Here We Go Down the Strieber Rabbit Hole Again!

aliens

Today, almost five years exactly after I first finished the original Strieber piece, I have given a considered reading of Heinrich’s piece, “Old Balls of Fire: In Defense of Whitley Strieber,” and written an 8-page response, “A Straw Man’s Defense” (pdf).

Even though (as I expressed in the last post) I went into this battle fully expecting to take some hits, that is, prepared to be proven wrong in small or greater ways, I came out the other side pleasantly surprised. Heinrich (if he’s watching) may well find yet more things to froth at the mouth about in my response, but for my part I am content to have given the Old Fireball the attention he deserves, and to have been given the opportunity to express more clearly, and in new ways, my feelings about Strieber and about why I wrote this ****! article to begin with.

Some of these may be a suprise to some people, but to most of you, probably not. Since some of you probably aren’t interested enough to have read the OBOF piece, and therefore likely won’t be interested in reading an 8-page response, here are a few excerpts:

The OBOF piece claims that AK rejects Strieber on personal grounds, because he doesn’t fit my idea of what an avatar of alien intelligence ought to be, and act like. Yet OBOF simplifies AK’s argument and makes it somehow vulgar—Strieber is too “complicated”—when in fact, AK cites the complexity and contradictions around Strieber as evidence for his authenticity, not against it. What AK suggests throws into question Strieber’s integrity, honesty, and/or accuracy in reporting his experiences is not his complexity but his personal shortcomings, foremost among which is his apparent emotional instability. Granted, the discernment to judge such a thing as “emotional instability” can be questioned, and should be. But since the author of OBOF elsewhere refers to Strieber’s “histrionics” and cites his emotional overreactions, it seems as though he’s in agreement with AK on this point at least.

AK’s argument, simplified, is roughly as follows: if such transcendental, interdimensional or inter-species experiences have not afforded Strieber an increased degree of equanimity, self-awareness, patience, tolerance, humor, and lightness in his own behavior, then (allowing that they are real at all) it can only be because he has failed to integrate them and transform them into a personal, embodied wisdom. This means (since there is generally no middle-ground) that the experiences have probably had the opposite effect, and unbalanced him. This then throws into question, both Strieber’s ability to interpret and report his experiences, and the beneficial nature of those experiences themselves.

This is a very different argument to the one which OBOF attributes to AK, which is simply that I find Strieber distasteful as a person and want to take him down a peg or two in order to steal his experiences for my own aggrandizement (if I read his veiled logic rightly).

The AK piece used Strieber as a living example of the ways in which myth and reality intersect, on both individual and collective levels. Its analysis of Strieber was always meant to extend beyond the local question of Strieber himself, and his writing, into the collective confusion which the Strieber opus not merely addresses but also reflects. The aim was to incorporate Strieber the human being into the works and thereby provide them with a greater depth of meaning. AK rejects the notion that a work can be separated from its author.

I have returned to Strieber again and again since that first piece.  I have attempted (and only partially succeeded) to get him to go on record. My original intention with this piece was to direct the attention of skeptics to what I felt has merit in Strieber’s work. This is a little known or acknowledged fact, and it was why I posted it at Rigorous Intuition, where the general consensus has been to see Strieber as either a charlatan, a disinformation agent (or both), or at best an unwittingly puppet of black-op agendas. It was at least partially frustration that many of the more intelligent, discerning researchers disregarded or dismissed Strieber’s work that prompted me to write the piece.

22 thoughts on “Here We Go Down the Strieber Rabbit Hole Again!

  1. >”AK’s argument, simplified, is roughly as follows: if such transcendental, interdimensional or inter-species experiences have not afforded Strieber an increased degree of equanimity, self-awareness, patience, tolerance, humor, and lightness in his own behavior, then (allowing that they are real at all) it can only be because he has failed to integrate them and transform them into a personal, embodied wisdom.”

    How would an ’embodiment of wisdom’ act, that we may recognize it as such?

    And would he or she be able to act like that 24/7?

    Even Superman needs to put on the glasses & act like Clark Kent once in a while 😉

  2. “How would an ‘embodiment of wisdom’ act, that we may recognize it as such?”

    It’s a question I want to address today when I talk to Gefunden. It does require a degree of presumption to state an opinion on such matters.

    Clark Kent was endearingly bumbling – he wasn’t reactive, immature, and over-emotional. He didn’t tell someone they weren’t his friend anymore when they presented him with an unpleasant opinion. Strieber’s behavior and even writing seems consistently erratic, confused, and sometimes bordering on infantile, giving the lie to the whole notion that he has been undergoing spiritual transformation at the hands of aliens.

    I mean really – wouldn’t you expect someone, after almost thirty years of being schooled by superhuman beings, to have the sh** more together than Whitley?

    • >”I mean really – wouldn’t you expect someone, after almost thirty years of being schooled by superhuman beings, to have the sh** more together than Whitley?”

      I don’t know. I mean how many cases like him can we find in order to make a comparison?

  3. It’s not necessary to compare him to other abductees; we can compare him to other spiritual disciples, initiates, teachers, etc. Or even just to ourselves and people we know.

    Also, to how he was twenty-five years ago (admittedly with little to go on but voice and words).

    I don’t want to comment more because it seems like personal criticism of Strieber. It’s not – it’s questioning the validity and value of his experience and his teachings based on the McLuhanism, “the medium is the message.”

    • >”I don’t want to comment more because it seems like personal criticism of Strieber. It’s not – it’s questioning the validity and value of his experience and his teachings based on the McLuhanism, “the medium is the message.””

      I understand. And really, perhaps being something of a ‘tricksterish’ guru is the fate of people like Strieber, Blavatsky & Castañeda.

    • “…it’s questioning the validity and value of his experience and his teachings based on the McLuhanism, “the medium is the message.”” Isn’t it possible Mr. Streiber’s experiences happened as he has claimed, but Mr. Streiber just hasn’t been able to hold up his part of the teaching arrangement? I don’t know any spiritual teachers who’ve taught that integrating spiritual experiences in such a way as to be able to come across as perfectly integrated, or even ‘making progress’, to everyone you come across is easy or even possible 🙂

      or maybe the ‘others’ such as teachers. Or they’re lying about being spiritual teachers. Or Mr. Streiber is mistake about that himself.

      Really, these are just idle questions on my part,……i have enough trouble keeping my own ‘house’ in order! Happy Day, steph

  4. regarding the “trickster guru”
    I was watching Patton last night (my grandfather’s favorite film). and this line struck me at the time.

    (Patton’s asst): You know General, sometimes the men don’t know when you’re acting.
    Patton: It’s not important for them to know. It’s only important for me to know.

  5. Maybe the reason Streiber might be a little unbalanced or contradictory is because he’s had traumatizing experiences like being raped by military guys or aliens who are not the best influences for positive spiritual transformation (A-holes). I wouldn’t expect him to be enlightened. All bad people and dirt has the gold in it somewhere. But there is such a thing as evil which is what it sounds like in some of Streiber’s experiences.

  6. I’d say evil is exactly as real a “thing” as you believe it to be. Since Strieber is a Catholic, that means it’s pretty real to him.

    One Christian view (which may be echoed by some phrases in The Key) is that Satan drives Man towards God.

    • Evil is necessary to a certain extent in our lives. But I am careful to not dismiss it for what it is and stick my head in the clouds like the newager I used to be. There is always the bigger picture beyond duality of course, but Satanists are well known for stating that there is no good and evil. Pedophilia, rapes, torture, sadistic murder, they’d say ‘It just IS’. Animals have a sense of what is Good, evident in their rescuing of humans and their emotional affection. Yes we need a bit of evil in some cases to drive us towards the right path, but I’m careful to not excuse everything.

  7. Insofar as we posit evil as an impersonal force, it cannot be considered evil in any meaningful sense.

    Insofar as we attribute evil to individual personalities, it is only a relative state, an action, or a pathology.

    The concept of evil (Satan) is probably the most basic example of how the Christian paradigm requires a fragmentation of consciousness to get behind.

    (No offense intended to practitioners of this religion)

  8. Are you saying that you need a fragmented mind to be able to perceive evil? I think as humans evil is quite real. You would have to be non human and without the body to not see it. You don’t have to obsess or be fearful of the evil that manifests in people, but at least acknowledge that it exists and encourage what is essentially good. Sometimes to be good, you need the contrast of evil or darkness around you to make you shine. Feeling and sometimes intuition are necessary to sense good and evil. I would say that positive and negative (regarding spiritual growth) are objective or not-personal, and good and evil are subjective or personal.

  9. I’ve encountered what I’d call goodness in my life; I’ve not encountered anything I’d call evil. I’ve heard stories, but that’s all they are, stories.

    Why talk about something unless you’ve experienced it?

    I should perhaps qualify this by saying the most tangible experience of something “evil” (beyond stories) has generally been of an element within my own psyche.

  10. I saw a grown man punch a toddler about 5 or 6 in the face. You could call that psychological complexities, god working in mysterious ways, or the building blocks for a rough life that drive the child to become abnormally strong in some ways. That to me, is an example of evil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s