02T08:26:52.849-07:002012-04-02T08:26:52.849-07:00I finally had the chance to read Jason's essay...I finally had the chance to read Jason's essay (the first part) at Reality Sandwich.<br /><br />Overall, he presents two very interesting propositions with it: Firstly, that Whitley's documented ambivalence toward the purpose and intentions of the Visitors might be a telling sign that he has failed to adequately integrate his experiences on the non-ordinary state of consciousness in which he interacts with these non-human entities. The parallelisms with Castañeda are inevitable and probably very helpful in this regard; during Carlos' series of books it became evident that one of the main goals of a 'man of knowledge' was to accomplish this integration in order to fully retrieve the memories of his travels through 'Nagual's time'.<br /><br />In here we are presented with an interesting paradox, for it is <b>precisely</b> this fragmentation of the psyche the one that probably elicits the possibility of contact with the 'other side' in the first place. In the end like all shamanic journeys, it all seems to come down to a test; and whether Strieber has fulfilled it satisfactorily or not remains into question.<br /><br />Perhaps Whitley's struggle was hindered from the very beginning, the moment he decided to make use of hypnotic regression in order to retrieve those repressed memories. We all like to criticize the employment of hypnosis in abduction research for the dangers in 'contaminating' the experiencer's recollection with the researcher preconceived expectations --whether with leading questions, or maybe even via a sort of psychic transfer as Vallee and others posit-- but what is not often considered is that there *might* be a reason why such a buffer in the experiencer's mind is implanted. Could it be that the abductee is being meant to slowly integrate that other fantastic part of his/her life via a natural process? And viewed from that perspective, might hypnosis do more harm than good?<br /><br />(Cont)Red Pill Junkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738203580562140501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-43846031473281932642012-04-01T10:43:22.223-07:002012-04-01T10:43:22.223-07:00In order to close this increasingly unsatisfying c...In order to close this increasingly unsatisfying conversation (myself with LJ), i'd like to state, for the record, that I have gone over my piece in both original and latest form and find no evidence to support LJ's charges, regarding my quoting twice from the same post and indicating that this was examples of a shift in Strieber's perspective over time. From what i can tell LJ, aka Heinrich66, is engaged in either mistaken conclusions or deliberate deception. (It's possible I have overlooked something in the rush, but I don't believe so.) His more recent postings have included a long attempt to describe me as insane, which is fairly ironic considering that he accuses me of doing just that, vz a viz Whitley. Based on LJ's last response to me, it's clear that we just don't like each other and probably arent ever going to, nor do i feel as though you, LJ, have anything of any real merit to offer me, despite all your efforts. This conversation is now over. Go in peace or stay to heckle, as you like. You will be the sound of one hand clapping.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-16878646831502463652012-04-01T04:39:36.715-07:002012-04-01T04:39:36.715-07:00@Kephas -
In your last comment, you simultaneousl...@Kephas -<br /><br />In your last comment, you simultaneously apologize for suggesting that I am under the employ of Strieber (a 'sinister forces' thesis) and suggest that there are instead psychological reasons why I could condemn you and your piece so strongly -- in other words, another 'sinister forces' thesis.<br /><br />It looks again like you are refusing to do an honest analysis.<br /><br />The psychoanalysis you are conducting from afar is not really very impressive (but then again neither was the faux Freudianism you offered in the interview). You appear to be spinning for yourself a tale that it can only be for reasons of a secret rivalry (!) that there can be any 'vitriol' in my critique of your Strieber piece.<br /><br />All this demonstrates, of course, is <i>denial</i>. The facts are these: your original piece was motivated by unusual personal frustrations with a person you never met (Strieber). Your central premise was that Strieber's sanity and completeness as an individual was uniquely and thoroughly compromised. To support this premise you took quotations completely out of context. You also made a number of obvious factually inaccurate statements along the way, e.g. that John Mack was removed from his academic post. Other than to call your original piece 'obsolete', you refuse to admit these problems.<br /><br />Your defense here only amounts to saying that your position today is more nuanced. But it makes no difference as a factual matter what today or tomorrow your views are. The point under discussion is whether your first piece was dishonest enough to call what you are saying generally into question.<br /><br />I submit that it is, and that your shifting positions here in the comments further support this. In response to pointed criticisms of your first piece, you have separately maintained: a) the only people who could care are Strieber cult followers; b) that the reason why someone could care is because he is coordinating with Strieber to 'save his image'.<br /><br />Of course, you have apologized profusely for that. But now, when all else has failed, you maintain that these criticisms of your piece can only be because of hidden frustrations -- a secret rivalry! -- with you personally.<br /><br />I think that there were plenty of more prosaic reasons to be angry with your original piece, and certainly with your performance here in the comments section. To begin with, out of bizarre personal frustration, you wrote a piece that intended to cast doubt Strieber's sanity. Now, whatever his faults, it can be said that Strieber is basically a good man, and writing, for example, that everything he says can be doubted on account of his childish exchange with an equally petulant Daniel Pinchbeck is nonsense. Yet this is one of your main points. Second, you dressed up your frustration-driven attack in an intellectually provocative way. Doing this was dishonest since on a basic intellectual level your piece fails to convince anyone who is familiar with Strieber's work and who also knows how to quote from texts. But worst is how self-serving your main thesis appears in light of your frustrations. Your main thesis (let me remind you) is that it is precisely because Strieber tries to (sanely) make sense of his experiences that he has been driven mad. To which one can only say: how convenient.<br /><br />I am not very concerned that you don't find my 2008 piece 'persuasive'. That's because my piece was not intended to be 'persuasive'. Unlike yours, which was written to seduce the reader into a faulty regard for Strieber and his sanity, my piece only rather blithely points out your dishonest use of evidence and the self-serving dimension of your main premise. To wit, that because of your frustrations you found it necessary to say Strieber was insane precisely because of the way he was sane.<br /><br />I think it would be therapeutic for you to admit the defects of your first piece and move on.Lord Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136450423776432401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-32340520833405222652012-03-31T15:15:25.822-07:002012-03-31T15:15:25.822-07:00OK LJ- you may have a point there.
I just found o...OK LJ- you may have a point there.<br /><br />I just found out a moment ago, after reading your original criticism of my piece, that you were the author of the Minority Report, which ironically enough, I quote in Part Two of the article.<br /><br />So first off, I'd like to formally (& publicly) apologize for my above suggestion.<br /><br />Now that is out of the way, I was disappointed (? - relieved would be the more accurate word) by your first critique. I found it superficially persuasive, the use of language was "scholarly" - maybe to a fault - and that gave it a semblance of depth. You appear to have done your training in the field. But what i readof the piece I didn't find especially substantial. No Aha! moments and hence no "Oh shit" ones either. There were a number of statements that I would call outright inaccurate, but even if I did have time now, I would balk at going through an old critique of a now obsolete version of an article, line by line, to prove who's smarter than who. Let's just say I find it a pity, personally, that an intelligent reader like yourself took such a hardliner approach and so, for me, that invalidated your argument. I was left not quite understanding what you found so objectionable.<br /><br />You seem to be angry with the piece and with me, and you attack both of us with (I think) considerably more vitriol than I used in my own piece, even the first version, yet based on so very little, finally. So I can't really 'connect' to your POV (though I very much did in your MR article).<br /><br />I'll add here that I am at a time in my life, and in my "writing career," in which I am relatively open to criticism, even to the idea that I am or have been on the wrong track, self-deluded, and in fact all the things you suggest in your piece. But your arguments were far too vague and somehow hollow (academic is surely the word) to convince me of that - and despite the fact I am already half-convinced anyway! So epic fail there, heinrich.<br /><br />It's too bad you didn't reply to my email last year. It seems as though you made up your mind about me and so nothing I had to say was of interest to you. Not very scholarly of you, is it? Apparently your objection to my work has a SUBJECTIVE element to it which you don't admit to (maybe because you aren't aware of it) and which I can't identify or account for. This was why I suggested there as an "agenda" at work. I assumed it was a "protect Whitley" agenda (before reading your longer piece) - which doesn't, BTW, imply (even a little bit) that I consider my piece to be an attack, as you suggest - that's one example of your flawed (and slightly disingenuous) logic at work. (If Strieber considers it an attack, that would be enough for him to want to try and do some spin work around it.) I think, at the risk of inviting your scorn, it has more to do with a sense of rivalry you feel with me, maybe for some perceived influence you think I have that you don't? If so, that would be ironic, since there may well be something of the kind that was unconsciously driving my analysis of WS - a possibility I own to in part 2 of the article.<br /><br />Maybe if you read the second part and think there's anything constructive to say, you can get back to me.<br /><br />Once again, apologies for taking the slightly cheap shot above. Honesty is only as possible as we are conscious of our own blind spots, which of course is not at all. In other words, we are all severely challenged when it comes to speaking or writing the truth - about anything.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-85911121644219368452012-03-31T10:53:33.675-07:002012-03-31T10:53:33.675-07:00@Kephas -
I'd like to note how interesting a...@Kephas - <br /><br />I'd like to note how interesting and amusing it is that while on the one hand Strieber has a way of leaping to the conclusion that anyone who criticizes him in a sustained way must be a disinformation agent, your only comeback is that I must be hired by Strieber or somehow working in concert to "save his image". In other words, the same argument.<br /><br />Of course, this is classic paranoid UFOlogy thinking. It is also a kind of pathetic passive-aggressive ad hominem. As if someone would really be working in that way at Strieber's behest to "save his image" <i>in a random website's comments section.</i> (No offense, Mike.)<br /><br />So it seems to me here we have dishonesty again: Don't like my piece? <b>You must be hired by Strieber!</b> This raises an interesting question though: why would it even be necessary to "save his image" if all you were doing was gently questioning Strieber's work as you now claim? Doth the lady protest too much?<br /><br />I find your stated desire for honest dialogue highly dubious precisely because of the way you distorted Strieber's positions in your first piece. I will say that I find your significantly rewritten (not "slightly revised") piece much more reasonable and worthwhile. I also found the chapter on Strieber and Castaneda you wrote (excerpted online) extremely lucid (to use a word that means something to you) and impressively written. These are simple facts. You may continue to think my pointed criticisms of your first piece are personal attacks -- to me it makes no difference.<br /><br />I'll also state that far from being a Strieber apologist, I am profoundly disappointed with Strieber, particularly as regards his very unique book "The Key". On the same Scribd page where I recently uploaded my own critique of your original piece, I also uploaded two pieces analyzing "The Key" and in particular, Strieber's claims (ten years on) that "sinister forces" had edited/censored the first edition of the book.<br /><br />You might recall that you even tried to contact me after those pieces went up. No doubt you falsely concluded that here was a person who shared your profound frustration with Strieber -- a kindred spirit! But it wasn't so. I remembered your original piece, knew you had an axe to grind, and didn't respond.<br /><br />As I have said from the beginning, my criticisms here are of your original piece. The problems with the piece were so glaring, and so basic, and so objectionable, that they are worth pointing out all these years later. That's because in this 'field' things that only add to the confusion should not be celebrated. <br /><br />It is more than a joke that your only response (like Strieber) is that there are sinister forces at work -- a "very specific agenda" -- when you are questioned too closely!<br /><br />I have made my point well enough by now. Here's hoping that your talk of seeking "honest dialogue" one days grows out of the false pathos stage into something more <i>honest</i>.Lord Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136450423776432401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-83015463407909177092012-03-31T09:01:15.935-07:002012-03-31T09:01:15.935-07:00I followed LJ's links and while I found someth...I followed LJ's links and while I found something of merit there (and certainly need to check out some of the charges), overall I'm left with the thought, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."<br /><br />The more I look into LJs crusade - which is dressed up as an attempt to rescue Ufology and Paranormal research from poor scholarship and woolly thinking, supposedly exemplified by myself - the more I detect a very specific agenda at work. I won't say much more because it could be libelous, but if Strieber had searched the yellow pages for an industrious spin-doctor to help save his image, he could have done a lot worse than Lord Jim.<br /><br />It' unfortunate, however, that a counterattack strategy has been chosen, since that only prevents the possibility of an honest dialogue.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-12606368712086276482012-03-30T23:10:44.991-07:002012-03-30T23:10:44.991-07:00@Kephas -
I have posted a more complete reply at:...@Kephas -<br /><br />I have posted a more complete reply at:<br /><br />http://kephasandstrieber.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/kephas-continues/<br /><br />But let me answer your point above re: your chronology claim from your original piece. In that piece, you state:<br /><br />'In the past few years, however, Strieber has become increasingly preoccupied with what he refers to as “the dark side” of the alien experience.'<br /><br />That pretty clearly implies a 'before' and 'after'. 'Before' the increasing preoccupation. And after. 'Before' and 'after' suggests a chronological shift.<br /><br />To support your claim that there is a previous saner period and a subsequent less sane period when it comes to Strieber's attitude toward his own experiences, you cite two paragraphs from the same Journal entry.<br /><br />That to me is dishonesty. I have tracked down a copy of your original piece, and yes, you do include a citation with date on the above. But even with a date, stating there is a change over time in someone's view and then locating the same before and after views in the same piece strikes me as dishonest.<br /><br />In other places you do not specify the date and time and nonetheless misrepresent Strieber's view. For example, when you state in your original piece:<br /><br />"More disturbingly, in The Key, Strieber refers to the beings who visited him in 1985 as “demons.” "<br /><br />In fact, what Strieber says in "The Key" regarding demons and visitors is:<br /><br />"Was I in the company of demons or aliens on that night in 1985?"<br /><br />You do not provide a quote or page number when you refer to the above -- the only place where demons are discussed in connection with the visitors. In failing to do both, you are able to present a dishonest reading.<br /><br />Your overall thesis -- which is that Strieber's attempt to understand his experiences has caused him to become "unbalanced" and "schizophrenic" and to suffer from "fragmentation" -- rests on your textual evidence like the above. Again, it doesn't take a cult follower of Strieber's to conclude that because of the problems with the evidence you cite, and given your premise involves his sanity, however much you dispute that reading years later, the piece is dishonest. It is a "hit piece".<br /><br />I hope this comment isn't judged as excessively harsh and makes it to the discussion! This is an important discussion to have, and it is germane to the interview since not only is the original piece discussed, the new and substantially rewritten piece is based off the original.Lord Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136450423776432401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-73331239715216099032012-03-30T21:08:30.909-07:002012-03-30T21:08:30.909-07:00In accordance with that thought, I loved, loooved ...In accordance with that thought, I loved, loooved the interview.All aspects of it and I plan to listen to it again(which I rarely do , I admit) Thank you Mike! <br />Whitley does not need defending and I feel no offense if an articulate person delves into Whitley Streiber. I am a subscriber to UC because I want to support his efforts but in addition to that I find Jasons ideas are thoughtful and interesting. Not only that, I just ordered his book! I fancy I like thinking and want to listen to other people who do too. <br /><br />I may come back here after I have listened again and maybe the good folks here will be talking about the other parts of the interview.<br />MelissaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-58235295725559808612012-03-30T12:35:59.214-07:002012-03-30T12:35:59.214-07:00"I don't think I'm ever going to cry ...<i>"I don't think I'm ever going to cry Eureka on any one particular authors website or through reading any one particular author's books and writings...but I do think I'll make my own personal fortune from taking a nugget here and a nugget there."</i><br /><br />True dat. Though I do like to partake in a bit of <a href="http://youtu.be/YmCNP0BUtQE" rel="nofollow">gold treasure dance</a> from time to time ;)<br /><br />Your metaphor captured my way of thinking perfectly, friend.<br /><br />I also wished we stopped focusing so much on Whitley, since there were many other interesting and valuable things that were said during that whole interview!Red Pill Junkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738203580562140501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-576516884696949312012-03-30T11:37:43.321-07:002012-03-30T11:37:43.321-07:00I just skimmed the article and I see that I do try...I just skimmed the article and I see that I do try and cite dates to provide context for WS's inconsistency, so there is some semblance of "chronology." Every quote is footnoted with a date, as it was in its original version, so LJ's charge of dishonesty is entirely unfounded. If LJ can provide an exact quote of the part of the article he claims is deliberately confusing the issue, I can respond to that, and if necessary, repair the damage.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-64537295183755034272012-03-30T11:30:22.095-07:002012-03-30T11:30:22.095-07:00here's the article, part one, a slightly revis...here's the article, part one, a slightly revised and updated version of the 2008 article: http://www.realitysandwich.com/strange_case_whitley_strieber_1Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7455216065351371692.post-79367584880598141662012-03-30T11:29:13.253-07:002012-03-30T11:29:13.253-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jasunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06645623536130682696noreply@blogger.com