Invasion from Within (The Thing from Inner Space, Part 7)

This is the final part of the present series. The full essay can be read in PDF, here. Thanks for participating!

Invasion from Within

“A man’s errors are his portals of discovery.”
—James Joyce

As a writer, I like to reduce things to as simple terms as I can, and to always seek out the bedrock of my own experience. That’s why I write. This is especially helpful, even essential, when we enter into the liminal realms of the UFO in which true and false, physical and non-physical, don’t seem to be mutually exclusive realities but weirdly overlapping, even interchangeable, depending on which way we’re looking.

So let’s say, for the sake of positing such a bedrock, that the body and the psyche are the twin poles of human reality. This would make the conscious mind something like a satellite fragment that floats around, somewhere on the outside of both, preventing full embodiment. Full embodiment would only occur when the psyche and the soma overlap and what appear to be two become one (two mutually dependent, “concentric” systems). Until this happens, the mind-satellite will continue to “leach off” our life force through that schism between body and soul. Like the Moon stealing the light of the Sun and sending its deranging rays to Earth, the mind generates its own phantasy experience and causes the body and the psyche both to be haunted (and hunted) by ghostly images of the past.

In this model, the ego mind is at best a helpless witness to the wonders of the psyche—the UFO—and the terrors of the body which constitute the abduction scenario. What it witnesses, if and when it ever fully understands it, will undo its crucial fiction forever. Perhaps this is why the experience of powerlessness is the key to understanding these experiences, since powerlessness is the alpha and omega of human experience.

My growing sense, after decades of stumbling, half blind, through the halls and corridors of Chapel Perilous, is that the psyche is not merely a perceptual but a creative agency; that it is able not only to perceive but to generate experience, and that the age-old dilemma between determinism and free will is an illusion, because the dilemma is rather between the conscious ego mind and the unconscious psyche self, or, more simply, between what we perceive of what is happening (and believe about it), and what is really going on.

This makes the UFO (as Jung suggested fifty years ago) a living manifestation of the overlap and interface between two states of awareness. It is a liminal reality that is “literally” (but also metaphorically!) “abducting” us, like Persephone, into the underworld of the psyche, so as to introduce us to our “shadow” nature and make us whole.

We may be observing with the UFO the degree to which the collective psyche can create a phenomenon out of itself and then become subject to it—and even the victim of it. This makes the UFO a kind of living theater, enacting a collective split between our inner and outer realities. Hence it has taken the form of the vesica piscis, the overlap between worlds.

In the afore-cited Julian Jaynes work, The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind, he puts forward a convincing model of how self-consciousness came about in human beings. Jaynes’ book, while still widely read, has been contested in scientific and anthropological circles, but I’m not going to address that. Instead I’m going to simplify and adapt it to suit my own ends, hopefully without mangling Jayne’s original thesis too badly.

Initially, like the other animals, human beings did not possess consciousness as we experience it today. They were conscious at a bodily level, through the senses, but not at a mind level, i.e., they were not conscious of being conscious or of being a “self” that was conscious. They did not possess a self as we think of it today. Jaynes describes this in terms of the two hemispheres of the brain being in total synthesis so that there was neither the rational nor the imaginative faculty which we now associate with the two hemispheres. Instead we might imagine one, seamless perceptual organ, with no need for rational interpretation and allowing for spontaneous, purely instinctive action. Over time, however, and due to the increased sizes of tribal communities and the resulting development of language, humans began to develop a rudimentary sense of self, along with a need to make choices, or at least the awareness of somehow being “moved” to do so. (Pure instinct is not a choice but an unconscious response to the environment.)

Jaynes suggests that this split between the hemispheres of the brain was the beginning of the formation of a separate, rational, sense of I-ness, and that there is evidence for this, or of the period leading up to it, in a work such as Homer’s The Iliad. In The Iliad, whenever the gods “intervene” in the lives of men, it is in the form of the emotions, impulses, and actions of the men and women themselves. Ancient man, in other words, was moved to action only by the intervention of the gods—or rather, he experienced the aspect of his being responsible for action and emotions as “the gods”—forces far beyond his own slowly forming sense of self. This, I propose, is the experience of ego in its very early stages, and is somewhat similar to how a child first becomes aware of itself as a self, via interaction with parents, caregivers, and older siblings—all of whom seem in some sense “above” the child and who therefore have a degree of control over it.

The next stage Jaynes posits in this development of consciousness (I would say “ego consciousness” but anyway) is when humans no longer experienced the gods in such a visceral, inner way but as a disembodied voice, giving them commands, instruction, and advice. Jaynes’ idea is that this was a result of the left brain becoming the center of self-awareness, separate from the less differentiated, more “imaginal” right brain, and how it received wisdom, input, in the only way it could understand it, in the form of language. This would be prior to the inception of internal dialogue and the ego-self as we currently experience it, back when there was still some sort of channel between left and right hemispheres, and between the (self-)conscious mind and the psyche.

Jaynes’ model makes a good case for the idea that, the more a self-conscious mind or ego self develops, the more externalized—“outed”—our experience of the psyche must become. Put another way, as the ego self develops an increasingly impenetrable wall around “it” (I place “it” in quotes because the wall is the ego, since the awareness that exists inside “it” is only possible to the degree that such isolating barriers are in place), as this wall of ego becomes less and less porous and more and more  impenetrable, the contents of the total psyche are further and further banished to the wilderness of the unconscious. The price of self-consciousness, then, is unconsciousness.

What I want to suggest now is that this banishing of the “gods”—representing the deeper knowledge, wisdom, and passions of the psyche—has made it necessary for that unconscious material to approach us from the outside, as a separate order of existence, so as to get around—or break through—that impenetrable barrier of ego-mind. Hence we have the increased manifestations of faery lore, demons, and latterly the UFO and the alien abduction narratives, in which the “other” literally snatches us from our sleep and drags us into another, more “psychic” or dreamlike reality. The denser the ego mind becomes, in other words, the denser the manifestations of the psyche must also become, in order to be recognized and received by us at all.

This doesn’t mean such manifestations are unreal. What is unreal in this model is not the psyche and its manifestations but the ego that has isolated itself from the greater reality of the soul, which sees everything through the chinks of its cavern, and which, like Plato’s cave-dwellers—or like a child in its room at night—creates living phantasms out of shadows. The ego, being itself unreal, cannot perceive reality. The UFO demands that we recognize this fact about ourselves because, as a living, nuts and bolts manifestation of the psyche (the gods, etc., etc.), it is literally powerful to destroy us, and this it will do if we fail to understand it as emanating from our own inner depths.

What we do not bring forth from within us will destroy us. I would add to this that, if we are unaware of what is coming forth from within us, we will see it as coming from outside of us, and will either fall down and worship it or do battle with it. At which point, either way, it will destroy us. And for the record, unconscious projection is not “bringing forth,” but the result of disowning and rejecting, i.e. of not bringing forth.

It is obviously more than a minor point that, in his book, Jaynes use of the word “consciousness” actually refers to self-awareness, i.e., what we think of as consciousness. Yet the implications of all of this are that language, and thought-based consciousness, in fact act as a kind of filter for—or even buffer against—consciousness in its pure sense, and that what we think of as the unconscious—i.e. the total awareness of the body—is rather a different, less differentiated form of consciousness that is unable to make it through that filter. The UFO as an externalized psyche-imago may be leading us towards totality or enlightened consciousness; but because we are unable to recognize such a thing even as a possibility (outside of spiritual jargon), it is instead being clothed in the contents of—our closest equivalent experience—the unconscious (pre-egoic awareness). The myths that form around “it,” then, while superficially progressive are actually regressive. They are leading us not towards “super-consciousness” but back to unconsciousness; hence the powerful, almost irresistible allure of “the UFO.”

*

If we resist the desire to interpret, assume, or believe anything about the UFO evidence, there is nothing to suggest the presence of extraterrestrials, nor is there proof of any kind of autonomous beings at all. All we know for sure is that something is occurring which we don’t understand and which can and often does take on the guise of these things. To approach a complete unknown in terms of the known is a mistake based on the assumption that “there’s nothing new under the sun.” But the psyche is like love: it’s the oldest and the newest thing in the world. And if it’s a creative force, then it may be constantly transforming itself, so that, until the day we fully embody it, it will always, always appear to us as “alien.”

The moment we identify this presence as “something,” we are no longer interacting with it as it is but only with our own tired old assumptions about ourselves and reality. Hence we are looking to it—as to a modern form of saving grace—to come into our lives and transform them into something less tired and old. Maybe this is why the ET never lands, because the moment it did land, it would turn out to be us: just another boring old terrestrial.

The only alternative to this grim and shabby scenario (that of a scientistic “new” religion based around space travel and the UFO) is if there’s an internal “landing”—a moment of transcendental truth in which the body is “invaded” from space, and we are fully and finally occupied by the psyche.

If we agree that UFO is real in some sense, we can also agree that it issues from somewhere beyond our familiar social realm of experience. Even the most mundane interpretation—that it represents extraterrestrial (or possibly human, off-world, or even inner earth/faery) technology that is beyond what we can collectively understand or even recognize as technology—even this model admits that our current understanding is inadequate to explain, represent, or interpret our experience. Because of this, we are obliged—consciously or otherwise—to turn to the elements of the unconscious (myth, fantasy, and dream) to make sense of it.

In Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Jung points out that just because a dream can’t be understood at face value doesn’t mean that the immediately perceived content is merely a façade obscuring a hidden truth. The dream symbol is closely aligned to its content—it’s only that, if we don’t understand the language which it represents, we won’t be able to make sense out of it. Either it will seem like nonsense, or we will misread it and come up with an overly literal interpretation, one that makes superficial sense but misses the deeper meaning. Ditto with the UFO.

It’s not that the UFO experience is merely a façade or false front for some psychic reality behind it. It’s that the UFO is a symbolic narrative which can’t be understood as a literal enactment—even if it is—because we don’t presently have the tools to understand it. We aren’t yet conscious of the kind of “technology” (language) which the UFO employs, so it will always be indistinguishable to us from magic—the stuff of dreams.

What’s the objective of an object that flies unidentified through skies and in and out of our sleep—that subjects its subjects to an experience in which they experience themselves as objects, in an entirely subjective fashion? Coherence depends on a willingness to relinquish our efforts to make the pieces fit in accordance with our subjective view of what constitutes objectivity and coherence. Making sense yet? Or is it time to stop—all that?

If the UFO is an objective representative or “ambassador” of the psyche, then it only appears to be being authored by our perceptions and expectations. In fact, it is the author of our experience of it, and it’s the author of the experiencer, too. The thing being observed is not only creating the observation, but the necessary illusion (the crucial fiction) of an observer observing anything.

To recognize the UFO as us is impossible. The moment we did so, we would also see that there was no “us” to do the recognizing. There is no way to make sense out of a phenomenon that is in actuality the faculty of making sense out of reality. We can only disappear—or be abducted—in the attempt.

We can’t be conscious of consciousness. We can think we are, but then we will only prove that we aren’t. Why? Because thought is not a substitute for consciousness, any more than belief is a substitute for knowing. The finger is not the moon, the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal—because the medium is the message.

To pursue the UFO is to pursue our own undoing. It will end either in realization or in ruin. Is there even a difference?

None of these statements are true—including this one.

42 thoughts on “Invasion from Within (The Thing from Inner Space, Part 7)

  1. U are the atmospheric condition that we have been talking about (and speaking to) forever. U is a singularity. U are a plurality. There is nowhere U have never been seen and nowhere U have never been heard.

    All of the above statements are true because there is nothing untrue that can be said about U when U are left as U are (and as U is) … Unidentified.

  2. “The myths that form around “it,” then, while superficially progressive are actually regressive. They are leading us not towards “super-consciousness” but back to unconsciousness; hence the powerful, almost irresistible allure of “the UFO.””

    Though Kubrick was babbling on about trans-humanist and futurist ideas during and after the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the quote above is almost assuredly the meaning behind the movie. I think he rather enjoyed playing the role of the trickster – saying publicly one thing and espousing the exact opposite in his work.

    Once noticed, McLuhan’s ideas unravel the mystery of 2001. (Well, I guess there’s a shitload of esoteric stuff in there too – all pointing in the same direction: re-acquaintance with the psyche, the “other”.)

    McLuhan’s work does a fair amount of justice for another great movie, David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia”. 2001 and LOA are amazingly similar – right down to the opening theme music played over a black screen, creating an “acoustic space” rather than visual. If you’ve got a spare six hours watch the two in tandem. Time, space, guns, and the psyche.

    ps – you’ve created another batch of great thought provoking material – thanks.

  3. hi John

    I just finished up a new essay on autism & technology that refers to 2001 in contrast to Blade Runner, while also citing MacLuhan; it’s strange to find myself writing about it because as you know I’ve never had much affection for Kubrick’s work, post Dr. Strangelove anyway. But there’s no denying him as one of the culture-makers of the 20th century (a mixed complement at best, IMO), and becoming aware of his Aspergerian tendencies has increased my interest in him/his work (tho not enough to revisit it yet; I did love Room 237).

    I first saw Lawrence of Arabia in my late 20s and it had a big impact on me. As a visionary loner, I wonder if Lawrence had autistic qualities also? I especially remember the line in which he is asked why he loves the desert: “It’s clean.”

    Your comments are always appreciated.

  4. I used to be fascinated by Kubrick’s films when hanging around the synchronicity community. I thought if you watch and ponder over his films long enough it might convey some cosmic secret. I guess Room 237 was like catching a reflection of yourself in the mirror.

    Anyway, can you explain your reasons for your delight of Room 237?

  5. The multiple points of view; the intense exploration of detail; the way it turned The Shining inside out, into a “meta-film” – a film about itself – which redeemed it in my eyes because I always felt it was a very poor film — like Kubrick’s films thereafter IMO — dramatically speaking.

    I guess I liked how Room 237 illustrated how, if you look deeply enough into anything, you will find hidden meanings, while simultaneously showing how subjective those meanings are.

    The most interesting thing about Kubrick for me has always been how his films inspire obsession and are consistently and wildly overrated if seen as movies, as opposed to Kubrickanelia, i.e., fetish objects.

    SK was an obsessive and fetishistic filmmaker, with a master’s technique and thoroughness, so perhaps that’s how he inspired the same in others, by drawing them into his brain state?

    As it happens I mentioned Eyes Wide Shut during a dream I had last night!

  6. Funny, I don’t think Lean was overly kind to that “visionary loner” during the movie. And it’s all tears and politics in the end – Lawrence having discovered that for all his presumed greatness he was still just a pawn in a larger political arena.

    Interestingly, T. E. Lawrence grew up in a Quaker household and his father ran out on the family for another woman when Lawrence was a teen.

    The poor Turks, the only times I’ve seen them in a movie are LOA and Midnight Express. Maybe they should think about hiring a new PR advisor!

  7. Pingback: Xtra UFO Headlines 16/08/2013

  8. The text says due to faulty senses “child cannot receive accurate information about the world around him.” This is presumptive and based on a socially-enforced idea of what the world is.

    If someone perceived more of the world than others, they also would have difficulty functioning and would have to be “treated.” Hence autism = intense world syndrome. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518049/

    It’s possible, likely even, that there are different kinds of people whose behaviors are being conflated as “autism,” some of whom are “blocked,” as in this quote, others of whom are the inverse, much more open than neuroptypical people.

  9. As i understand the idea, blocking leads to hypersensitivity. In TCM model of the body, if you have a blockage on the upper part of the body, there’s less feedback between it and the rest of the organs and hence there are cognitive imbalances (as the organs in the chinese model partipate in cognition too — check for exaple kidney function in the HPA axis).

    As for your argument of the socially-enforced-idea, i think maybe it’s not about presumptive abstract ideas about what the world is: it’s about body experiences and observed behaviors in determined contexts. So if you happen to observe your child in bed and there’s a small noise and he goes to a full anxiety episode because he perceives it as threathening, yep, i would say it’s completely legitimate to say the child isn’t getting accurate information about the world around him.

    That does not mean that your child also has synesthesia and can access different levels of cognition. One can perceive “more” of the world and at the same time “less” of the world, so i think you’re being dualistic in your argument. So i would rather say “much more open than neurotypical people in some aspects“.

    I am also wary of that tendency in the “autistic pride” tendency, and i like to take the approach depicted in this little zen story to the whole issue.

  10. As per your example, it would be more accurate to say the child is not *interpreting* the information correctly, not that it is incorrect info per se. Such a child might be picking up a far richer and detailed array of information about the sound but because of being overwhelmed, reacts as if the sound itself was a threat (tho this is an NT assumption; my experience suggests that what’s overwhelming is not any particular stimuli but the cognitive chaos of not being able to process or separate sense-data and make sense of it).

    I don’t see it’s possible to separate “presumptive abstract ideas” about the world from “body experiences and observed behaviors in determined contexts” – since the contexts are determined by social conditioning including “presumptive abstract ideas.” The idea that there even IS a world, or people, is a presumptive abstract idea.

    I also think you are either unaware of or choose to ignore the “determined context” of this debate, which is that, on the other end of “autist pride,” and far more predominant, autistics are being suppressed, bullied, tortured and killed out of despair and frustration and largely under the guise of “treatment.”

    So I immediately view any discussion of autism that approaches it, in an unqualified manner, as a disorder, with extreme suspicion. (FYI, I am also suspicious of using autism as a catch-all, “I’m just different” that easily overlaps with superior position – you can’t leave out identity politics. But as with UFOs, anyone who’s talking about autism without talking about consciousness and reality, isn’t going to get very far – IMO)

  11. Well I took the example directly from an asperger’s woman in another forum, so I guess it’s not an NT assumption. That’s how she described is anxiety panics in bed. To be *strictly* fair the parent, in the example, doesn’t exactly know what’s going on on the child mind. But let’s be pragmatical: if the child starts then beating his head into the wall it’s useless to ponder about the idea of world and people being real or not. And it’s, for sure, completely legitimate to seek treatment, and yes, even to contemplate it as a disorder –it’s the same guttural reaction as getting moral offense when the same child is bullied.

    Now, what treatment? You say i’m ignoring or unaware of the whole context of the treatment, but i think that’s unfair, since I am trying to understand the “condition” from a model of the body that has too been frequently bullied, persecuted and supressed –also, there are a lot of NT’s too being killed, bullied and supressed and also a lot of times under the guise of “treatment”. Did ya read ‘The Horse Boy’? When treated the first times by medicine man, they focused on the same area of the body (neck) that the author of that book points to.

    If we take seriously the idea that ‘autism’ is a *only* label, then I think useless to perpetuate a dynamic of victim/agressor by pointing and personalizing opposited factions — too much christian flavor for my taste. For it is possible than the ‘autistic’ traits could be too linked to the same (impersonal) forces that configure the problem –I’m thinking for example in the hyperdopamininergic society theory (maybe due to agriculture?). For example: there’s that study that pointed that right wing conservatives have larger amygdalas –a trait that is shared with what is called ASD. But it could be also possible that is the progressive sedentary evolution of society stressed more females and that this kind of trait evolved from this situation?

    • It may have been unfair (I wondered at the time I wrote it), but perhaps no more so than calling my arguments “dualistic.”

      First off, any argument is dualistic – since it requires two points of views to argue; secondly all language is based on dualistic worldview of necessity.

      More specifically, I’m afraid as long as we are positing something called autism, unless we are going to view it simply as a disorder, which I trust no one here is happy with, then it requires a specifically dualistic POV, i.e., autistic & non-autistic. The solution, only partial, is to recognize a spectrum that includes everyone, i.e.. NT psychopath at one end and low-functioning autist at the other, with perhaps the fully whole/individuated person dead center?

      I agree treating side effects of Intense World syndrome-Autism is desirable to a degree, but only to the degree those side effects are properly understood, which requires as much as possible incorporating the POV of the person suffering them.

  12. Thank you so much Jasun for posting the link to “The Intense World Syndrome” essay! It is a very refreshing look at autism from a perspective that I haven’t seen in the autism material I have read. It rings quite too. It is an essay I will be reading many times. And I am certain you will be bringing these ideas forward in ways that are even richer and more intellectually satisfying than what the authors of this piece have done:-)

  13. and when i say dualistic i should say have said “polarizing”? Don’t know, but why the idea of a “NT psychopath” as *completely opposed* (at the other end of a line) to a low functioning autistic?

  14. Why not? A spectrum has to have polar ends. Anything finite does.

    It’s close enough to nature anyway – the predator and the prey.

    Once again, the spectrum is meant to be applied to modes of consciousness, not individuals.

  15. The dualistic POV only works when there is a dead center … the individuated / whole man or woman … which then makes it a trinitarian POV, I guess. And , of course, all trinities lead to a septernity, at least in my way of making a world for myself as a NT man on the path of individuation. When it comes to NT folk, the ones who are at dead center are usually elders, I think. I have a ways to go but “dead center” is the aim. Walking the path of individuation is consciously taking the slow train to enlightenment, I guess.

    Hey, the word “septernity” is similar (an anagram) to “serpentity” (serpent entity, rolled into one). Cool.

    • While individuation and enlightenment may not be synonymous, certainly enlightenment presupposes and depends on individuation being completed. Whether it’s a fast track/substitute to it, I am skeptical. Nor can I think of any reason to desire enlightenment if individuation is attained, or even if it’s attainable. To become complete unto oneself, to discover one’s very center of being and to always refer to and move from that center in everything, to be unswayed and undisturbed by all outer (or even inner) distractions or interference, at least to the point of coming off course, to be a straight line unimpeded or checked by inhibition, fear, or doubt (without being insensitive to these things), to let the ground beneath one’s feet determine one’s each and every step, all these things can be experienced, incrementally, as we let go of anything and everything that gets in the way of that core/ground experience.

      Is that the slow train? Or is it the journey that is the arrival?

      By definition, there is “zero distance” between our true self and our center. Growing up = letting go or everything we are not. So then each step gets lighter.

      • Desiring enlightenment is the default setting of a NT seeker-man living inside of a pseudo-culture framework (which this modern environment is). The path of individuation is one of constantly over-riding the default setting , without smashing to bits desire itself . The longer I am consciously on the train the less I am worried about how long it is going to take to “arrive”, so yes, perhaps you might say that the journey on the “individuation train” is a kind of arrival. It’s the opposite of the “are we there yet” mentality, which is the default setting (aka “desiring enlightenment”).

        As I’ve stated before, it is my world-view that the NT man who is on the path of individuation, and who is growing up in a pseudo-culture, does not (and cannot) reach the fully individuated state (if there is one!) until he reaches elderhood, and elderhood means mid-80’s to me !!. At that point , the default setting of desiring enlightenment falls completely away and the truly New World is entered into and tended to by simple (and simply) being. It is futile to rush to my mid-80’s. This is what I mean by being on the “slow train”. I pretty much have to live my whole life over again (and then some) to get there — to that place where I don’t have to worry about work (or “The Work”) anymore !

        • I am curious where you got the idea that individuation is a biological process(?) that only completes itself in the 80s?

          It seems like a compensatory position to the predominant Western disregard for old people – to posit elders as the only possessors of integrity?

          How would you define individuation?

  16. I think I’m not making clear my point. In nature usually the predator and the prey are from different species, so there you go — now we have a model with two different species. What i’m saying is that the “NT psychopath” shares his deal of ‘autistic’ traits too and configures and perpetuates a structure in society that is, for lack of a better word, autistic too. I mean, if you take seriously the idea of those mythfied historical characters being on the spectrum: Einsetin? Treated as hell his woman. Jefferson? Didn’t have a problem with slavery. Bill Gates? Pro eugenics. Newton? A real maddafucka.

    So that’s what i’m saying, that positing those two species as separated entities, being one the prey and one in the predator seems to me excessively polarizing, even at an unconscious level –since no one wants to be prey. That point is made on ‘American Normal’, that Hans Asperger, when describing the kids in his original paper, described ‘psychopatic’ characteristics on then too –but these part of his discourse gets ignored and whitewashed by american puritanical bias. People are happy to point the characters of the Big Bang Theory as being on the spectrum, since they’re depicted in a positive way, but the perverse fact is that they’re all working for the military complex (yeah, sure this show it’s CIA endorsed).

  17. Yes you have raised some unavoidable discrepancies and in the end the idea of two separate species on the planet does seem to be a necessary hypothesis, one I prefer to steer clear of, for obvious reasons.

    Still you are talking about individuals when I already said that, for me, it doesn’t work to reduce it to that, probably because individuals are too complex to be reduced to a label, and because different kinds of perception can be experienced, and expressed, by the same individual at different times.

    Except for at the very top and bottom of the food chain, predators are always also (potentially) prey.

    I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning, however, because if you are saying that NT and autistic overlap and share traits, then why use the terms at all? What are we talking about here exactly? Maybe you could lay out your own interest/position, separately from contesting what you see mine to be? That way it might be easier to see where the difference actually lies.

  18. — I am curious where you got the idea that individuation is a biological process(?) that only completes itself in the 80s?

    It is my own model of development. Individuation, for me, is not a biological process but it is a path of willingly and ceaselessly turning to one’s own body (biological suit) whenever and wherever there is physical discomfort and ache, and addressing compassiontely the part of oneself that is resisting biology inside that very part of the body where the pain seems to be emanating forth. It’s away an individuating away from the collective pseudo-culture program that says pain is bad, and it is also individuating away from the colletive pseudo-culture program that says pain is good. It’s just a being with it, consciously and willingly, whenever and wherever it arises. Individuation then takes care of itself.

    It is my theory , alone, as far as I know, that the “positive” compulsions of the individuation process comes to an end at 84 years old (at least in the case of NT man) and then can (and does) live without any compulsions, which is a whole new world. The negative compulsions that arise out of the default setting of the pseudo-culture of course fade away completely as well. For a person living in an intact culture that has not been taken over by the pseudo-culture matrix (are there any left?), it will happen quite a bit earlier. And, of course, autists are not affected nearly as much by the pseudo-culture matrix so the question is , Do autists individuate, do they need to bother? If so , then perhaps they become reach the end of the individuation process earlier than 84 years old. But I am sticking it to it that NT man has to go on the ride until 84 if he is looking for “enlightenment” here in the pseudo-culture wonderland. Uranus Returns. You get your original asshole back, intact.

      • It is definitely related to one’s Uranus return in some way, but I only found that out after I came up with 84 via other calculations … in searching for the truth about enlightenment , or the truth about whether or not there indeed might be an end to individuation for NT man within the context of a pseudo-culture (in which we are immersed). The answer was “yes” … 84 years old (but I must impress that it is specific for NT man , AND specific to the NT man who grows up and lives in pseudo-culture). This may sound like a horrible thought (or theory) to some , but it gives me some peace and I happen to think it is true, speaking as a NT man who is not even halfway to 84.

  19. So what exactly happens at 84? I don’t quite follow the reasoning. If it’s not biological, then what sort of cycle is it following, besides astrological?

    Is NT an either/or definition? Are there shades and grades? If you were really so NT as you say, why be drawn to auticulture?

  20. There are shades and grades within the spectrum of NT man (and what he can offer as a whole , himself, to the septernity) just as there are shades and grades within the spectrum of the autistic individual (man and/or woman … and what he/she can offer as a whole to the septernity). NT man and Autist man (and woman) are two co-existing — co-supporting — wholes within the septernity “framework” that I am seeing and choosing to live inside of ; Two among seven. This is why I am drawn to auticulture, your website. Also, just because an NT man cannot be enlightened until he is 84 does not mean that he cannot experience wholeness in himself (as himself) at an earlier age. The releasement from all compulsive tendencies, both positive and negative, (which is enlightenment to me), will not be reached until the NT man reaches 84.

    To your first questions:
    It’s not biological (at least not strictly) in my view because not every NT man experiences the reality of enlightenment when he reaches 84 years old. It is only for the NT man who have chosen the path of individuation for at least half his life and then hits 84. I don’t feel the need to explain (or argue) why biology trumps everything in the pseudo-culture context when it comes to the experience of NT man. Honestly, I don’t even recall my calculations that led me to know that 84 was the age, but the realization/knowing was powerful enough for me to know it to be worthy of further exploration (and it keeps me from giving a shit about those who claim enlightenment … who are neither an autist nor an 84 year old man). An autist who might claim enlightenment is just a plain old curiosty to me and I would probably give some of my time, as I am curious what enlightenment means to an autist individual.

    What happens exactly for the 84 year old man who reaches enlightenment, you ask? Well, of course you will have to seek out a deep elder (84 or older) who has done (and finished the work) of inidividuation. Yes, I do believe there is an endpoint to it for NT man, so long that he has done the inner work for at least half his life and as long as he reaches that “magical” age. That elder man, who we should all be seeking some time with, might be hard to find at this point, though, as many at that age are not currently active on the internet, and also because not many who do reach that age have done the work of individuation. Perhaps there will be more who are readily available to us as the baby boomer generation gets into their mid 80’s … as that generation are are more internet savvy. Also , there are many from that generation who were raised inside of a milieu where individuation (inner work) was spoken of in more lucid , grounded ways by the likes of Jung and such and so have been doing the work for over fourty years … although most from that generation chose the ungrounded routes of new age and/or scientific materialism … and other methods that propagate the pseudo-culture BS enlightenment entrapments.

  21. How do you gauge if someone claiming enlightenment is autistic or not?

    Honestly your model seems highly idiosyncratic to me, like something you have patched together out of a mix of found material with visions/intuitions & personal obsessions. This isn’t to say it’s not interesting (hence my questions).

    What practical appliance does it have for you besides the odd quirks mentioned above?

  22. I’d have to lay out the whole septernity model — of which NT man and Autistic individual (man or woman) are but two of the seven wholes that make up the model — in order to really get to the practical appliance. Contact me if you are interested in hearing more about it. Obviously , yes , it is an idiosyncratic model but I do think other NT men who are on the path of individuation would probably find value in it. It’s a model that, when applied, helps to smash many pseudo-culture imprints that stick (are stuck) to NT man.

    How do you gauge if someone claiming enlightenment is autistic or not?
    I just have a feeling. I’ll spend some time on the inidividual if i have a feeling that he might be autistic and won’t spend some time if I feel he is NT man who doesn’t realize that he has to wait to 84 to know what he is talking about (and to truly be of help in regards to describing what enlightenment is like for NT man). Either way, whatever the autistic or non-autistic says about the enlightened state isn’t going to matter much to me, because I have 46 years to go (if I make it there) until I can actually verify what he is saying.

  23. “because I have 46 years to go (if I make it there) until I can actually verify what he is saying.”

    What are you doing in the mean time?

    Seems such like a fatal gamble to trust a model striving towards enlightenment.

  24. What about the possibility that enlightenment is the natural state? (It’s the only interpretation that makes any sense for me.)

    Your model seems to say that Maya (the pseudo/cultural matrix) is indomitable and only releases her hold once we are too old to do any damage, hence for her to care about.

    • I would agree that enlightenment is the natural state in an intact culture. It’s not the natural state in a pseudo-culture matrix so that is why NT man must do “the work against nature” for many many years (until 84) before he can make a space big enough for the natural state to fully fit inside of . Sure, he’ll experience some peace and some wholeness through much of his life, especially his later life, but enlightenment, no … not until 84 (so says me ! ).

      “… too old to do any damage” ?!?! What are you ? … anti-elders? Give them more credit (and respect). Maya knows that they are not too old to do any damage. Anyway, Maya releases her hold completely only on those who have done the work of individuation for 42 years (at least) and who are 84 years old. I think my model suggests that we can’t trick Maya into thinking She is done with us (NT man). NT man may be able to trick himself and other people that She has been completely and finally tamed, but we can’t trick Her. Various qualities of enlightenment will be experienced throughout the stages and of the life of NT Man in the pseudo-culture construct, but Enlightnement will not be lived in (and out) until you know when. This how I see it and how I’m living it , along with the rest in the septernity model.

      • I confess to not getting it. It seems a combination of arbitrary, eccentric, impractical, and (oddly, or maybe not, if you are alone in this belief) dogmatic.

        But then any intellectual system at all is one too many, in my opinion. We are already stuck with the intellectual system of language.

  25. I agree that enlightenment is the natural state. The mystical side of me says that we were all Buddhas once (in the Satya Yuga) and have had to go through a long period of forgetting our natural state (Kali Yuga). The slightly more practical side of me says this could be equally true of a simply anthropological view. Before we achieved self-reflective consciousness, language and a dominant left-brain, we were imbeded, or maybe to phrase it more accurately, embodied, in nature, in a constant state of enlightened being. But I doubt we understood that. We needed to step out of the garden…achieve distance, to understand what enlightenment is and why is should be re-membered in our bodies.

    If as the article you posted is correct, then perhaps the hyper-development of specific forms of cognition is really a sign of our more natural state. In Ayurveda, autism is viewed as an imbalance of the Vata dosha, the energy related to thought, electricity, space, conscious awareness. The recommendation is to balance the overbalance of Vata with calming remedies.

    So…it is as if an autistic person may have their upper chakras wide open…spinning freely, halfway to enlightenment. Halfway to where we need to be. But only halfway, because if they experience trauma early in life, then their lower, grounding, energy-providing bodily chakras are blocked. Shakti is cut-off in the head…dissociated from the base of the spine. The process in an autistic person would suggest they need to re-ground themselves in their bodies. Relive trauma…with a witness, so they can safely experience and process it, thereby removing the blockage.

    If such a person could do this, with their exquisitively tuned cognition, then…perhaps mind and body and spirit truly could united (shakti with shiva). Neurotypicals would have to further develop the upper chakras. Autists would feel the rising of kundalini, enlightenment, zazen, whatever we want to call it…and recognize it as natural.

    My thoughts…slowly gathered from months of reading through your material Jasun:-)

    And I also agree that 84 years of age and the Uranus return is an important astrological marker but by no means a given that someone becomes enlightened or closer to it then. Heavens…there are so many now in the western world who are suffering from dementia at that age. No…all of us have markers of time, like Saturn Returns and Uranus returns. Depending on a person’s chart, you will “feel it” or not, you will learn universal lessons…or not. It depends greatly on a person’s individual destiny.

  26. Perhaps it has to do with where the focus or identification is? NTs identify with the mind/ego and body image — the outer man — at the exclusion of the soul, auties tend to identify with the inner self at the cost of outer functionality.

  27. NT man, if he is going to fulfill his role as one of the seven wholes in the septernity, can do nothing but create models to live inside of (and then live inside each his own model of what real intact culture really is ) … otherwise he will be living in someone else’s model, which is the epitome of what pseudo-culture is … ( the living-out of other people’s dreams and models, and not his own as a man who embodies one of the seven wholes). He has to at least be willing to die trying to make such a model and to live inside that model which would be an attempt at the expression of what an intact culture is and does. He has to do this so to be an example unto himself (and to Maya, of course). Without culture, NT man does not exist, and that is why there are those out there who would want to stamp out all and every intact culture on the planet, and that is why NT man (if he is whole) has to make and re-make culture for himself constantly , over and over, always with the help of other wholes in the septernity who find his model / modeling worthy of living inside of (and worthy of living out, together). Not all wholes will find his model / modeling worthy, and that is surely accounted for in the model.

    Idiosyncratic? It has to be for NT man (if he is going to embody the whole that he is meant to be) … is what I am saying.

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