A New Paratopia Has Arrived!

Blue Paratopia LogoNOW PLAYING

Paratopia: Epilogue To The Epilogues

The Jer talks to Emma Woods about a recent odd experience involving abduction-related and hallucinatory phenomena. Together they discuss whether one’s state of consciousness during an abduction differs if it’s physical or nonphysical and if so, do phenomena surrounding an experience differ? All of this is couched in Oliver Sacks‘ book, Hallucinations. Then, the Jer gets into his meditative experience from just last night and discusses some new twists on the trickster and the abduction scenario.

Click Here To Listen!

Many thanks to Emma for being there and for doing this.


10 thoughts on “A New Paratopia Has Arrived!

  1. You covered a lot of ground in one hour. Looking forward to the next epilogue.

    I agree with your assessment of Jeff Ritzmann and his ability to contribute to a field that needs new ideas. You should also include yourself as someone who will make a difference, Jeremy, because you are starting to explore phenomena from a novel perspective as well as combining personal insights with the tools of science in new ways. And I look forward to seeing what you will find through that approach as well.

    • Thanks. Do you think it’s possible to study the brains of abductees who claim high strangeness after effects of “abductions,” or is that a bridge too far?

      • Wouldn’t it be nice if those people were all following a common protocol? Maybe they’d use their smarts phones to immediately record any such event, with the specifics that the protocol would request. (This would be a way to collect usable data in the event that you couldn’t get an IRB to approve capturing several hundred abductees and holding them in wards with 24/7 brain monitoring)

      • I feel there are several possible approaches to this, some may be more practical and affordable than others. It will be challenging, but, no, it is not a bridge too far. Carol hits on a key idea regarding standardization. Even if there is no global agreement in the field as a whole, it will be important to use consistent methods. Please note that no one can claim that the mystery will be solved completely if only you would use fMRI, PET scans or the like. But we can improve understanding of the mechansms and reactions involved.

  2. Good to hear from both Jeremy and Emma again. Funny, I was reading Sacks’ Hallucinations, too, and agree that he doesn’t go beyond the “it’s all here in the chemistry of the brain.” If you approach him with your related questions, Jeremy, I think you just might gain an interview. He’s around, in Chelsea and the Village. Also, some of the things you were talking about remind me of what lucid dreamers report. One of the most interesting people in this field is Robert Waggoner. I was at a seminar with him several months ago and feel that he’s looking around, via dreams, in the deep territory of the human psyche and the unconscious (which Sacks did not). His site is http://ww.dreaminglucid.com. I’m reading Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self. I can imagine a conclave of all the people and ideas that interest us most–having the best thinkers from the paranormal, OBEs, near death, lucid dreamers, ufologists, biologists, etc. come together. I wonder if collectively they could push the “abduction mystery” forward?

  3. I only wish Emma’s voice wasn’t so muffled, had a hard time understanding what she said.You need to take the roosters with you when you move, kinda your trade mark now. I hope you can stay on the Big Island.

  4. Hey Jer,
    Jayr here. I listened to the latest episode and it was great as usual – you bring up quite a number of great questions and suggested directions for which potential study could head in, which as we know, is difficult to do in ufological/paranormal circles.

    In listening to the last points regarding your 2001 encounter and experience I have some thoughts I’d like to share. I actually had started off with an entire theory of why they might present you with nothing which led to other paths until finally I came to this. The original thought I had I’d still like to share but don’t want to kill my response just yet.

    In listening to you trying to understand your experience taken as separate parts ti doesn’t quite make sense. However taken as a whole it seems that the encounter was a riddled answer to both the questions you had posed.

    The first being the question of what an abduction was like or to remember your abduction. This was posed to them if I understand it. The other question was the one you had to yourself – worried about your responsibility for bringing “them” into someone else’s life based on your relations with that person.

    I think the encounter you had was a response to both questions but putting emphasis on the more important question – the question you had when you worried about “them” coming that night while in a relationship with someone. If I may, there was a crisis of conscience regarding how responsible you’d be if “they” decided to show up and interfere in someone else’s life. When it didn’t happen, you relieved yourself from that scenario, but the crisis – conflict over what to do in such a situation wasn’t resolved. The second night that they came was to pose that question regarding that potential conflict as if to say “You assume that you’re safe regarding this potential problem; because it didn’t happen it’s no longer a problem for you to worry about but we are here to show you different. We exist, we are a part of your life. Here’s the rose now dance!”

    The presentation of the abduction experience that you wanted to remember/see which apparently gave you no information on what they do is perhaps the main premise behind their response to your first question. That it is an empty information-less response that reflects that question that provoked it. That is to say, wanting to know and see the abduction experience is not a concrete question because it doesn’t advance you in your life, whereas the second question was the question with real substance and content because it is concretely about how you live your life. Neither of course reveals the nature of who “they” are or what “they” do – but maybe the answer to both those questions is how to reconcile and address the crisis as they present themselves to you and your conscience/conscious is the path towards finding an answer?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s