December 14, 2014 — George Hansen

[smcder]

Are you attempting to quote Greg Bishop or are you just trying to get me out of bed?

Sigh ... I guess I'm no Zen master.

You say I'm a stickler
I say you have to stick to your gums

A question like this:

"from what I've read that he has available online, the other major articles he points to, as well as the anthropologists

please tell us if GH steps outside of documenting the examples of the trickster or creates an analysis that moves beyond notions of anti-structure, the catalyst for change in society and the anthropological features that appear to be attached to the basic steps described in many rituals concerning rights of passage, or how we move from destabilized spaces to eventually become reintegrated into society, with perhaps new appreciations of tradition or insights into new processes for one's current tribe or group?"

... is already so sophisticated that any answer ...

say I reply:

"Why yes, in fact Hansen says x, y and z -"

You can say

"Well, ok that's interesting but I've analyzed x, y and z and they resolve into these components x1 y1 z1 and now tell me is he really saying anything more than that?"

And so on ...

The left brain chokes on words like "anti- structure" while the right brain works on them like all day suckers ... but the one hemisphere can't talk to the other about it.

This internal failure of dialog is reflected in an external hunger to be heard.

McGilChrist says the connection between the two, the corpus collosum grows thinner across evolutionary time.

This is why the Zen master resorts to a whack on the back with a sturdy stick.

I recommend McGilChrist's

The Master and His Emissary

as a companion to

The Trickster and the Paranormal

(Yes, I'm going to tell you to read it)

but there is an abridged version, an essay on Kindle for a couple bucks.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wade]

We humans are excellent at that sort of thing. We are an intentional agent of change - we choose to go out into the wilds, to the marginal areas and so we see monsters, aliens, ghosts and Bigfoot flying some UFO's with his own remote control box

No doubt, and that point was the intent of my question to george on his appearance, that through the acts of man that are intentional or unintentional, chaos theory/law of unintended consequences works very nicely when trying to determine the causal agent of some game changing event and I suppose because of that one has to cast a skeptical eye when trying to shoehorn in another possibility.

It could be I'm a little too in love with the thought that there is an outside agent, whether it be a muse or a trickster element... maybe this is where our imagination comes from... that provides the spark. it still needs humans to do the grunt work and make it happen. However what i do wish i asked George was the idea of blowback that inevitably follows, and that point is also the point of my previous point. If the trickster is amoral then i am not comfortable with the word sentience...although I'm not sure George used this term it does appear in the article link I posted...in using it to describe a trickster phenomena because to me that means it has a conscious, if it has a conscious then i think it couldn't be amoral perhaps I haven't quite got a grasp on this concept, am I corrupting the idea of sentience and morality, because I thought sentience suggested subjectivity, with subjectivity would not a sense of good or bad or right or wrong be present ? If there was an intelligence that determined a goal must be met through whatever acts are necessary and is devoid of moral thought and let's man determine what consequences are good or bad is sentience a proper noun to describe the phenomena ?

A thought that occured to me after coming back to edit this post where does the idea of a meme (another of my interedts) fit into this, if it all? An idea that multiplies and will not be denied regardless of consequences, can a meme be a construct of a trickster phenomena ?

Again this is one of those areas that has kept me up at nights with thought. While i have never dismissed the idea of a God i have drawn the line at him stepping in and tweaking things or performing certain acts because in any act there WILL be somewhere down the line a unfortunate consequence that can't possible be seen because there are just two many of us people bouncing around doing our own thing that will after a time conflict with the interests of others. A young life is saved from death in early childhood is just as apt to create a financial crisis as he is to save lives or take lives or do none of the above. And so I like the idea that there is a phenomena that interacts with us but is outside of us and devoid of emotion and morals thus ensuring change for good or bad and for both.

 

[Wade]

Edited my post for more clarity and because I used the wrong term.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Thanks for that. So would this have been during Don Ecker's tenure at UFO Magazine? If so I wonder what Don would have to say because Don is also a rather colorful character too .

To the best of my memory, Alfred was with UFO MAGAZINE when Nancy and Bill Birnes owned it. I don't know about Don. To put it plainly, Alfred's writing is often very hard for an average guy like me to understand. I am not sure Don would have the patience for that style either.

 

[Wade]

To the best of my memory, Alfred was with UFO MAGAZINE when Nancy and Bill Birnes owned it. I don't know about Don. To put it plainly, Alfred's writing is often very hard for an average guy like me to understand. I am not sure Don would have the patience for that style either.

Indeed and i am one of those average men as well. I don't have an issue with "wordier" words, as i play with them as well,but it is done as an ironic affectation...usually... But I'm no idiot and to a large extent cannot make out much of his verse and i still say his posts are nothing but vain attempts to push his poetry at us by any means necessary, in effect perverting syntax and sense while his supporters point to the dumbing down of our society as a reason why we (I) don't appreciate his genius. I won't say if society is dumbing down but i knows a smoke screen when i sees one.

My very first post here was in buttressing a point that Don had made in respect to Al in which i made an analogy between him and those unfortunate people you bump into bus stations that are yelling at the top of their lungs about things that sound like they ring true and after giving it some thought they aren't actually saying anything new under the sun but the messengers are compelling nevertheless. Some men like the sound of their own voice or like their own verse.

At any rate it was soon after posting this, one of Alfred's syncopants came out and suggested I was a sock puppet and pointed out it was an ad hominem attack and in a pm suggested maybe I wasn't intellectually up to speed. On the ad hominum charge i thought my analogy was dead on and perhaps as revelant as Alfred's musings but later on another site I caught her admitting SHE didn't understand his writing.Go figure.

I do agree with your earlier assessment that he does probably champion people who are put upon and such but if i was one of those people I would ask him to move his act along as i wouldn't want to be his cause to champion. I think I'd rather have another Al, Al Sharpton fighting my fight. And yes I am being sarcastic on that last sentiment.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I have been enjoying this thread immensely and sincerely appreciate all of your insightful, brilliant thinking. At times, this subject literally has made my head hurt attempting to wrap my head around some of the more obtuse elements, but somehow I was able to research and write Stalking the Trickster from a fresh perspective. The subject of this thread is one of the most complicated, mind-numbing subjects I have ever allowed myself to ponder.

There are several things I'd like to reiterate about my thinking. First off: The trickster is NOT "like God," something you "believe in" and/or blame for whatever occurs that we can't readily explain. After my trickster book came out Paul Kimball sniffily wrote on his blog that he thought the idea of the trickster was ridiculous, because to him, it was simply a catch-all term to use when you ran out of other causal elements to blame. NOT OK. His dismissal of the subject is a text book example of the intellectual laziness that many people employ when they don't take the time to get themselves up2speed on a particular theory/topic/scenario. I am impressed and gratified to see that most of you here are the exact opposite: the more difficult the theory to ponder, the deeper the thinking you employ. I really enjoy and appreciate everyone's insight and it's a pleasure to riff on this and other subjects with you all.

OK. When certain, specific parameters in our reality become manifest, the (classic) "trickster" appears to emerge within the culture. This is a process, a mechanism that is triggered (like Vallee's thermostat analogy) by the collective and then the affect of this mechansim emerges within the culture. The trickster is causal, but it is also an affect and, as a result, an effect. It's manifestation begs the riddle which came first, the "chicken or the egg" as it can become stronger and more prevalent the more the effect is felt by the culture that is being affected. This is a complicated scenario that is not adequately addressed by mainstream anthropology, IMO.

In Stalking the Trickster I delineated out three distinct trickster types that are not normally differentiated within the traditional, academic view:

• Classic anthropomorphic animals that altruistically change nature for the betterment of humanity.
• The "tragic hero" who inadvertently provides humankind w/ technological improvements in defiance of "The Gods" and is punished.
• The shamanic (human) trickster (the broadest category, btw) that consciously uses trickery for the betterment of the individual or the culture. Or, for it's own self-serving agenda!

This delineation, or distinct separation of trickster types is rarely addressed by academia and (IMO) is an important distinction that can be used to identify trickster-ish scenarios manifesting in culture. This is important (IMO) and is the cornerstone of my personal attempt to better understand "the trickster."

I agree that the first two classic trickster types seem to act like a valve within culture, toppling static structures and creating space within the culture to facilitate change, novelty and allow increased creativity. However, the shamanic version transcends this "classic" view into the realm of self-service and obvious awareness. This third class of trickster suggests to me that if one trickster type is capable of self-awareness and personal agenda, what's to say the other two classes of trickster are not developing their own self awareness and formulating their own agendas?

The other point I'd like to make is the underlying connecting tricksterish aspect of shape-shifting. This may be the single most important clue we have when attempting to examine the subject of the trickster. All trickster forms worldwide seem to share aspects of this ability. I intuit that this is a completely overlooked but extremely important element not addressed by academia.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on my thoughts? heh-heh

 

[Wade]

Thanks for the summation

The shamanic (human) trickster (the broadest category, btw) that consciously uses trickery for the betterment of the individual or the culture. Or, for it's own self-serving agenda!

I think this is what escaped me. My confusion centered on what I seem to recall you suggesting that it could become sentient I didn't think of it in the context of a Shamanic trickster but the previously mentioned classical tricksters, but if the other types did become a sentient entity can they still be considered amoral ? I think this also would bring into question our future concepts of chance or free will in our existence. Flip Wilson...there are those out there saying Who?...used to have a character that said "The Devil Made Me Do It" if the classical tricksters did achieve sentience that expression could come to be true.

I would hope there would be some checks and balances involved but I guess humans would be the checks and balances.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...Flip Wilson... said "The Devil Made Me Do It" if the classical tricksters did achieve sentience that expression could come to be true...

Good point, but not the best example. A couple of thousand-plus-years ago the emerging Judeo-Christian religious control structure in the Western world began to marginalize the "trickster" and drove the amoral concept of the trickster into the realm of the negative. This created a "boogyman" and helped marginalize gnostic belief and wrestle control from the shaman/medicine/pagan practitioners. This creation of a negative target helped further solidify control over the spiritual life of the populous. And it has worked well as it continues unabated today.

If good 'ol Flip had said "...the trickster made me do it.." I would agree w/ your analogy, however he chose the marginalized negative stereotype of "the devil,"-as trickster, as most folks not fully aware of the archetype have a tendency to do. So, I am compelled to remind everyone that "the trickster" has been cast in a negative light and has become moot--banished back into the marginalized gloom of our cultural closet. When we are finally able to identify the stage upon which where the "Devil" meets "The Clown," then we may be able to re-educate the culture and remember that the trickster is a powerful player affecting our collective subconscious.

Or something like that...

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Chris, are you saying that you believe that the Trickster is an unconscious manifestation of the HUMAN collective that is invoked when certain conditions coalesce? Are you giving the Trickster a human origin? I know, I know.....someone is going to tell me to just shut up and go read the book. OK, I will. But I was wondering what you thought of the metaphor of our reality being like a Playstation game, with us serving as avatars within that game. The game was generated outside the game itself by an intelligence that built specific "rule sets" into the particular game. (The reasons an intelligence would create this and perhaps countless other games is irrelevant to this chat....just fill in your standard spiritual explanations). What if one of those software sub-routines was The Trickster which AUTOMATICALLY is invoked when certain situations occur? I am not sure GH would give my question any respect because he may consider source or origin irrelevant to the discussion. Yet, like zillions of humans before me, I am interested in creation stories, i.e., how did the Trickster come to be, and does it actually reside within humanity or is it an external program that runs in conjunction with humanity as part of the ground rules for this reality?

 

[Burnt State]

Yet, like zillions of humans before me, I am interested in creation stories, i.e., how did the Trickster come to be, and does it actually reside within humanity or is it an external program that runs in conjunction with humanity as part of the ground rules for this reality?

You remind me of one early indigenous story I used to read to my kids in a storybook about coyote. In the story First Lady is busy placing all the stars in a very careful pattern into the night sky in order to accurately record the early history of humanity. Coyote shows up and wants to know what First Lady is up to slowly selecting stars from a big blanket on the desert floor to place just so in the sky. Coyote wants to help tell the story and First Lady says, sure fine, so long as you place the stars carefully in the sky in the right pattern. Coyote agrees. But as soon as First Lady leaves to go get some water for them to drink wouldn't you know Coyote gets bored of how long it takes to place so many stars into the sky so specifically. So Coyote gathers up all the stars together in the blanket and hurls the whole lot into the sky at once. First Lady returns and is totally dismayed. The sky is in disarray. And that is why we humans continue to live in chaos because we do not know our story and can not read our story very clearly in the sky thanks to Coyote's careless approach to being his version of helpful. But coyote can't help himself. It's what coyote does.

 

[Burnt State]

OK. When certain, specific parameters in our reality become manifest, the (classic) "trickster" appears to emerge within the culture. This is a process, a mechanism that is triggered (like Vallee's thermostat analogy) by the collective and then the affect of this mechansim emerges within the culture. The trickster is causal, but it is also an affect and, as a result, an effect. It's manifestation begs the riddle which came first, the "chicken or the egg" as it can become stronger and more prevalent the more the effect is felt by the culture that is being affected. This is a complicated scenario that is not adequately addressed by mainstream anthropology, IMO.

This completely reminds me of the Philip Experiment in many ways. There is this repeating theme of the power of the collective, especially when the collective has strong feelings and beliefs about things, well they can do just about anything, can't they, from genocide to the ritualistic invocations of gods? I can imagine a young WWII German soldier inside a concentration camp asking himself, how did I suddenly get to this reality, where we are butchering our neighbours? When the collective will is strong it seems that there are these other invisible processes & formations that get to work in our culture. The way that affordable high quality optics and cheap data storage is soon going to make the masses start using outdoor video cameras for personal surveillance safety to kill the last bit of privacy the neighborhood had.

So it's interesting for me to think of technology as a trickster we have called into being, and that our invention is spawning off these other rapid effects including extreme shifts in the interpersonal and individual landscapes of identity. The digital age is going to change us radically. We are the New Modern Prometheus and I wonder what new monster we have made, Frankensteins all of us, and what daily punishment will be exacted. We have already freely sacrificed privacy. What else are we willing to give up and how will this change and alter our tribe? The ride is on, and we don't have a clue what will come next. This isn't just about shopping online. This is an age of constant reinvention, personal imitation, identity assassination and information reclassification.

In Stalking the Trickster I delineated out three distinct trickster types that are not normally differentiated within the traditional, academic view:

• Classic anthropomorphic animals that altruistically change nature for the betterment of humanity.
• The "tragic hero" who inadvertently provides humankind w/ technological improvements in defiance of "The Gods" and is punished.
• The shamanic (human) trickster (the broadest category, btw) that consciously uses trickery for the betterment of the individual or the culture. Or, for it's own self-serving agenda!

This delineation, or distinct separation of trickster types is rarely addressed by academia and (IMO) is an important distinction that can be used to identify trickster-ish scenarios manifesting in culture. This is important (IMO) and is the cornerstone of my personal attempt to better understand "the trickster."

I agree that the first two classic trickster types seem to act like a valve within culture, toppling static structures and creating space within the culture to facilitate change, novelty and allow increased creativity. However, the shamanic version transcends this "classic" view into the realm of self-service and obvious awareness. This third class of trickster suggests to me that if one trickster type is capable of self-awareness and personal agenda, what's to say the other two classes of trickster are not developing their own self awareness and formulating their own agendas?

So who are the tragic heroes of our time, or are we in an age of Steve Jobs as Shamanic tricksters shifting the populous, changing how we operate? What do you make of our time period?

Regarding the potential of developing self-awareness: this issue of agenda is also very hard to hold onto. Do we call the future towards us, and is the agenda something we plant in society and unconsciously work on. When we all groove on one meme for a period do we call Philip into being? Or is this about which narratve we choose to believe in and as new narratives displace old ones we decide to topple the old gods and develop a bird worship culture because we're desperate?

I really wonder if our current distance from the natural world and that narrative of living with the land combined, with the fact that we're all addicted to chewing on digital lotus leaves, makes us forget a lot about who we are. Consumer narratives, I think are psychologically dangerous to populations and may breed a passivity in the masses that may make it difficult for us to adapt to consequences in nature (extreme weather, disease, virus formation, etc.) not to mention the unforeseen consequences of what rough beast slouches towards us along wireless lines.

The other point I'd like to make is the underlying connecting tricksterish aspect of shape-shifting. This may be the single most important clue we have when attempting to examine the subject of the trickster. All trickster forms worldwide seem to share aspects of this ability. I intuit that this is a completely overlooked but extremely important element not addressed by academia.

The last After the Paracast was the best one so far. I really wish these were longer pieces (hint hint) as this one really had the potential for one of those extended conversations that really can get quite inventive. I thought you were starting to just get into that shape-shifting UFO piece that our own sensory system may have difficulty in understanding , or that we are only seeing the brief effects of what lies behind this phenomenon. I hope you pick that up again, the two of you, or with someone like a Rutkowski, Gulyas, or even better - both, to explore some of these really odd cases and open up this whole high strangeness business. There's something up with this angle concerning the UFO event/experience that needs more sunssing out. I wonder if in examining some of these intensely weird narratives some patterns may emerge beyond the current patterns we know regarding alien abduction lore. What is the trickster trying to teach us here?

Now you know we have our own UFO narratives that we tell, that affects culture somewhat, and Gulyas really has mapped this out well in terms of its roles over time. But I do wonder, now that the UFO & alien has mainstreamed as entertainment meme, does it have the weight anymore to maintain itself as a trickster in society? Is it currently being displaced by digital distraction and should we be expecting new transformative gods to appear online instead of in the skies?

 

[Burnt State]

Now the Gnostics see this as the false world created by the demiurge, a false god, and so as we seek knowledge and leave the flesh behind we pursue our soul, our true selves. Kinda sounds a little too much like Heaven's Gate to me, but I understand that it also works as an anti-structure response to consumerism, so it has some positive undertones.

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

W.B. Yeats

 

[Soupie]

But I was wondering what you thought of the metaphor of our reality being like a Playstation game, with us serving as avatars within that game. The game was generated outside the game itself by an intelligence that built specific "rule sets" into the particular game. (The reasons an intelligence would create this and perhaps countless other games is irrelevant to this chat....just fill in your standard spiritual explanations).

What if one of those software sub-routines was The Trickster which AUTOMATICALLY is invoked when certain situations occur.

Like when someone is playing The Sims and your town is really coming along and then the game sends a tornado your way just to shake things up?

Yes, what if UFOs and other paranormal phenomena are triggered at times of stability to purposefully cause change in this way. Perhaps for our own good and/or the entertainment of "others."

And what if the human PTB have figured this out years ago... What if they do have guilty knowledge? We've always wondered why they wouldn't disclose it. They have to know something is going on.

Do we really want to hear from our top military officials that we're living in a nature reserve or worse, a simulation, and our masters like to eff with us from time to time for shits and giggles?

I wonder about the trickster phenomena from the perspective of information theory. Is the trickster phenomena an emergent property of information systems? We like to personify and attribute intention to anything that moves haha, but maybe the phenomena simply emerges from complex systems. Kind of like the sand pile affect: once a system reaches an organizational tipping point, there is a shift—a temporary destabilization. There's no intention, it's just an affect.

However, our meaning making minds project meaning onto the phenomena.

 

[Wade]

Do we really want to hear from our top military officials that we're living in a nature reserve or worse, a simulation, and our masters like to eff with us from time to time for shits and giggles

Maybe I'm not giving the human powers that be enough credit but if this were the case i am skeptical that even this has come up for consideration.I could see where they would think that there are off planet threats or even threats that have been among us for decades.

It would be interesting to know as a society where we would be if the concept that our existence was not granted by a God but a race of advanced beings that held dominion.

As a thought experiment Soupie can you think of a reason why an advanced race would want to encourage the concept of a God instead of themselves as the ultimate power? Why they would rather hide behind a collection of faiths ? It's not as if they would have anything to fear if we were wise from the start. We'd probably go about living our same lives but be extra cautious if we went out to the woods alone.

If our welfare is in the hands of a superior force be it a God or and advanced race of beings obviously they/it has determined to ler mankind eke out an existence and do is own will. Regardless of the circumstances do you think that our society would have been different if we knew who or what may be in control of us as long as it didn't interfere with us or our daily existence ?

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Maybe I'm not giving the human powers that be enough credit but if this were the case i am skeptical that even this has come up for consideration.I could see where they would think that there are off planet threats or even threats that have been among us for decades.

It would be interesting to know as a society where we would be if the concept that our existence was not granted by a God but a race of advanced beings that held dominion.

As a thought experiment Soupie can you think of a reason why an advanced race would want to encourage the concept of a God instead of themselves as the ultimate power? Why they would rather hide behind a collection of faiths ? It's not as if they would have anything to fear if we were wise from the start. We'd probably go about living our same lives but be extra cautious if we went out to the woods alone.

If our welfare is in the hands of a superior force be it a God or and advanced race of beings obviously they/it has determined to ler mankind eke out an existence and do is own will. Regardless of the circumstances do you think that our society would have been different if we knew who or what may be in control of us as long as it didn't interfere with us or our daily existence ?

I believe that people historically need to believe that there is a loving god (albeit prone to psychotic temper tantrums about whether a penis is circumsized or not). People want to put themselves at the center of creation. This is unconscious. Even in modern ufology when people discuss the fate of Earth, it is always in terms of humanity. The millions of other species are seldom discussed in this context. Our religions enforce the idea that we own Earth, and that the other species are here for our use. Overall, humanity still believes that it is the center of a cosmic creation. Since we now know that there is a huge universe beyond Earth, we populate it with aliens who are seemingly obsessed with humanity. We just cannot let go of this need to be the starring attraction rather than perhaps at best a lounge act. The idea that perhaps the only intelligence that cares about us is at best viewing us the way we view an ant farm is the kind of thought that can create a psychic break with reality, as we hide out inside a delusion of our own mind rather than face that emotionless "other". In that sense, I think what matters is motive. I agree that perhaps humanity might outgrow its projections onto a god figure if it felt that aliens were there and loved us, the entire space brother schtick. But I don't think humanity could handle the shock of realizing that there is no benevolent parental figure(s) watching over us, but instead an intelligence that has no more commitment to our well being than the average graduate student watching the development of bacteria in a Petri dish (and will be introducing toxic agents to view the effects, as part of a homework assignment).

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Like when someone is playing The Sims and your town is really coming along and then the game sends a tornado your way just to shake things up?

Yes, what if UFOs and other paranormal phenomena are triggered at times of stability to purposefully cause change in this way. Perhaps for our own good and/or the entertainment of "others."

And what if the human PTB have figured this out years ago... What if they do have guilty knowledge? We've always wondered why they wouldn't disclose it. They have to know something is going on.

Do we really want to hear from our top military officials that we're living in a nature reserve or worse, a simulation, and our masters like to eff with us from time to time for shits and giggles?

I wonder about the trickster phenomena from the perspective of information theory. Is the trickster phenomena an emergent property of information systems? We like to personify and attribute intention to anything that moves haha, but maybe the phenomena simply emerges from complex systems. Kind of like the sand pile affect: once a system reaches an organizational tipping point, there is a shift—a temporary destabilization. There's no intention, it's just an affect.

However, our meaning making minds project meaning onto the phenomena.

I agree 100% with you. At this point in my experience of life, I like the Playstation computer model that is described in great detail by the physicist Tom Campbell. He would make a great Paracast guest, by the way. He posits the existence of millions of universes, each with its own ground rules that are set up in advance by a creator. He suggests that this creator has produced each unique universe with a "rule set" in order for the creator to grow and experience vicariously through its creations, which include us. Now, although such a creator could take a personal interest in each universe, and intervene, e.g., if humanity was inevitably going to extinction, such a creator could stop the program, roll the universe back to its last "restore backup" point, and start the program again with minor changes that would preclude the extinction. Fascinating to think about, isn't it? Now, my question is whether what we call the paranormal and the Trickster is part of the creator's intervention (or a delegated responsibility to some local software maintenance team), or whether this is simply built into the program itself, a self-correcting sub program that is invoked by a certain specified criteria. I am not sure stability itself would be the criteria for invocation of the Trickster. How often in human history is there really any stability? At best, stability from a human point-of-view is short term at best. We seem quite capable of creating our own instability with great professional flourish without needing an external Trickster. So perhaps it isn't just stability that prompts the Trickster but instead stagnation, a lack of growth, a lack of new experience that would feed the purpose of the creator (who in a sense is a vampire living off our experience). Perhaps it isn't even relevant to know if the Trickster is an automated response or invoked "manually" by an external intelligence. Perhaps the Trickster is just a human construct based on the faulty way we view reality, limited again by the parameters of the "rule set" of our universe. So many delightful questions!

 

[Constance]

So many delightful questions!

Yes, and you've expressed them all very deftly it seems to me. Much food for thought in both of these posts.

My own general approach is phenomenological: that what we essentially have as the basis for what we think is what we experience personally and collectively (intersubjectively). As social animals each of us first exists within a local mileau of interpretation of what-is, and in our time that mileau has expanded to include a range of influential ideas/interpretations developed and held by collectives of human minds, each taking limited viewpoints concerning what-is and what is significant in it. Increasingly these viewpoints have become specialized, serving the interests of particular institutionalized groups operating from particular presuppositions and in the interest of specific goals. When we personally adopt one of those viewpoints, say the one represented by materialist/objectivist science and technology, we put blinders on, excluding from our thinking other viewpoints on what-is that have also developed out of human experience in general and/or arising from our individual experience in particular. The more any of us become invested in one viewpoint/interpretation of reality, the less we are able to remain open to others that have grown from the phenomenological ground of human experience.

The dominant case in our time has been the growing influence of the concept that humans and other animals are machines, systems, complex systems, cogs in complex systems. Thus the ideas you note above that we are things manipulated from beyond, by a game-playing designer or a mindless machine generator of a reality only virtual (perhaps a gigantic information system/computer once instantiated and then left to function on its own). Modern culture is saturated with this meme. Can we get a grip on it and critique it, reduce its powerful influence which, as I see it, impels us toward self-destruction? We can, but to do so requires that we consult and take seriously varieties of phenomenologically grounded human experience itself, our own and others', and that approach has been discredited, essentially ruled out of court, by the dominant meme defining us as objects acted upon from far outside the realm of our experience. We even believe now that we cannot understand what we experience, that any understanding of what-is exists outside the world we live in. That belief itself seems to me to be fatal to thought.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Constance, in the Tom Campbell metaphor based on his so-called out of body experiences, he claims that the Creator is actually a loving presence that wants us to evolve into loving evolved beings. So we are not just cogs in someone else's machine but integral aspects of this entity's consciousness. This is nothing new, of course.

 

[Constance]

Constance, in the Tom Campbell metaphor based on his so-called out of body experiences, he claims that the Creator is actually a loving presence that wants us to evolve into loving evolved beings. So we are not just cogs in someone else's machine but integral aspects of this entity's consciousness. This is nothing new, of course.

Right, and that is a defensible possibility and one I find attractive. In this ideologically atheistic age, however, it seems that most people have become less able to entertain that possibility. So it seems to me that we have to move through the evidence provided in varieties of human psychic and spiritual experience throughout our history which indicate our connection with a larger reality if we are to form a bulkhead against reductive thinking about ourselves and the world.

 

[Sue]

I would urge everyone to keep in mind that Hansen's theoretical approach is rooted in functionalism (perhaps structural functionalism? I get them confused) which 1) carries its own assumptions and, thus, implicit critiques and 2) is very outdated. Grab your local anthropology or sociology grad student and they will be happy to talk your ear off about it. Functionalist theories have significant limitations in explaining even normal phenomena - limitations which have been understood and driven new theory development for the last quarter of a century. If you want to build on Hansen, you have to understand the limitations of that foundation. That doesn't mean necessarily reading his book so much as reading generally in anthropology, folklore, history and the sociology of science. No problem, right?!