CHAPTER XXI


Theories

aka "The Rainbow of Soul"
(and other evolving-theories about evolving)


Self-Creation?

Perhaps "self-influenced" would be a better term.

It would be misleading to pretend my experiences are unaffected by me. In fact, now that I've finally allowed myself to look into the "UFO/Abduction" field just a bit, I find I sometimes encounter entities I've been thinking about, situations I'm concentrating on, and concepts I'm wondering about—in short, despite the vivid nature and sometimes even physical reality of my experience, it's obvious that to some degree, my own state of mind does affect both what I experience and how I interpret it.

I've wondered if this is because mental focus might "tune" one's consciousness to the frequency band where the entities exist, or if some "larger perceptive aspect of me" is teaching me something. That is hardly an objective answer, but those are my tentative theories.

If I had read some of the work in this field, do you suppose I would have first encountered the Greys? Medical labs, probes and hybrids? I feel my experiences have been positive because I didn't expect aliens and victimization —I didn't have a set belief system, and as things developed and I began forming one, I mostly only suspected "metaphysics and evolution."

I've had interesting experiences throughout my life. But I can't help but notice that it wasn't until I'd considered the "alien" premise as possible (albeit distantly, mostly as a result of my dreams) that I woke up with implants. The injury was real. The implants were not part of my body. Those things are not in doubt to me. My emotional reaction to it was quite "real" and profound. And they came back and "fixed" my knee, while I was wide awake and in the physical--that much is for me.

What is in doubt is why it didn't happen to me until I'd considered the idea of my night-life relating to aliens. Did I create it? How could I create the externally physical components? In fact if I tried to convince a scientist I created such things I would be "debunked." (Unless of course it was being used to explain how UFOlogy/contact is impossible, in which case they would say it is the answer!) How could I create tiny detailed elements that turned out to be in other peoples' stories, which I hadn't heard? How could I create craft, and implants, and physicals in my living room? I certainly haven't created the documented stories from other people. Not only of contact, but including craft sightings and phenomena encountered by the Air Force and other militaries—worldwide, no less. (And while abduction and UFOs may be two different subject, from the abduction side they seem potentially related.) Let alone the social, religious and cultural histories relating to this subject.

So is it merely that it was happening all along, and my psychology (rigid belief systems) wasn't allowing me to see it?

Or was I existing in a manner that couldn't be accessed by "them" (or I simply wasn't seen or noticed by them) until I'd been exposed enough to "tune me" to it?

Perhaps it took getting more comfortable with the subject and myself before my conscious mind was willing to address the issue.

Perhaps it simply took getting an external knowledge about something before I could recognize it for what it was.

Or perhaps whatever is going on is something I've never thought of—cleverly hidden by a memory composed of fragments of whatever's lurking in my mind.

Is it possible that I created it, yet it's also separate enough from me to call autonomous? Could it be that our "self creation of reality" is expanding as we evolve as a species? What happens to our creativity when the art forms begin fighting back?

Could Earth's barrage of frequency-type technologies have begun to "mutate" humanity, so that some specimens are beginning to show the results? Actually, I've been wondering about that for years now--since this all first began with me.

Could one of these be the advanced ability to create a tangible reality, like some kind of solid dream? Or is it instead a regressive inability to discern reality from dream realms? Might these actually be the same thing? Or perhaps simply affecting the frequency(s) individuals tend to perceive could account for much of this.

I know I affect myself, yet I know I am also regularly meeting entities which seem autonomous from myself. I'm not alone: I find echoes in other people just like they find them in me. Even in offbeat areas it happens. Get this: a guy once told me that he'd actually read about somebody else "switching out" of an earthquake. Come on! I mean what are the odds?!

I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel here. You know even Crowley thought within 50 years we'd have all this figured out—and where he was a century ago is way beyond where most people are now. It's pathetic, and a little bit demoralizing.

Why haven't we figured this out by now? As long as humanity's been around and these things have been happening? It really aggravates me, the time-wasting effort put into doing things a million times from scratch, because nobody studies, documents, and teaches them to continue the knowledge, to gradually step-up the research.

That religion, science, government and media are the reasons this subject hasn't been taken seriously until now doesn't incline me to appreciation of any of them. They all seem to act more like each other every day.


Maybe this is adaptation or evolution.

It's clear that man has been surviving and evolving, this far, not based on strength or durability, but on his mind.

Whatever hazards the environment presented us with, we were able to create technologies that allowed us to survive. The bigger the threat, the more creative man demonstrated himself to be.

At this point, our technologies, and the effects on the planetary system and world health, are actually the biggest threats to us, both as individuals and as a species. From power lines to the chemicals in food and water, from scalar weather control and weapons to atomic and nuclear bombs, we face a daily barrage of toxins and technology, and a future fraught with danger.

Regardless of whether we created the threats ourselves, they are still "threats from our environment." Might our extraordinarily adaptable species be creating, in these "experiences," whatever it is that we need to survive our environment?

Perhaps we need a "common enemy" that is not on our planet and therefore not susceptible to standard technology and bombs, or at least not susceptible in such a way that we'd have to wipe ourselves out to injure them.

Perhaps we need a more "spiritual" aspect brought out of our population. This could provide new perception abilities, so that we became more aware of our circumstance and our relationship to all things, which might "change our ways."

On the other hand, it could provide new abilities that allow at least some of the population to survive the eventual planetary reactions to our technologies.

Children in dangerous environments become more familiar with paranormal events across the board, including entities. Perhaps we are in a dangerous environment, spontaneously developing perception ability beyond what our hard-wired biology has shown us so far. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened or that this particular "type" of development has been documented.

In the past, physical technology was what we needed. And physical technology is what we have created and stumbled upon, over and over, to save our lives, and to improve our lives.

At this point in our development, both as individuals and as a species, what we seem to be most lacking is a conscious connection to other life forms: we lack empathy in a major way. As a result, we suffer not only extremes of war and prejudice, but continue to annihilate life upon this planet—animals and the earth itself, not to mention the continuing starvation and disease of our own species—because we are unaware of, or insanely disassociated from, our place in the "cycle."

Our technology, while it provided what we needed in the past, seems to have had the side effect of separating us, psychologically: when we want to know the nature of a living thing, we go kill it and then stick it under a microscope.

In the present and future, perhaps empathy is what we need to survive. Our adaptability may be introducing us to it -- maybe we should simply consider it a new technology to help us survive, so to speak.

We need to be the lab animal for once. We need to connect to our surroundings, to the spectrum of life. Even if it's modern mythology, it seems quite a coincidence to me that the infamous "abduction" subject would make us the inferior lab animals, indoctrinate us about the environment, and that "Hybrids" would be, apparently, our own children—as a form of human with empathic abilities.


Putting it in Place

As for my own development, and my own experiences, it seems apparent that the whole spectrum of consciousness (and existence) is involved.

That this is merely an alien situation is incorrect: there are too many non-alien-related experiences in my life that are just as profound. (While so-called "aliens" may exist, and may be an integral part of things, my consciousness seems to be evolving (or devolving) with or without them.)

That this is merely psychological is incorrect. There have been too many fully physical experiences, not to mention implants et al. that simply deny that. (While I'm certain I could manifest wounds and scars, I'm not certain I could abruptly manifest hard objects in obscure portions of my body, nor make them vanish, nor arrange the time-space-reality shifts, nor the presence of physical beings.)

That this is merely spiritual must be incorrect, for the same reasons.

That this is merely physical is incorrect, as can be seen from the many altered states of consciousness one experiences as a result of this interaction, and by the cross-referencing validation of multiple persons with stories, unrelated, who share details. (As for physical-chemical in origin only, such as schizophrenic modalities, the psychology argument applies.)

That this is totally external to ourselves is incorrect, as can be seen from the fact that what people believe or are studying invariably is part of what happens to them. The need for validation drives many "abductees" to irrational lengths of denial about this, but if you're hanging out with MUFON and meet the greys instead of the light-beings, well, it's hardly coincidence in my opinion. (The only exception to this logic I can think of is that there may be a way it could be totally external, and simply have the memories of it somehow be dramatically influenced by one's personal psychology, and what we believe (whether we are influencing the memory, or someone else is, I don't know)).

That this is totally internal to ourselves is incorrect, as can be seen from the fact that large numbers of people around the planet have similar experiences and/or details without reference to each other—and throughout history, no less. Overall I could pass some of it off as a sort of Jungian mass consciousness archetypal experience--though that itself if 'real' will eventually require a dramatic change in our scientific perspective--but such incredible details I cannot.

If the archetypal world is that literal and detailed, then it may as well be considered another aspect of the physical world.

Thus far, outside quantum physics, "physical reality" and a person's thoughts about it, expectations, observations, and interaction are considered separate, or at the very least, are considered to happen in a linear, time-based, predicable fashion.

While I'm uncertain of the nature of my experiences, I am certain that physical 'reality' as I know it, and my own emotional and mental relationship to it, are interacting, and affect each other in a manner that is not necessarily linear, and that transcends simple cause-effect and even time, and either the nature of physical laws as we think we know them, or the nature of perception as we know it. How, or why this is the case, I don't know.

I consider my ability to finally accept this a conceptual evolution on my part.


Delusion vs. Expanded Perception

Generally my mind works on a few levels simultaneously. Thus far it's been an "evolved advantage" in my life. It's provided decent intelligence and multi-tasking abilities.

It can confuse people on occasion. They see conflicting emotions and opinions in me. I'm able to hold a number of conflicting emotions and opinions simultaneously with no problem. It's not a matter of being confused, or fragmented, it's a matter of being able to see a number of views of things at once. Someone once told me that LSD can produce the same "many levels of thinking" result; but it seems to be natural with me. (Of course, the chemicals in most drugs, or their parallels, are natural to the brain.)

I've long considered the inability to be more than "one track" rather slow, to be honest. People who can see only one point of view at a time seem almost... childlike to me, and easy to manipulate with the smallest effort, just based on their linear-focus type of predictability.

Maybe it's some overdose on the "parallel processing" bit when I was ordering this brain. Still, it makes me wonder. Does a lousy childhood, with a mind possibly verging on schizoid as a result, create these 'encounters' with various entities, alternate realities, etc.? It's no secret that schizophrenia and the abduction field both have a high percentage of abused kids in their ranks.

Or does encountering these entities or experiences as a child make you a bit schizoid, as it "invokes" these natural abilities not normally used, by presenting you multiple streams of data (at different frequencies) that teaches you to perceive them? (As if humans are the way we are not because that is "correct and the only way to be," but because we learn from our environment—which for some people, doesn't contain those learning experiences.) For example, scientific research has accounts of presenting animals with only certain visual data from the time they are born. To the animal, even when partial blinders are removed, that is all there ever is to reality. It is not about vision, it is about perception. Perhaps children who are presented with additional data, or additional types of data, learn to perceive and translate it, and so are always more inclined to be aware of that data when it is present than others may be.

Could the childhood experience of abuse and resultant survival skills (including the need for processing of data not normally available to the conscious mind) and/or early encounters (which most contactees I know have had) actually evolve your mind to a more flexible state, advancing perception as a result of the fight for survival?

Regarding the fact that some of these similar symptoms are considered a mental disease, when it may actually be evolution (badly handled, in the case of some)—well, that reminds me of The Country of the Blind. A great short story about how "In the Country of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King." Or so everybody assumed. As it turned out, this guy's wonderful (and unusual) ability of sight didn't impress them; they couldn't even comprehend it; they determined he was insane, decided to operate and remove his eyes which they figured were causing his delusions, and he ended up barely escaping with his life.

I see that potential in this field. We use drugs to suppress the part of the brain considered to be acting up, rather than asking why is it acting up, and what are the chances that what one might encounter in that situation is as "valid" (if different) than here? Maybe the "intangible but valid" perception or experiences make the brain do that, just as how seeing something or speaking makes the brain do something else. The brain's response is a response—I see no reason to consider it the "initiator" of the experience, but quite the opposite.

Most people with a UFO story of any kind, magick, metaphysics, even an Angel experience, would be clinically labeled I suppose. Technically, a belief in god is a foundationless delusion—as much as a belief in aliens or entities is.

Maybe this is something akin to the borderline of schizophrenia. But maybe the real problem is that what may be a legitimately positive, even advanced state of mind is so intertwined with the emotional, mental and psychological results of having that state of mind (when the surrounding environment and culture does not teach one how to deal with it, or validate it), that it's difficult to separate one from the other.

Most borderline schizos I've encountered are exceptionally intelligent, exceptionally creative, and often, exceptionally spiritual (or very attuned to spiritual subjects). Perhaps the results of having that state of mind may be the "problem" that has caused the actual state to become muddied, confused, and detrimental in many cases. I'm just theorizing, of course.

If you give a very young child a number of large colored beads and paste to make a picture with, you'll end up with a picture where the colors and sizes of the beads are intermixed; mostly just a glob of sticky beads. The child thinks it's a picture, but it doesn't look like one. Give these materials to a slightly older child, and they will usually separate the beads and use the contrast of color and size as part of the picture. The difference is not only physical coordination, but that the older children have had more training in how to differentiate and categorize the data they perceive. In this case, color. Because most people in our society can see, hear, taste, touch, smell, we are able to (whether deliberately or merely by association) educate our children into sharing the same interpretation of their perception as everybody else, and categorizing what they perceive appropriately. Confusing or multiple streams of data eventually become linear, recognizable sequences, quite separate from each other.

Some degree of visions, voices, etc. may not (at least not all of them) be imagined: perhaps they are sometimes data that a person is untrained in how to interpret, and confused and scared by. They haven't been taught to differentiate this data from what we normally call 'reality.' Unfortunately, the psychiatrists don't perceive any such data themselves, and have been educated into a belief system (both culturally and academically) that there is nothing outside the biological as we know it. So when shown the amorpheous "blob" the subject insists is a given picture (told about their "weird experiences"), instead of the perception being considered merely a normal result of an untrained mind, it is considered hallucinatory, imagined, insane.

To be objective for a moment, since these experiences began with me, I now have a number of mild symptoms of what Western psychologists term schizophrenia. I'm willing to bet I could take any standardized test and qualify as at least borderline. In fact, given the intensity of some of my experiences and perceptions (whether they are self-created or whether they are legitimately separate), it's amazing that I'm not in a rubber room. I had few or none of these symptoms before this all "hit me" fairly spontaneously in a few years of experience, and nothing in my life that would seem to bring it on. So, since this is commonly known to be part of personal spiritual development in the East—even though it is clinically medicated in the West—I've decided to accept it as the former and learn to understand it, rather than be terrified about it. I feel what I personally have that most borderline schizophrenics don't is an exceptional ability to deal with almost any amount of non-linear, non-rational, confusing and even abusive data and situations. (And, very importantly, a refusal to develop a given belief system around it.)

The initial "symptoms" may simply be perceptive abilities developed as survival instincts. What many seem to lack is instincts that help them survive the survival instincts, so to speak. I feel that the traits often linked to schizophrenia (and I'm referring to surface effects, such as visions, voices, etc., and I'm referring only to borderline cases; far too much is involved in the hard-core examples to get into that here) may demonstrate abilities that are not merely abnormal because they are confusing, but because they are more developed than what we are yet able to clinically understand—and are being seriously twisted and misunderstood by the receiver.

Unfortunately the individuals, often not very emotionally stable to begin with (especially if childhood inspired the ability), combined with the shattering and crazy-making effect of having such abnormalities in one's reality, may not only suffer very serious symptoms as a result, but may even greatly distort, twist—and influence—the data which they perceive. It is certain that what I am thinking about strongly, especially if it is attached to an emotion such as fear, or affected by a psychological dilemma (such as repression), will be part of my experiences. Not so much the more physical experiences with Blondes or Greys, but rather, the more "astral" and "mental" experiences with entities, voices, visions, independent dreams, etc.

If a person should feel out of control of their life, in danger from "things in their head," with a history of physical and/or sexual abuse, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if nearly every encounter with an entity or reality became threatening—either to them, or in such a manner that they became threatening to others. I never believed in it before, but now I think states such as possession are quite real and probably far more common than we realize; our media mocks it, as if a person would be a drooling demon if they were possessed; I think many people have plenty of energy and entities "stuck to them" that affect them.

The other option is simply a state of insanity, twisting the perceptions in a manner influenced by a shattered, repressed and abused psychology. But the point I am trying to make here is that whether the perception being twisted is regular eyesight or "astral" communication, the problem may not be with the perception nor the validity of the thing perceived, but rather the interpretive abilities of the receiver. So, the receiver may be legitimately crazy in some cases! That could mean a lot of different things when it comes to validating data they provide.

With some types of dyslexia, a person can encounter input data (words on a page) and yet their mind interprets that data as something different. It is not about vision so much as interpretive ability. The letters may seem merely reversed, they may seem mixed up, they may not be clear, they may seem like they don't stay still. Because our researchers are able to perceive the data in question in this case, they do not assume that the data does not exist, that conflicting explanations between people prove it's stupid, and/or that the person is crazy. Rather, they verify that the person is simply interpreting data in a manner that often makes little sense to them.

With study of the subject, researchers developed training for people with dyslexia. Rather than telling people not to read, or in any way suppressing the part of the brain or body that does the reading, we have developed ways of training their perception abilities and their ability to discern what is initially very confusing. Along with this comes a constant reassurance, from teachers, that there is nothing wrong with the student, and other validations that are very helpful on a psychological level.

It seems to me one reason 'alien abduction' and even traits of borderline schizophrenia are not treated with such a mature approach is because researchers are themselves not able to discern the data that the subjects are perceiving. They are unable to see that it is merely a perception or interpretation problem. This leaves two alternatives: One, the data does not exist, and so the person is hallucinatory, which is the current assumption. Two, that not all people perceive the data, which tends to be my own conclusion. Quite a number of things diagnosed as abnormal psychology in the West are considered obvious and quite normal in parts of the East, and/or have been recorded around the world and throughout time and so are obviously verifiable as legitimate experiences. I think that's worth considering.

Perhaps what many diagnosed people have is a serious lack of ability to deal with multiple levels of thinking, multiple levels of reality, a universe of entities, the enhanced literal-ness of their own minds and imagination, etc. (Nearly all people would have this problem. It's simply that only some of us encounter it.) At least in borderline cases, the solution may be not to medicate people, or otherwise attempt to suppress the brain's function, but rather, to teach them to deal with the perceptions as a normal aspect of life.

Whether it would be possible to do this with adults or people well advanced in symptoms I don't know; it's possible that the "results of having" the perceptions could have already done so much damage to the psyche that it wouldn't be reversible. (Not to mention what the experiences leading up to the development of these perceptions may have done to the person.) Clearly I'm talking about an approach of validation and a kind of treatment that is, first and foremost, going against the common assumption that hearing voices or seeing things—specifically aliens and entities—is an illness.

What is sanity? A subjective term, surely; a range and type of mental ability measured by the "norm" in any given society. Anybody exceptionally intelligent would be as "abnormal," as irregular, as those who were retarded; they're both outside the range of "normal."

I assumed I was completely crazy for quite awhile, but finally concluded that it didn't seem to be doing any permanent damage to my life, and while inconvenient was certainly providing novel entertainment, so what difference did it make? I've changed a bit; my validation in some areas has relaxed me. Now I think anybody with my experiences might be classified as insane, but that doesn't mean that the classification (or the persons classifying) know what the actual criteria should be. Consciousness, of all things, is most certainly a yet-imperfect "science."

I'm obviously functioning well in the world, despite having experiences and traumas I'm sure have put many people in straightjackets. I'm successful in business, logical and reasonably intelligent, creative and social, and as far as I know, outside these rather bizarre experiences, I'm fairly well adjusted.

On the other hand, many people with similar experiences aren't. I admit, my limited experience in the "UFO" field has introduced me to more paranoid bizarre people than I've ever met in my life.

But did being slightly "off" make them create 'experiences' similar to mine? Does that indicate we're all a little "off?" Considering the corroborating data from around the planet, and throughout time, I find this unlikely.

My acceptance of this hasn't been (I don't think!) because I was weak minded; it's been because my experience, taken over a period of time, combined with a few clear facts in my life, and the corroborating evidence of exactly replicated details from independent others, including notes from history, has proved the validity of many things to me. The case for "entities" has been made by people far more educated and intelligent than myself. I could call myself crazy I suppose. But given the data available outside my own subjective account, it would simply be illogical.


"Abduction" and Hypnosis

I've now read just a little in this field, and have heard a decent amount about the use of hypnosis in the abduction field, mostly because hypnosis and psychology are some of my own interests. Personally, I am more discouraged than impressed.

I think hypnotists need to get over the self-inflative egotism that makes many of them drag stories (real or not) out of subjects, and then while the subject is in psychological misery as a result, they gloat about what a good researcher they are. Yikes! That's not merely hypnosis, that's emotional abuse. Many people have been more damaged by their hypnotists than by anything the Greys may have done to them.

Regardless of whether the whole "alien" scenario is in the head or objectively real (if there is such a thing as an 'objective reality', which I'm coming to question), the people involved in it need compassion. They're not a distant, mythical monster waiting to be hunted, discovered, flash-bulbed in the media and then rest, stuffed like an inanimate object, on a library wall like an accomplishment: they're human beings. Their accounts are intimate confessions of often terrifying or enlightening experiences; not merely impersonal data for a researcher. The personal needs of the subjects seem to get lost in the quest for stories that make good press, good books, support an opinion, or help make somebody else's name.

The last thing people in the middle of this need is to be part of some circus where a hypnotist (and they unfortunately are not usually therapists) at best strengthens their memories of trauma without doing anything to help them with it. (At worst, may contribute to those memories.) In some cases, the subjects may become part of a published work, and then everybody who doubts the field puts the subjects' lives on a witness stand, cross examined in a way designed to destroy their credibility, malign their sanity, and insult their truth-telling morality.

From the point of view of a "subject," this is all pretty ridiculous. I don't care about the objective world: as I said in one letter long ago, it's not my fault these guys aren't parked on the lawn of M.I.T. All that matters to me is how to deal with them, with the experiences, and learn from it. Everything else is merely questionable glory in a fringe field—at the expense of the very people making study of the field possible.

My concern isn't the use of hypnosis, which I myself have an interest in, though I've never been hypnotized on this subject. It's about the way a lot of wanna-be's induce trauma in people for their own fascination, and in many cases, how the victim groups (usually called "support groups") then continue this trauma in a never-ending cycle, designed to help perpetuate their own existence and interest in the field, and to help validate the group and each other.

I happen to believe this affects not just the subject's psychology, but the experiences themselves. (I'm referring to literal experiences and their interpretation, not just the possible creation of memories by hypnosis.) And since I've grown to believe this is something that can be an act of evolution, I feel there's no excuse for making it a ringside media show.

Lastly, and maybe most damaging, the strange popularity of authors whose entire claim to fame is based on either fiction or their hypnotizing other people has provided a misleading impression of this entire field. Most people I know have never had hypnosis used to recall their experiences: like me, what they remember, they remembered consciously. The "skeptics" have latched onto this "hypnosis" as just another way of invalidating the field; of insisting that the hypnotists are simply brainwashing their subjects into this belief. If all people with these stories got them through hypnosis, I'd be inclined to suspect that were true. But they don't. In fact, not that many of them do! But because the majority of published material takes only this angle, that's what it seems like to the rest of the world.

As much as I begrudge people making money off other people's trauma, conveniently packaged in paperback, I resent much more the damage that the hypnotic angle has done to this field. People in this field have enough to overcome in the "validation and credibility" areas without folks in their own field giving "debunkers" ammunition.


Magick and the Occult

One of the points of Ceremonial Magick (apart from other types of magick) is to approach things in a scientific manner. Standard procedures document details and follow defined paths. The field, the practices, and many of the adherents, are surprisingly academically inclined.

I like knowing what I'm doing—but to some degree I consider that my own limitation. Of late I've been asking myself, why do I have to know it consciously? Because these experiences and insights for me are often simply not conscious material. The conscious mind, to pull something into that realm, requires somewhat linear data, and in some cases must even be able to interpret something verbally. Otherwise the experience lies below the conscious mind, with no recognizable forms or concepts in the linear world to use for explaining itself. (That doesn't mean one doesn't perceive it, only that one likely can't give a lecture about it.)

To demand that I be conscious of anything I do may limit the material, the experience, and my interpretation of it. If I want to learn about the color spectrum, it is only restrictive for me to insist it all be recognizable when viewed through blue.

It is time consuming to insist I study one shade at a time, with some handy Enochian or Qabala reference of How To Recognize It When You See It in my hand. I might be able to experience a larger insight in a fraction of a second, conceptually, if I weren't bound to the long plodding path of manually finding it. If I were to go back to some of my experiences and insist that instead of the chaotic, hard to comprehend form they came in, that they instead come in standard mental-scientific inquiry mode, I bet it would take me 10 years or more of work to get the same results for each experience. Great. If I lived to be 216, my evolution could be where it got to in three months by accident.

I'd have a clearer idea, all along, of the details of what I was doing, of course. Why is that so important to me? Isn't the goal evolution, not knowledge of the details of evolution? Can't we leave the history to historians, and just do it? Does it not seem like the knowledge of various aspects of evolution have sidetracked us into paths of interminable scholastics and lifelong disciplines, when the evolution probably could have been achieved in a fraction of the time? And taught to others—were there not fraternal oaths and unspoken "secrecy" issues forbidding such a thing? It seems like in the attempt to "study" the subject of consciousness evolution (whether this be in the "new age" field or in serious occult work) many people end up sidetracked into studying the study, the details, and lose track of the original goal.

If my goal is to get light, I see no reason to have to build my own filaments every time I need light, when there is a light switch on the wall. Eventually, I might want to learn that just out of curiosity, but it would sure be a waste of time to spend a lifetime in the dark learning to build filaments, when that wasn't necessary. And I would not be grateful for someone teaching me to build daily filaments, when there was a switch on the wall they could have just told me about. This idea that one has to do some great amount of study, ritual, etc., to get these tiny breadcrumbs of ability to manipulate reality—well, it seems like a nice diversion for the black sheep to me, which at best provides some guidelines and at worst takes something inherently natural to human abilities and stretches the discovery of it out into 30 lifetimes.

There are some people in the occult field who think it is all about individuality. They are about individuality, if they are individual enough to consider the framework a tool, and not a religion. Unfortunately this maturity is less common than one would suspect, even with people who are quite intelligent and even rebellious. When it comes to the occult in general, my more cynical side feels it's the safety net to catch those who would escape religion. People not satisfied with the patronizing, pre-chewed, spoon fed psychology of most mass religion would eventually find a way around it, behind the knowledge, tossing the idols to the wind. Enough lack of discipline and the fools would storm heaven, so to speak. And so there's the occult, where one can study unhampered by the belief systems of organized religion, and in fact, encouraged to throw all those limitations to the wind. Yet... what are the various sects of the occult, except organized belief systems of their own?

You get a group of people, some too brilliant for the mainstream, and you put them in one place, controlled by a learning process which is not only educational but, like all frameworks, limiting. Then you provide them an environment where they are bound to the group and depending on the Order and the fraternal oaths, often going against the official beliefs of the group is a cause for any degree of reaction or exclusion on the group's part. Now coincidentally, instead of growing and learning because they were "too stupid to know it wasn't that easy" (my usual mode), they end up in a field designed for "rebels," with all the conveniently appropriate trappings that draws rebels. Then they are "educated" into how things work. Step by step. By step. Frankly it's about as truly rebellious as the great Rock & Roll scandals: it's a specific clique designed to catch those uninterested in the mainstream. It's just a uniform, like everything else.

I have one major hypothesis: I think the ability to do anything is dependent, first and foremost, on the ability to de-educate yourself out of disbelieving it's possible. I don't mean just consciously, I mean at a root level. That so many of us have "psychic" experiences when we're sleep deprived isn't coincidence. I don't think it's just because we're in "another state of mind," or at least it's not that general. I think it's because the critical mind weakens, and real vs. not-real, possible vs. not-possible, comes closer to the dream state, where all these boundaries don't apply, and for a moment we truly believe it's possible without question, and then we succeed. Ritual can serve as this: enough belief that a ritual will work, and proper focus, tricks your critical mind for the moment, and that can be very effective.

But it shouldn't have to be necessary. We have the abilities. It's only our ignorance of them that limits us. We act as if being taught to use these innate abilities one molecule at a time is some great gift. I wonder if maybe it's a deliberate detour or distraction. Is the occult as much a belief system trap as organized religion?


Physical Evidence

As far as "abduction" goes, I think the chance that there will ever be much physical evidence is slim. Scars and some kinds of wounds mean little, as a control; hypnosis can invoke these things. Although the circumstantial evidence of unrelated people with identical scars does count for something, I suppose.

Implants themselves are probably the only proof. But there is not much outlet for the people who have that proof.

When I realized that I had numerous implants, I might have been willing to go see a doctor who could check out the most obvious one. But (a) there was the quite obvious concern on my part that if they were put there, somebody's going to be a little annoyed if I take them out; and (b) I didn't want to be referred to a psychiatrist; and (c) there's no way to get it done right then.

When you can be pulled into a dream, or an astral state, from the physical, making an appointment to have minor surgery in even one day advance is simply pointless. Whoever's putting them there might know: I don't know how, whether it's something "cosmic" like telepathy or merely that it's a transceiver of some kind. The point is, I bet it would be gone by then. Many of mine have appeared and been gone within days. I've known people with quite marked implants, that you could feel clearly (some of mine you could); a perfect opportunity, if the subject is willing to undergo a little scalpel, for science to get something like evidence (assuming we're even advanced enough to decode it, and assuming they are not created deliberately to appear as some small biological object or occasional anomaly if discovered).

I imagined taking off work, looking up some doctor at a local clinic, pleading emergency for an appointment prior to the end of the century, sitting for four hours in his waiting room, and then slipping into my 5-minute time slot with him and explaining, "I believe aliens or interdimensional entities have put a two-way receiver in my head and nose and wrist and chin and ankle and... a few other places. I was thinking you could take this thing that just appeared on the cartilage of my nose out with a scalpel so I could look at it under a microscope and see if it's really alien technology as opposed to a truly unique and solid blemish." I would likely have been given a prescription to a local locked-door health club.

And the main thing is, it wouldn't have worked. He wouldn't have done it; he wouldn't have believed me, he would have wanted to wait, or assumed it was anything else, and so on. It was pointless. So the only chance we really have at physical evidence of the "contactee" experience is--short of living with a good surgeon and having a high pain tolerance--almost impossible to come by.

In my case, I had a personal reluctance anyway. The implants were presented to me as something that (a) "tagged you" (like a duck, I felt); and (b) actually provided the ability for you to better slide along the frequency scale and visit them. Since I was having a positive time with the experience, I had no wish to offend them, and all desire to be as capable as possible. Though I didn't ask for implants, didn't expect them, and was actually very upset when I realized what they were (as this moved it into the dangerous realm of "really real"), I still had a positive association that made me unwilling to view it negatively.

The bond that grows between one experiencing "contact" and whomever they may be contacting is often emotional. There's even a sense of "loyalty" to some degree, and occasionally a sense that if one talks too much about details or whatever, that it's almost a "betrayal" of their secrets. All "telepathic" contact I've ever had, with any entity, made me feel like we were "bonded" and even that I was "one of them." I didn't want to work against them.

All the thinking I can do about it says that documentable, non-deniable physical evidence, short of implants, is difficult to come by in the "abduction" field.

Other subjects, such as UFO's, may be another story.


T he Scientific Model

The tendency of psychologists to dismiss an experience as 'real,' because reading or hearing about the ideas prior (or even possibly having done so) knocks out the "controls" and objectivity of the experiencer, is logical. And as I stated earlier regarding UFO groups, it is unfortunate for study that many people exposed to them create assumptions which affect their explanations.

I did not mean, however, that their experience then becomes invalid. I assume that many are just as 'real' as those which happened without any prior idea-generating exposure at all. Only that the later-determined "conclusions" a researcher comes to may be unfairly biased by not having a more "random and wide" sample of experience. In other words, it would be biased to do a study on what people choose to have for lunch while standing outside a steakhouse. Most all of them had the pre-conceived idea of steak, and that's why they went to a steakhouse to eat. But the fact that they were interested in steak ahead of time does not indicate that their meal didn't exist. Only that it would be biased to judge what people "really eat" by surveying only people with that sort of bias.

The tendency of scientists to dismiss 'contact' experience because there is no demonstrated physical evidence for the large number of components involved is logical. There is, technically, not much hard data. (Though there is often a ton of empirical data.) This is hardly surprising, since the data provided by, or related to, 'contact' experiences simply does not fit into the scientific models used for study. Unfortunately, little effort seems to be made to remedy this. If you're doing a study on what colors are perceived in a rainbow, it's hardly logical to tell one fellow, "Sorry, it can't be olive green," and either force him to change his answer or leave him out of the study. He may be wrong, he may be blind, but his input is as valid as anybody else's.

Science, unfortunately, has created a rigid model for Acceptable Data, and ignores anything outside that form as simply being impossible or non-existent. This sounds like something that could generate a lot of humorous cartoons. Hard to believe it's actually true.

The data doesn't fit in the scientific model because the scientific model wasn't designed for it. That model was designed to work here. Physicists explain that our "physical reality" as wel call it is merely a certain spectrum of vibrational frequency. Our "scientific model," for the most part, is merely scientific within this range of physicality -- within a certain bandwidth of perception of that vibrational energy we call reality. It has been designed for a practice, and a type of thinking, which is pretty much dead-center in this "plane" or vibration, and which is limited by assumptions we still hold which may not be correct. Get to where contact-type encounters begin, and the model of how to experiment and what to consider valid data is pretty much useless.

Refusing to create a model to allow one to study actual data, merely because the data is different than what the normal models were made for--and therefore, one's definition of "data" is limited to: "what one already knows"--is not only unscientific, it's ridiculous.

That the evidence doesn't fit into the test tubes that makes science fun is hardly my fault. Change the model, I say. If you're only presented with sound and the only tool you're willing to use is a camera, well, it's no surprise your proofs are slim.

Granted, I'm Jane Doe. I'm just the average guy on the street. I'm no rocket scientist; I'm not even a psychologist. But I don't think one should need a doctorate to be able to discuss this issue. I'm a reasonable human being, with enough empirical and personal evidence provided me to have made a reasonable decision about what seem to be the facts as I have experienced and encountered them.

I realize that at this time, we (as a species) simply don't have the technology or point of view necessary. We can't prove we're part of a spectrum (yet) of perception, as well as frequency. We haven't even finished figuring out our own world, let alone any other. But we're never going to invent anything along these lines if inventors and scientists can't break free of the paradigms that have trapped us here this long. Our best minds are useless to us, as they won't look into it; are used against us, since they insist it doesn't exist and we're simply insane to expect it probably does.

Absence of evidence doesn't prove there is no subject. I have no test tube evidence for love but I don't argue about it. Hasn't science been, in the last century, researching half of what is already known, providing funding and recognition to those who study what is politically interesting, all but excommunicating anybody who disagrees or contradicts popular findings (or who studies something we don't already think we know), and then finding out it was a wrong decision, the individual had a valid point, and there was more after all?

Technologists are not scientists. That should be a title based on practice, not based on education. Take a look at how few "scientists" today are studying anomalies--things we don't know or understand. Those scientists who do study such things lament the lack of their fellows interested in the unknown.

It's too late to bring Galileo back. Maybe if we quit knocking off (via reputation, funding, employment or other means) the only true scientists who are really studying what we don't know, we would learn a little faster.

It's not merely that science hasn't caught up with our evolution.

It's that most of our "scientists" haven't caught up with science.


Research

Who is the expert here?

Non-experiencers are likely to be the best "statistical technicians" of the researchers (people having the experience), because there is a tremendous amount of psychological and emotional involvement where people having the experiences are concerned.

The psychological effects of these experiences themselves (which can be anything from a night of horror, to a beneficent religious experience, to just another day), combined with the effects of being extremely confused and secretly convinced one is a lunatic (the inability to tell what belongs "where" and to "which reality" and if anything "really" happened are near-brain-scrambling problems), added to physical results (such as lousy sleeping habits and other such things), combine to create huge blocks of denial, frustration, paranoia, and sometimes outright irrational behavior in many people.

Aside from wearing tinfoil on their head while watching TV or swearing they're from Sirius or explaining that they're the Prince of Darkness or something, it can manifest in less obvious ways to really screw up a study. I've known encounterees to insist an experience had to be 100% 3D, even though they knew otherwise and the indications were otherwise, because to them "a dream" is invalid, and they don't want to be invalidated, so they are not going to admit that it was a dream they take literally. If truly in denial about that, they might even create a semi-daydream component of craft and abduction, when no such thing existed, merely to fit what they believe "had to have" happened (based on their own belief system), or that they want to have happened. Or, they will insist it's a dream because 3D is actually more threatening to them (--this is my own biggest bias). Or they will refuse to acknowledge the tremendous bleed-through of current thoughts, studies, and influences upon the experiences, as that often indicates it's at least partially "self influenced" and therefore may be imagination or invalid.

The difficulty with the 'alien' subject (including the larger UFOlogy field) is that many people experiencing "contact" are introduced to it, or promptly counseled about it, through groups such as MUFON. While I am fond of any support group for the subject, the fact is, meeting a large group of people who feed you the details of how it generally happens can only contribute to your (a) experiencing and interpreting it just that way, and (b) wanting to experience it that way, so that your experience will be considered valid. In terms of combining data, scientific inquiry and so forth, these groups are an excellent opportunity. But they completely obliterate most all ability of researchers to get any "objective" look at the contact experience, by creating a tremendous bias and pre-exposure, even to details of the subject, in members et al.

That these groups have the largest percentage of people who feel victimized is not coincidence. It becomes a trauma support group, and I'm appalled at the damage that does to people, and the slant it gives to the information overall. I have even seen people, repeatedly, tell others that no, their experience could not have happened in that way or mean that thing, because "this is how it is." This whole field has become a religion, with it own doctrine, acceptable data, etc.

In magick and metaphysics it tends to be more individual, and less subject to harsh criticism from others (and therefore less fear and sensitivity in the reporters). These fields have their own pitfalls, however. Ceremonial Magick is often practiced as part of a group (namely "secret societies"), and the groups, or the party line of those in authority, have their own paradigms of belief--most of which think in the context of "entities" rather than "aliens." Some magicians who do feel the two subjects (magick and "aliens") are related are quiet about it, either because they want to be comfortable in the group and taken seriously as an intellectual, or because they feel it's an "advanced" understanding that is secret.

The 'new age' or metaphysics field, e.g. "channeled" work which dabbles in the 'alien' subject, may be more supportive, but brings with it an entire predefined view--just as the others do. If you are taught that the guys with the lizardish skin and vertical pupils are the bad guys, and the guys who are birdlike or white light are good guys, then depending on your psychology, chances are which group you're thinking about, and even which group you meet, and what happens during that meeting, can be influenced.

That people end up carrying these assumptions into their experience—and then back to the reporting documents—only further skews the pool of data. Without these assumptions, those subjective conclusions about intent, and interpretations while within the experience, might not have been reached. The experiences may still be valid. But no researcher, with clients affected by these biases, is going to have a fair look at the scope or range of data. Feedback from 'contactees' about their experiences may be all a researcher has to go on sometimes.

I feel open validation of all data might create more relaxed subjects and less creativity. The researchers and research groups are themselves biased about "what to consider data." As a result, they get biased input--and their conclusions are simply a biased output.

There's a connectivity that's being lost. I think all things are a circuit... they might work both ways. We may learn as much or more about aliens, consciousness and "dimensions" from biological angles—chemicals (drugs), frequency modulation—as we could from purely psychological (meditational or magical) angles. I'm a huge fan of scientific experimentation, and wish I had the money, time and education to do more of it in this area. Official Science's disbelief in these experiences, and the belief by most spiritually-inclined folks that drugs or science is not the same as doing it oneself (which may be true--but may not), limits people in both fields from experimentation from the other angle.

Lastly, I feel that the physical correlations to "metaphysical" experience, be it spiritual or alien related, from sleep disorders to schizophrenic symptoms to evidence of electromagnetic brain activity, do not in my view invalidate the experiences. In fact, they may merely be markers, or even the secondary effects, of the less tangible experiences.

I think if we stopped dismissing things that have possible physical symptoms (used to assume those symptoms are a cause rather than an effect), we might find interesting ways to document, and even recreate, those less tangible events under controlled conditions.


Misc. Troubles with Discussing All This

I don't agree with some of the people who are inclined to say that the body is merely a "host" like some sort of hotel. I've had more reason to conclude this than most people will ever have, and yet I see it as an incorrect paradigm—and in my opinion, just another version of the 'original sin' theory—that the body is somehow bad, so if we don't want to be bad, we're not really our bodies, we're something else. And, people are afraid of identifying with the body, since it dies, and they want to survive that death.

This whole denial of the physical plane is as silly as the denial of other aspects of existence. They're all important and they're all "us." The idea that the body is separate from the mind and psychology has been well disproved by far better experts than myself—the body and mind are intrinsically connected, at the least. (I'm more inclined to say they are the same thing from different perspectives. There is a very interesting theory called "Biogram," developed by Dr. Richard Johnson, which approaches via scientific and chemical means this very idea.) The communication and feedback works both ways. I feel the body is not merely a shell, but an integral part of identity, and part of the overall "Being" which we'll call the Soul (for lack of a better word--I use that one for convenience, not religion).

o0o

When people having 'contact' experiences try to relate them, they're often lost for words when it comes to describing the "physicality" of it. It's a dream but not, it's physical but not; there can be bruises when your body didn't seem to leave the bed, and no sign at all when you could swear it had, or vice versa. One is left very confused. Sometimes the overall impression is "about 80% physical." How does one describe that to a researcher who is still holding to a belief system that says one is either "fully physical" or "only dreaming?"

Researchers are forced to conclude that if it didn't happen in the frequency we call "here," with physical evidence or photographs, it was a dream or hallucination. But the concept, "It wasn't physical, so it had to be a dream" is just another version of "They all look alike to me." Plain ignorance. We're just so unfamiliar with the idea of there being more than one level of reality, and different degrees of tangibility, that we are unable to see the differences. Black or white, we say; any shades of gray we encounter, we cannot even conceptualize; we force the definition of them into one or the other of our polarities.

o0o

The physicality misunderstanding also creates the endless arguments between real and valid. One has to be careful with the words used in discussions about this subject; the semantics become important; definitions are hard enough to come by.

If I say I had a realistic dream, people don't assume it's "real," though they might accept it's "valid—but only to you." If I say something happened fully in 3D, they assume it's "real," and therefore that it is objectively valid—even for them.

This would be fine if 90% of this field wasn't other than 3D. Since little of it is fully in this plane of perception, this view merely tosses the vast majority of the only data we have for study (already confusing) out the window as "invalid."

But how does a person like me, who experiences this, explain the in-betweens, or the boths, or the neithers? Or explain the shifts from one to another? And how can the non-experiencing researchers know what to take as data to analyze?

In quantum physics, it has been determined that observing an experiment with particles affects their behavior. By this model one could say that since you're affecting your own experiment, that the results are hardly objective, and the results of "what the particles [naturally] do" are therefore invalid as controlled experiments. True. But the fact is, the particles do X or Y. Whether or not this is because we knew of this, or had desires of one or the other beforehand, or were watching, the X or Y still exist—and the movement of the particles still happened.

Yes, how the particle behaved or reached X or Y point, and which it reached, may be affected by the scientist's own "interference." But that does not make one assume that either the movement of the particles, or "where" they moved to, did not happen or does not exist, merely because both issues were "subjectively influenced by the researcher's mind." Of course they were. So what.

The same holds true, in my opinion, for the "contact" field. That we may self-create (or "tune into") certain types of Beings or experiences after thinking about something along those lines, or after a certain type of childhood that may affect our perception, certainly makes things 'subjective.' But confirming accounts around the world and throughout time indicate to me that this does not invalidate the experience.


The Rainbow of Soul

My overall theory on how this could be possible, and how it works.

Please bear in mind the following important facts:

  • Nothing I say is particularly unique, I have found (after developing it). This is my overall theory but I don't claim to have invented anything.
  • This is my compilation and interpretation however, so if it sounds (or is) completely stupid, you can blame me. Don't blame the systems I use as examples. I don't know any of them well enough to represent them.
  • If you haven't read the case-study book bewilderness, you will be lacking some context for why I came up with the theories I have. The experiences and perceptions recounted in that letter-book are part of the foundation for my conclusions, and to some degree you might say support my reasoning.
  • I'm forced to say "...and it's like THIS," as if that is the final answer. It detracts from a document to fill it with "perhaps, maybe, somewhat, could be," and all those caveats. It doesn't mean I'm not open to being wrong or being educated by others.
  • I use the word "frequency" constantly when trying to explain this. This is my perception of the dynamics related to different rates of vibration, different 'planes' of existence or 'levels' of reality, etc. I am not a physicist. I've never even had a class in it. I may be using the wrong word, and in this area may have no clue what I'm talking about. Sorry. Maybe someday a physicist will read my case-study and educate me a little further!

To begin, imagine this if you will:

  • A sine wave, with high, even curves. Consider that sine wave a larger reality.
  • Draw a red line horizontally through it. The red line is "your level of physical reality." Meaning what the human body/brain is able to biologically perceive. [1] Imagine that the red line is really a red sine wave, limited to that smaller, tighter shape.
  • Above the red lines are other lines--I use colors in a rainbow analogy. Each of those other colors are frequency groupings--I call them other planes, or other levels of reality. (Though divisible for infinity, I separate this into obvious "bandwidths" to keep it simple.)
  • The single rainbow shown "in total" is your overall consciousness — your full Self, or soul. (This is only for reference and for ease of conversation here.)

The bottom and top loop-ends of the sine wave should be considered infinite in both directions. And there are many of those rainbows above and below "ours." The top-most bandwidth of the frequency below ours overlaps with our bottom-most bandwidth--you might say this is "like an octave" in music--and the same goes for the top of our own, and so on.

We are part of a continuum. That is the key. Our physical reality (and body) is one aspect of a spectrum.

"Physicality," the degree of density of the mass of our bodies, is merely a point of reference on a scale, and needs something to be compared to for it to have any meaning. The body seems more or less solid depending on which part of the spectrum one is focusing attention through. It relates to where your perception is, so to speak: Tangibility comes in degrees.

So one is not merely "physical or not," like some either/or choice. One is not even "astral or not." (Technically, one is all simultaneously, and perception is the moving point.) There are an almost infinite number of degrees, not only within each state (or "color" in this example), but between them. Between red and orange, for example, there are a number of shades that are a little bit both and neither.

Like light, we contain all the colors: they merely seem separate because we are only viewing this band. It's our vision that is limited. We perceive just a tiny slice of who we really are.

By this theory, one could "go someplace" in a dream (on the color scale, let's say your perception moved to around the yellow band), slide into a "more tangible" state (the astral, or orange), slide into "physical reality" as we know it (physical, or red)—and back again. Because perception is the moving point. One could even be in between any given state, meaning a little of both. (I suppose it would be a matter of vibration speed, and resultant frequency—in other words, that's something that could be possible via technology, further down the road.) That's why contact experiences can start as a dream or OBE but become physical—or vice versa. These are my theories, anyway.

I think when it comes to reality, our brains work in same way vision is said to: we take those points we perceive and put them together logically, and the brain fills in the gaps ("blanks") with what's expected or extrapolated, and then presents you with a seemingly seamless picture/experience.

In this way, "anomalous experiences" are quite literally reading between the lines of reality.

[1] What the body perceives directly may not be the same thing as what it reflects. The body may be able to absorb and reflect (measurable through biofeedback or other means) information that was actually perceived through a different "level" of the overall consciousness. For instance, one may perceive data at the orange (astral) level, but all other levels of the person -- including the red, physical level -- may, in a holographic sense, reflect this knowledge. And there may be a physiological component in the body which effects this "translation" of the data into "this level of reality." (Since the whole body reflects knowledge from other planes, my guess is that any such 'translator' is probably in the brain or nervous system, if it exists.) However, the perception itself did not come through the body, because the data is outside the range of frequency the physical body spans.

Where are we?

Our overall consciousness spans lots of "frequency levels." Our bodies, however, as we know them, span a much smaller bandwidth (and one a bit more hardwired to stay the same size). Our bodies are just one portion of the grouping of our consciousness (or "soul").

In my rainbow allegory, I consider the overall consciousness/soul the white light/full spectrum, and manifestation of that light The Rainbow of Soul. In this, the physical body as we know it can be considered the red-band of color in the rainbow. The "astral" body would be the orange color. The "mental" body the yellow color. And so on. Technically, ANY grouping--even between red and orange, green and blue, etc.--is just as much "form" (within that frequency) as those defined are.

When you are perceiving from the part of you which is (for example) in the orange band, you are just as physical compared to what is around you as you are when you are conscious in the red-band and looking around at what we call physical reality. You may not be physical compared to the red band, when you are in the orange band, but if everything else in that level of reality is the same density as yourself when you perceive yourself there, it hardly matters.

ALL of our "forms" in these color-bands (as I call them) exist at ALL times. It is our perception which is the moving point. We are aware (on those levels) and interacting with other planes / levels of reality, that biologically we simply are not attuned to. This is simultaneous, of course, with our awareness here. Sometimes when people dream, they become aware of a small piece of their existence on another plane. Sometimes people--for reasons still unknown--begin to perceive their existence on those other planes at the same time they are perceiving this one. That can be very confusing!

Most of the time, if we're lucky, our conscious perception (that normally in the red band) is focused at least dominantly in the range of frequency (red) that the physical body resides in. This makes us aware of how our body feels and what is going on around us. Sometimes we are more focused "here" than others.

From here to there

As an example of perception as the moving point, let's consider "out of body" experiences. [2]

[2] (By this I am being literal -- I mean that one's perception of oneself moves completely OUT of the body. I am not referring to psi disassociation -- which many psychics confuse as a form of "being out of body.")

When your perception "leaves your body," you may still be "in the bandwidth of the physical plane." You may see "reality" around you just like you did when you were IN your body. As your perception moves toward astral (orange) on the scale, the "reality" you perceive will change. First, things may seem mostly the same yet slightly variant. A chair may be in a different place. Your coat may be on the back of the chair, rather than lying on the bed. As you continue toward astral, more significant changes may be clear, and some features of "normal reality" may disappear from your perception. You begin to perceive more of the reality -- and the life -- there, and less of what is here. You may see your cat who died years before, sleeping on your bed. You may encounter entities, or discover that the tree outside your house seems to be sentient. The farther you go into this bandwidth, the more different things become. At some point, you will lose most if not all perception of what we would call "our physical reality" (the red band) because your perception has moved outside that range (into the orange band).[3]

The more "in the "physical" bandwidth" you are, the more you can physically feel things in your environment that you touch. "Here" as we know it, if you walk up to a wall and don't stop, you're going to feel it painfully when you run into it. In the orange band, you may go right through a wall, and feel it as if your body were made of water, or some solid-yet-not-solid substance. Entities that touch you may register quite physically to your perception, as if they were totally solid and yet somehow were able to reach inside your body. As your perception moves more into the astral and then yellow band, you may cease to be aware of any physical feelings; you can pass through the wall as if it is not even there.

[3] The dynamics of "how reality operates" are different from one bandwidth to another -- or rather, they are probably the same, but the way we interpret them and utilize them changes. The life encountered there and how one interacts is also quite different. I won't go into "life in the astral plane" because (a) I'm certainly no expert on that, and (b) that is an entirely separate subject.

As you move further toward the mental (yellow) bandwidth, things continue to change. For example, you may not only not FEEL the wall you pass through, it might not even exist, and you may find that the moment you think of something -- for instance, your friend in another city -- suddenly either your friend is "there with you" or you are somewhere else with your friend. Awareness of form, such as one's body, may often vanish altogether. You still may operate as if you have a form. You simply may not be pointedly aware of it.

The above is just a simple example. Your physical body did not go anywhere. Your perception, however, did. Your body, especially if your perception moved into astral-orange but was still partly in this physical-red, may show physical symptoms and evidence of your experience. Because it IS partly physical, and/or is close enough to it in many cases that the body is still affected.

Your interaction with anybody or anything on "other levels" of frequency is just as valid as interactions you may have in your body. YOU are the full spectrum; your body is only one part of you.

Our perception is not only not static-fixed, but it is not static-solid. It can be split into more than one "place of attention" on the scale. This is often referred to as "bi-location." But bi-location of what is a good question. We know that a person can be aware of part of the body bandwidth and yet be aware of other bandwidths. Psychics do this all the time with disassociation: they may be conscious of the body-environment and writing down data, and yet at the same time, they are exploring a realm such as the astral, which otherwise is usually only encountered when one is 'out of body.'

If one's perception were to be split into separate parts, and yet both were at least partly in the realm of the physical frequencies, what do you suppose would happen? I don't know, but I strongly suspect this is related to the legends of individuals (such as certain saints) being in more than one place at a time.

What if your perception moved but you didn't realize it had done so?

There is much confusion in today's world, as people experience things "on other levels," and then try to construct a version of physical reality to explain how it happened "here." I believe this has given rise to much of the mind-control paranoia in today's world. (Not that the subject itself is not valid; I know nothing about it. Just that it is getting blamed for a lot of things it probably has no part of.)

This may be happening partly because our culture is totally invalidating of any experience which does not happen in the bandwidth where the body resides. Since people know that their experience was real and valid, and since they have been indoctrinated to believe that anything outside the body-bandwidth is illusion and invalid, they are forced into (1) a major cognitive dissonance, (2) changing their perspective on 'the reality of other planes,' or (3) finding a way to explain how the experience actually happened "here" in the reality of the body-planes.

When experiences or perceptions from outside the body-bandwidth happen to a person who is extremely grounded in the skeptical scientistic viewpoint our culture has drilled into us, particularly if the person is highly intellectual and tied to that view, the cognitive dissonance may literally drive them into a form of schizophrenia to deal with the two mutually-opposing "reality views." This could be avoided, were our culture in the West better educated and accepting about things that have been known in parts of the East for millenia.


How do we see over there?

Anything outside the red-bandwidth in my example will not be directly perceived by us biologically. (It may be reflected through, or translated through, our biology, even if perceived from a different color-band of frequency. But that is indirect.)

As time goes on, and we become more and more aware that there are things outside our biological bandwidth of frequency, we invent technologies to perceive energy from other bandwidths, so we can indirectly be aware of and measure them. Technologies such as ultrasound, X-ray machines, magnetic resonance imaging, kirlian photography, microwave ovens, etc. all utilize frequencies of energy that biologically we do not directly perceive. [4] We probably don't yet perceive more than a few of these frequencies so far.

[4] We may "group" many frequency-levels, or "skip" frequency-levels, without realizing it, of course. In my experience, the individual frequency levels as I'm calling them are INCREDIBLY "thin," so to speak. In other words, there could be an infinite number of 'levels of reality' within what we here would consider one fairly small band of frequency or vibration.

For that matter, how do we see "here?"

The human body can be thought of as a biological "filter." When we look at a tree, our perception of the tree is just that -- our perception. At a more fundamental level, that tree is nothing more than energy. Vibrating energy. Its density and solidity, its shape and color and texture and smell and everything else about it, is simply vibrating energy, which is 'trapped' into a certain 'form.' It is the filter of our bodies that perceives the colors, smell, texture, hardness, etc.

We have also invented technologies that filter our own bandwidth in different ways. Video recorders or cameras can record the same frequency-band that we biologically perceive and interpret as sight. Audio recorders capture sound -- even though sound is also "just energy." Temperature, anything you can imagine that we measure in our daily lives, all these things are simply "energy." It is our body which perceives them as heat, light, music, etc.

Is reality an illusion?

How solid a given thing seems to us relates to its rate of vibration compared to our own. For instance, light does not seem solid to us at all; gases seem more solid but still not-solid, water is a solid and yet certainly not as solid to the senses as a tree, and so on. Rocks seem "more" solid than we are; some gemstones such as diamonds, more solid still.

If our perception was tuned to a part of our consciousness that vibrates at the same frequency hydrogen gas does, my guess is that gas would seem quite solid to us. Perhaps it is the same for life in any other frequency. They seem quite solid to each other because they exist at fairly similar levels of vibration.

To them, our bodies here are not solid. They may be literally "here" as we know it and yet we do not perceive each other at all. Or, their vibration may be so much faster-smaller that we seem like immobile mountains or stones in their landscape.

When yoga masters say that "reality is an illusion," they are not wrong. Technically, that tree does exist. However, its true state is energy. If it seems solid, that is simply our translated perception of it. Or—as a humorous play on the same logic scientists use for 'subjective perception'--our own illusion.

Is it possible that frequencies we can't record or understand are just not there?

Maybe. But our tools and technologies have been designed to replicate biological means of perceiving. Although we are gradually moving beyond that, we are still in beginning stages. Not only do we not measure very far beyond our biological frequency bandwidth (compared to what the universe may truly offer), but many scientists seem to think that nothing beyond what we can already measure even exists. Imagine if scientists had concluded this a few hundred years ago and given up on the search for individual cells, molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. Or had not discovered any frequencies of energy beyond what we currently can measure. The only thing surprising is that scientists today seem to be sure that we know most of what there is to know, and scientists have instead become technologists, not searching to discover new things, but rather, studying how already-known, already-measurable and fairly well understood things relate to each other. The "contact" phenomenon has provided a large field of empirical evidence that there is something else we need to study. If only our scientists were interested or open to it, perhaps (for example) a theoretical physicist could come up with some new insight about where, or how, to look.

How come we don't see other life when we look with our technologies?

What do we expect "sentience" to look like? Like us, apparently.

Scientists--"technologists"--do not even grant us--humans--any real sentience; only biological-effect. They do not grant animals--mammals, like us--sentience. They certainly don't grant it to plants, insects, or solid forms (such as minerals). So, we can hardly be surprised that they do not find sentience in the rest of the universe, since they have not even found it on this planet and in this reality!

With "contact," we are talking about frequencies outside the bandwidth we call "solid." People around the world and throughout time have been talking about life forms that are not solid, or on some occasions "partially" solid--ghosts, for example. Try telling most technologists that you have encountered a ghost. Watch them laugh. To them, if it isn't physical, you must have either been fooled by something, or you hallucinated it. Our technologists, or "scientists," are not willing to consider any form of life but what we already know, and don't even grant greater consciousness to that.

So, they not only don't look for it, but they wouldn't know it even if they found it, and wouldn't believe it either.

Since we think all life has to look just like what we know, and since we can't perceive any of these things directly, anything we find ways of "translating" to our own biological perception just seems like "energy." (All we actually may see is a translated dot on a screen, or something like that, anyway.) Since our scientists generally don't believe "consciousness" exists, but rather, think it is only a property of the biological brain, it is clear they would never consider "an energy" they are measuring to be "a life form." So, we may be measuring half the life forms we come into "contact" with and not even be aware of it.

And of course, identities from very different frequencies than ours would, if they reached into our bandwidth to measure, likely see us merely as trapped collections of vibrating particles. Unless their scientists were a little more open minded than ours. Larger or smaller particles than themselves, possibly, or vibrating faster or more slowly. But with the tools WE have, even we, from a distance of that sort, would certainly register as 'energy,' as opposed to 'identities.'

What about that other life?

Throughout our fairly recent history (a few thousand years), humanity has had various versions of a theory that includes what I will here call "elementals." Elementals are individual elements of consciousness, or small groupings of them. They are identities that have a very limited bandwidth of consciousness. You know how I said our overall "self" spans lots of levels -- we're not even aware of the majority of them. But elementals are very "pure and singular." That's why (as magicians know) they seem so inherently good or evil, that's why they have such a difficult time conceptualizing anything outside their domain, that's why they are so... predictable behavior-wise, and often a bit like children in some ways. That's why certain entities do or are aware of nothing else except one specific thing, concept, or what have you. Their frequency-span is incredibly small and tight. In some religions these are considered demons, or angels, or earth-spirits, however, those things are usually a larger consciousness; usually a collection of say, at least four or more elementals, by one creative magical system's way of looking at it. Some angels, by comparison, are so large or evolved that we are merely a small aspect of them.

Some identities have a larger span of frequencies than elementals. In the cases where their bandwidth-range includes part of our own bandwidth-range, they may interact with us or our reality--physically. (We may not recognize their interaction, of course.) Their position comparative to ours, and the expanse of their own bandwidth of Self and awareness, will probably determine how we interpret each other. [5] In other words, those below us or with smaller overall perceptions may view us as angels, those above us or larger than us as demons or inferiors, and vice versa.

Some entities actually feel "sort of physical" to us, though not entirely, in the way that incubus/succubus or certain other entities can, or they may feel "more solid" than we are to the degree that we simply consider them an inanimate object. Where they vibrate on the frequency-scale compared to us will determine that. The overall span of consciousness that these entities have will also probably determine what we consider 'intelligence' and so on, and will determine their autonomy, their ability to be unpredictable, deceiving, etc.[6]

Consciousness is an organizing principle. The more advanced (evolved) an identity is, the more frequencies they will encompass, yet the more singular and focused their identity will seem. As evolution occurs, elementals become part of a larger identity, which, like a big clock in a room full of small clocks, will eventually pull those units of consciousness into synchronism with the larger perception. With that synchronicity, the units of consciousness will act in an organized and tandem manner. Without it, they will act independently, resulting in a group effect that is close to chaos.

[5] Mind you, I don't like to sound so "linear" (I doubt it really works that way) but it's the only way to explain it in the words I have.

[6] For deception to exist in an identity, I believe it may require an identity who spans at least three frequency levels. Pure elementals (single-frequency identities) do not seem capable of deception. They are too pure, too singular, they have no awareness of anything else other than what they are. It takes something able to BE two different things and then have a separate awareness of both of those things (a third element) in order to deliberately deceive.

We contain elementals. Our consciousness is not 'one' thing that spans all these frequencies, it is a conglomerate of units of consciousness -- each of which is an 'identity' -- that have grouped together. This sort of 'becomes one thing' by the organization of our consciousness pulling many units together as one team.

There is no limit to the quantity of consciousness that can combine. There may be limits to what 'we' in physical form can reflect, though. We can accept new identities into us -- new energies (understandings et al.), all energy has consciousness; new energies would be elementals of new frequencies that we accept as part of our conglomerate, which makes our overall range or "bandwidth" larger.

This is evolution. Growth in a spiritual sense is no different than growth in a physical, or even a political sense: one must merge, absorb, and align the parts within toward unity.

Does this relate to spirituality or religion?

We, as the physical people we call ourselves, are a smaller part of a larger identity. For us to evolve, we must become aware of a larger percentage of the overall energy which is 'us.' That energy -- innumerable other frequency bands (elementals), many of which are combined into larger identities of course -- might include a lot of different identities. Even other human identities. Remember that sine wave I started with? That is only one tiny line going through all that space. Imagine innumerable sine waves, all right next to each other. All human. All within this range of physical. Some or all (I am not sure) may be in what one might call "alternate realities." Other branches of probability, as some would term it.

I don't want to tread on anybody's theological beliefs, but perhaps what some call "God" is the entity which encompasses "everything." In which case, God Itself is probably still evolving, never ceasing to grow as we bring back our experience to the collective-unity.

We are legion, in the multiple sense. I AM, in the singular sense. It's not by accident that the former comment is associated with demons and the latter with God. The smaller the segment of consciousness, the less 'evolved' the resulting identity seems, and so the opposite. The more one focuses upon the singular conglomerate the more one forces the "organizing principle" of consciousness to align the legion within, and the more powerful the overall consciousness becomes. Singularity is like manifested intent. Diversity is like chaos.

In this theory, religious "possession" would not be a matter of something ELSE possessing a person; but rather, a matter of an individual being fractured inside. The solution would not be getting rid of those identities -- that's an option, though -- but rather, to integrate the individual.

This means that possession would be viewed rather similarly to a multiple personality disorder, except that in MPD the 'identities' are much larger--groupings of elementals, all human--whereas in possession the identities may literally just be tiny elementals.

It is possible that in severe schizophrenia, the "identities" perceived really are aspects of the individual themselves -- and there is some empirical evidence for this--again, elementals and such that they are not integrated with, and so, seem separate and autonomous to them.

You might ask, "What if so-called aliens are identities--groupings of elementals perhaps from another frequency range than our physical own--that are part of a person's "overall consciousness" and yet, seem separate and foreign--"alien"--because the person's own perception has not expanded to include those frequencies/identities?"

I don't know. It is one possibility.

Some identities seem to know how to focus their perception outside their biological-range and into other frequency grids like our own. (Actually, we have this ability as well, but most people aren't aware of it or don't utilize it.) They exist here in one sense, but "their form" is in another bandwidth. In this case they aren't "manifesting" here form-wise, but still can have effects here; and when they turn their attention here they can still perceive and communicate.

Are all humans alike?

The perception of humans varies dramatically. To be a bit tongue in cheek (though still serious!), some individuals who are extremely skeptical and un-perceptive for example, are not simply in denial of what they experience (although that is many times the case). Often, they literally do not experience it, regardless of what seems obvious to many others. Their perception, on the sliding scale, is firmly grounded in or near the biological bandwidth, and they do not allow it to vary from that position while they are conscious, nor do they allow themselves to remember any experience or dream which might disturb this belief system. They are quite honest about having no reason to believe in what they are unable to perceive.

Not by accident do responses to things such as psi and anomalies correlate with fear. Awareness and translation of frequencies (data) outside the biological bandwidth (often called "psi") operates as a survival instinct. Individuals who cannot shift their perception to anything outside the red-bandwidth in my example are literally less equipped for survival; they have less information, less forewarning, and less intuition. Subconsciously, they interpret things outside their perception -- and creatures capable of perceiving in those ranges -- as a threat.[7] They probably should. In a true survival of the fittest atmosphere -- such as front-line military combat, for example, where psi is often a deciding factor in soldiers surviving repeatedly, despite all odds--they probably would not survive.

[7] I say "subconsciously" because most hard-line skeptics behave in a way that is irrational to the point of dramatic, so much so that they would be clinically diagnosed by any psychologist as having a serious problem. Their behavior is often in such contradiction to their consciously stated goals, and their behavior in other areas, that one has to call the obvious fear driving their irrationality "subconscious." They are clearly not aware of it.

Another way I've seen this general theory exampled is from a theological/magical system called Enochian, where the "identities" are set up as squares on a sort of chess-type board. If you imagine each square as a frequency level you end up with the same theory as I've got here (to one degree or another). Each frequency level (or square) is an identity of its own. Each two are a larger identity; each three; and so on. You may use the squares next to each other, or the ones connected in patterns called "sigils" (which looks like a star chart, when drawn). Adding or removing one component from the overall identity may change the nature of the identity. Reversing the order you approach a grouped identity in may shift it from Angel to Demon. Each larger grouping is slightly more aware and more powerful. On for infinity, I guess. (Example shown at right is a very small tablet called The Tablet of Union, among other things.) I'm not an expert on Enochian but it seems like a pretty similar theory. The chief difference seems to be that the writings I've encountered on the subject doesn't actually make mention of ourselves containing elementals, or of humans being of similar make-up to the tablet angels, etc. The system does not seem to specify where 'we' (humans) are in relation to the tablet identities.

Another way is from a philosophical/spiritual system called Kabbalah, or Cabala. In this system, "trees" with ten spheres represent what we might call the individual soul; to compare it to my rainbow, the lowest sphere would be the red band. The trees are infinite in both directions and overlap, the top sphere from the tree below overlapping with the bottom sphere from the tree above.

The Enochian Elemental Tablets, the Cabalistic Tree of Life, or my Rainbow of Soul as I call it, are not the same theories, but in this aspect at least do seem extremely similar. So, my theory is hardly novel..


Can "they" from other frequencies come "here?"

Some identities may have developed, in their realities, technologies that let them intrude into other frequency-bands.

For instance here we are, snapping away with X-rays. They damage our bodies; they are too far outside of our biological resonance. And God only knows what we are doing to the reality that X-rays are from, by using our technology with zero awareness of that reality or potential results "there." In the end, all life is contributing to the grand interactive collage I call "Jungian Stew." It's simply that some life forms, including most of ours, are completely unaware that there is a larger reality around them.

Some technologies may either allow identities the ability to alter their form so that they can become "physical" (their version of form) in frequencies slightly outside their normal bandwidth, or may allow them to create a "pocket of the home frequency" and insert it into another frequency. I suspect that many "UFOs" are a lot of the latter. That pocket of energy, when moved into another frequency, may look like a red glowing-pulsing orb, or a light that flits about, or... many other things that today we call "UFOs." It's not by accident that many "abductees" come to realize that their contacts are "interdimensional" or other similar terms. Nor is it by accident that some people consider the modern "alien" just a new label for what we used to call "angels and demons." There may not be a difference, except our own perceptions and labels.

In some of those cases, it may be possible for those identities to encounter humans even physically, either via keeping a pocket of the human-frequency in their space where the human can exist, or in altering the frequency surrounding the human enough to allow them to vibrate just "at the edges" of the physical frequency of the other identities, and so to 'touch in the middle' so to speak. Although in this case it is usually a matter of things feeling and being quite physical yet not having the same solidity, such as the difference between a wall and water for example.

In some cases, altering the resonance of the human bodies may have unintentional side effects on the human physiology, which may be aggravated by subconscious issues relating to the experience. This may be harmful to the individual.

If frequency/vibration is related to this, it also might explain why when one encounters entities physically, whether in magick or 'contact,' the first general urge is to throw up. It is really hard on the body. It takes some getting used to.

What about "other" identities that are "here" as we know it?

Within the frequency bandwidth that our bodies inhabit, there are myriad levels of frequency. All of those levels are their own realities and have their own life. All energy is consciousness. No matter how small the piece. Because our "form" includes their own bandwidth, these elementals register to us as physical. We interpret the collection of energy through our own biological filtering.

The identities are no different than elementals on any other plane: it's simply that they are part of our physical reality. They are aware yet not self-aware; sentient but not autonomous. (Self-awareness and autonomy require much larger concentrations of consciousness.) We constantly help create and arrange life on these levels we co-exist with, without even realizing it, because we don't realize it's any kind of life, because we don't recognize energy and consciousness as being related (the same).

We take the general energy that exists in one specific frequency for example, and make it into a certain shape and give it an identity from our perception. It is willing. It considers itself created by god -- our consciousness is much larger than it, we are 'holy' to it -- and it exists happily in timelessness.

We call it a chair. I am talking about totally mundane things! Every physical thing in our reality has consciousness. The fabric of the universe is consciousness. I think this is related to why I've heard that some meditation practitioners are taught to try to "become one with" rocks or objects and so on. They are attempting to commune with elementals. They are just using the elements from "this" frequency we biologically perceive, rather than those from the space only other portions of our consciousness perceive.

Psi ability, such as the ability to touch or focus upon an object and know something of its history, may actually be a form of tuning into the consciousness of that thing.

I realize that for many people, the idea that anything other than humans is "alive" in a spiritual sense is very disturbing. I don't know how to counter that refusal to acknowledge the connectedness of all things. Assuming that only things exactly like us can be part of the spiritual universe is a pretty big prejudice!

Well if all things are consciousness, what about things we create from scratch? Like plastics, chemicals, etc.?

Nothing is "just physical." Nothing "has no effect" on the world around it. Everything which exists affects all other things which share any part of their existence in the same frequency.

All these things existing in our form's bandwidth contribute to the overall energy of that grouping, just like every note you play on a piano contributes to the overall chord. The harder and more you play one note, particularly one that is not harmonious with the others, the worse the overall song sounds.

This is why it is such a bad idea to create physical things that are negative in their effects. For instance, toxic waste. That is an identity like anything else. It is physical, it is trapped vibrating energy--it is consciousness. It is a life form we created!--an identity that is terrifically hostile to humans. And we just churn it out so we can fill our reality with it. Worse, we create these identities and they have some unbelievably LONG life span! They outlive us by thousands of times or more.

Not only that, but every entity who shares the frequency-band which that form inhabits is affected by it. When we pollute our world, we don't just pollute our world — we pollute every entity in the universe whose existence includes that vibratory level. When we split atoms in bombs, we don't just affect our world — we affect innumerable realities who pay as much or more a price than we do for it. If all energy is consciousness, and every frequency-vibration level is a reality, what do you suppose happens to the realities that exist on the approximate level that an atomic explosion would affect?

I don't think it is coincidence that "alien abductions" are often said to include visuals of doom, particularly nuclear war, and many people experiencing "contact" become highly aware of environmental concerns. Maybe these identities are trying to save their own lives.

We're a little bit stuck....

On days when I am feeling a bit cynical, I think that our 'reality' is going to hell in a handbasket because for some strange reason, we as a species handed over "control" of our physical reality to (or someone(s) has put and kept in control) the people with the most limited perception range imaginable. They are oblivious to the effects other identities and realities have on us. They are oblivious to the effects that we have on other identities and realities. They are oblivious to the implications, beyond physical disease, of the things we fill our reality with. For that matter even physical disease is viewed as if it is some separate thing that fell from the sky onto somebody with no reason. They are oblivious to very existence of even their OWN sentience — let alone anything else's. How it came to be that this truly obtuse and insipid point of view ruled our culture, or that people with so little ability to perceive what is obvious to many became our so-called leaders and "scientists," is anybody's guess.

Entities and Sex; Spiritual Growth; 'Abduction' of us (and by us)

Spiritual growth is no different than any other kind of growth. The dynamics of most things are holographic. Everything grows by absorption of energy around them.

In magick, one way of allegedly expanding one's consciousness is to evoke (within oneself) a "godform." This can be just about any identity you have ever heard of. It is generally some religious icon -- literally "a god." For example, it can be Isis, or Jesus, or Pan. One of the most common dangers of practicing magick relates to this. Growing up in a culture of disbelief, as most of us in the West do, many new magicians are oblivious to the reality of -- the sheer power of -- these godforms. They are real identities! (Whether those identities are the same 'people' who at some point existed, e.g. Jesus, I don't know. I only know that in the sense of being an identity, they are as real as anything else.) They know more about survival and expansion of their consciousness than the magician does, generally.

Many people who are drawn to magick are rebellious youths; the independence and the freedom to explore anything and any part of oneself is attractive. Merging with / allowing "in" a Godform can be overwhelming, particularly if the individual does not have an incredibly strong sense of self, of will, et al. If you're merging with Jesus, this is probably not a problem; that archetype, in this sense, will probably make John-Doe Magician the nicest guy he's ever been. On the other hand, if you are merging with Baphomet or another powerful yet "dark-side" archetype, it could cause some serious problems. Because new magicians usually do not know themselves very well, and have not yet developed a good deal of practiced Will, the result can end up being a form of possession. One has basically just taken a huge conglomerate of energy, organized into a focused identity with its own will and survival instincts, and one may not be able to fully incorporate it, or to remain in control if one does. Some of these identities are larger than we are. It is like trying to hunt a dinosaur for dinner. You may find that you are dinner.

Taking the godform is sort of like taking a "template" that includes a whole spectrum of frequency rather than taking one elemental at a time. Godforms have their positives and negatives. On the positive side they are a more organized field of consciousness which contain more -- you might call them "a bigger dose." On the other hand they are also, as part of their more complex identity, more autonomous, on occasion more deceptive, they contain more unique components that have to be absorbed all at once. Many of the problems in magick result from magicians taking on godforms whose strength of will and autonomy is stronger than their own.

Now, you cannot become part of a godform unless you 'let the god in' or 'take it unto yourself.' The same goes with what we call "entities," which are simply smaller (less complex, fewer frequency-layers) identities than a godform would be. This is why many identities both positive and negative seem -- to us -- so obsessed with sex. That's just what we call it, because on our biological level, that is (a) how we merge and (b) how we create. It is as much physics and spirituality as it is sex. I usually just call it 'merging.'

Some identities, as part of what you might call culture, merge as a means of ordinary experience. Few cultures have the negative conceptual baggage attached to the process that ours does. Some merge as a means of obtaining an energy they want. It is usually a mutual process, which is not to say that it is always free of deception of course. Sometimes it is not mutual and is quite literally a form of energy rape. However, this really depends on the human; we have the ability, at least in most cases, to obtain autonomy or require consent; what we believe about ourselves and our abilities may limit us, though. Many people who would not be capable of defending themselves end up calling on a godform (e.g., Jesus, Mary, etc.), and that can also serve as protection.

Whether it is protective due to their belief, or whether it is protective because these are real identities, large and powerful ones, who can truly help in such a situation, I am not sure. Perhaps a little bit of both.

For entities "above" us in "form-frequency," it's possible that merger with us gives them some of the qualities we normally associate with our lower chakras (though in this case it is THEIR lower chakras we're talking about). Meaning power, money, virility, creativity, etc.

When our magicians reach into an Aethyr to some angel responsible for (earth, intelligence, money, whatever), we may think we are inquiring into some formless floating energy, or some faery-tale identity, who is going to grant it to us -- but how?? Most people don't think of the how part. Magicians command an elemental. Or grouping of elementals whose conglomerate identities are referred to as angels or demons. By doing so, we may literally be "entrapping" that elemental (invoking it into the circle) so that we can utilize it's energy for our own goals.

Please note that this did not happen with a signed legal consent on the identity's part. No more than humans give one to what we call aliens.

Second, this elemental is in fact a PART of a larger identity. You may recall the experience I recounted in Bewilderness where an entity tried to "hold me by my fear." My fear which was intangible to me -- it's just a frequency that affects my body in a manner that creates a chemical which then creates an effect we call emotion -- to him, it was in some way solid. My fear, being a certain frequency is an identity -- an elemental on its own. I am, you might say, the larger angel that contains tons of elementals, including that one.

When I let go of the fear, I contained one less identity in my conglomerate. I was suddenly slightly smaller, in that sense. That fear become for the moment either an independent identity or part of a separate identity (perhaps we are all, always, all of the above). In any case, the moment I released it, the hold the entity had on me was no longer useful for obtaining what he wished, since it was no longer subject to, or located at the address of, "me" which is where he was inquiring to find it.

The entity may merely have been trying to build a chair out of that part of me, for all I know.

Elements of the Elementals

The four elements are at the four edges of our physical bandwidth of consciousness. They are not just energies in general: they are identities that are the "bridges" between what we call "this" level of our consciousness and others; of the frequency levels that border what we know of as this reality. The hidden point in calling the elementals into a magical circle is that they are the "boundaries of the self" as we know it: they are protection because they are our borderlands, so to speak. If the bridges are truly up, nobody can cross over to us.

Who we command

There is no need to call an elemental or even most entities from outside us. We contain elementals. I call them "elementals of soul." I'm willing to bet that 98% of the "entities" that people encounter are, in fact, aspects of themselves. Identities from other frequency bands who may, in fact, as part of their own evolution, be attempting to get to know us. We are so unfamiliar with ourselves, of course everything seems quite foreign -- quite "alien."

I believe this is why many 'abductees' and 'contactees' eventually come to realize that "they are one of them," or that "they are an alien on another level," or feel a loyalty to them, or something along those lines. (By this I do not mean to infer that they are only imagining them, of course. Nor do I mean to infer that the entities are not autonomous to whatever degree. People unfamiliar with magick might misunderstand that.) This is why abductions, on occasion or to some degree, can be called for and resisted.

This is also why people get the entities they focus on -- or, get entities relating to the energy they are generally in tune with. That some people get light beings, others get greys, and still others get reptilians, is no more a matter of "coincidence or chance" than the fact that some people are healthy or wealthy while others are diseased or poor. It has to do with the belief systems of the individual; more specifically, with the frequency plane or rate of vibration that the individual holds in focus.

The Magick of Aliens?

Here's a theory. I'm not suggesting this overrides other options, just that it is possible:

Hypnotizing abductees is a magickal act. It is a beautiful act of creation. It is no secret in the studies of this field that the subject is highly influenced by the physiological and telepathic belief systems and expectations of the person they have allowed to hypnotize them. Though the hypnotist may not have said what they believe and may not even know what they believe, they may be 'attuned to' a certain expectation anyway, just by nature of their personality and their own 'level of focus'.

A regression to a suspected alien abduction might, in a magickal sense here, "tune" the hypnotic subject to that reality-frequency. In other words, it may literally introduce them to the identities there -- and then sets them loose, where they carry the unspoken expectation (often acquired from others) of what is going to happen.

This is similar to magicians who carry the expectation of "what should be encountered" into a certain Aethyr. It is not just a polite suggestion that magicians read accounts of those who came before and look for the signposts and so on. It is because this is the way of controlling how that reality is experienced.

In the same way, subjects hypnotized may as well think of it as a magical ritual designed to create a desired experience, just like any magical ritual is. I DO NOT MEAN to imply that the experience is being imagined by them or put into their head by the hypnotist. I am talking about something different here. I am implying that the literal experience -- free from time and space as this sort of thing is -- may be quite real, but may be being created after the fact, and placed into a time-space target defined by the hypnosis session's date/time goal. Perhaps it is no surprise that people who are hypnotized remember such intense, traumatic experiences. They may be intense and traumatic because they just happened.

Yes. That would infer that the linearity of time could be transcended, could even operate retroactively.

Consciousness exists everywhere. That person's experience they went in to discover could have been literally anything -- or nothing. All of us have an almost infinite number of "experiences" at any given moment in time, on different levels of consciousness. And, we can focus our main point of perception anywhere and have more experiences, whether deliberately as in magick or semi-accidentally as in abduction-regression. That experience may even have been real and have happened, even if hypnosis had never been done to send that back in time. They may have simply been unaware (unremembering) of it. They chose to tune into THAT one. To become aware of it; to bring that into their reality.

It is always a choice.

Genetics and Consciousness

The body is holographic. Human consciousness cannot exceed what the body is capable of reflecting. (Not perceiving, but reflecting. That is something different.) This does not mean that body holds those frequencies outside it, only that it must be capable of co-existing in a conglomerate where those exist and will reflect through it, so to speak.

Certain energies beyond what the body can reflect could theoretically damage the body, even literally dissolve it. Perhaps this is why it has been said that coming into contact with some entities (certain types of angels, or "seeing the face of God") could kill a person.

You can expand the body's organization. Consciousness is an organizing principle, and high degrees of consciousness are reflected by organization. This is sometimes viewed as acausual synchronicity depending on the system in question. This is the same as saying that you can expand the consciousness of a genetically designed end product. Once the genetic product exists, the consciousness in the overall unit (the physical form is only a % of the spectrum of that consciousness) is the dominant decisive factor in what the physical unit then experiences in terms of change or expansion. The body can change due to sentience programming (what might be called consciousness expansion) after it comes into form, but it is best done gradually.

As an allegory, it's rather like getting used to the water in a hot bath. You have to do it in increments so only small parts of your body (self) feel the pain, a tolerable level at a time, and once your whole body then acclimatizes, you can even increase the heat more, and then more. If you merely jumped in at the maximum level of heat you were eventually able to acclimatize to, you would be injured in such a way that you would actually impair the very sense-organ which was dealing with the temperature/medium--your skin. You would likely be extremely oversensitive to temperature and fluid for awhile, and you would probably not be able to function very well in your "normal" life as a result of it. And when it healed, it might even leave scars (depending more on your response to it than the event itself) that destroys your sensitivity in that area.

This can happen on so-called psychic levels as well. That is why planned expansion of consciousness, such as through gradual tantric workings, or gradual exploration of shamanic archetype merging, or systematic elemental and godform assumptions, is a more appropriate way to go about this than something such as, say, certain types of extreme drugs, which can have the effect of 'scalding the spiritual-psyche'. (Not necessarily always--some may be evolutionary!--but some can cause damage. As noted, one's response to things is often a bigger factor than any event itself.)

Genetics are the root through which consciousness is created, in the same manner that a firm seed is the first root through which eventually a plant is created (most of which, particularly in the case of trees for example, are actually composed of air [allegory to spirit], not mass as they seem [allegory to the body]). In this way, through this seed, sentience can be programmed through the genetics. On the other hand, genetics can be altered by sentience programming either by the individual or by others working with the individual (with or without the individual's conscious awareness). No system (consciousness) is fixed; regardless of what one begins with, consciousness is what determines what it accepts into itself (or denies and rejects), and so how it alters its own reflecting genetics.


When asked for my definition of "Contact..."

When it comes to defining "what it is" that is interacting with humanity, what I mainly have to say is that ANY definition of them is basically incorrect. They are everything we suspect, and nothing we suspect. Even in the areas where we may be partially correct, our understanding is probably as absurdly out of context as the field of medicine was a few centuries ago.

It doesn't matter what you call it. The words are just semantics.

What it "is" in your reality is more likely to be determined by the experience, by your frame of mind at that moment, by your overall bandwidth of consciousness, by the level of organization your overall consciousness is holding and how that is oriented, and by the cultural constructs you live within. How physical it is, is also going to be affected by some of these factors as well as by the entity itself (their ability to come near our spectrum, or their technological ability to bring us near theirs).

There are some predictables, of course. One-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eaters are recognizeable, and regardless of who encounters them, they eat people. That's dependable as part of their nature. And there is no point in making the excuse that entities can morph to please or influence our perception, since the fact is, if they morphed into one of those critters, they are now--either to please you or influence you--for all intents and purposes, a flying purple people-eater. In other words, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter whether or not it was a penguin 10 minutes before you arrived--you can be sure it is going to ACT like a duck for you.

As for the apparent technologies of sorts that can catch groups of human focus (perception) much like fisherman catch fish in nets, well, reality in many ways is no different than we think it is. It's just much, much bigger than we think it is. And we are nowhere near the top of the food chain--nor are we totally immune from those below us.

Making sense of things

I believe that until people studying in this field consider these concepts I have presented, in some form or another, and realize the equality and validity of every state, of the interconnectedness of every state and ability to move in and out of it, of perception as the moving point, they probably won't figure this out. Of course, I am biased! --but I don't think they'll figure out what I'm going through anyway, and my own growth (I assume) is probably pretty standard. I'd like to think I'm some special model, but I doubt it.

Let me say that one more time. The equality and validity of every state. The dream state is no less valid than the physical state. It appears to be a simultaneous level of perception we are normally unaware of, because our physical brain (our anchor for "this" reality) is normally tuned to and processing a certain group of frequencies that doesn't include the frequency spectrum that perception (the dream perception) is tuned to. We get constant input from our daily lives that shows up there--sure! That doesn't mean that it exists only to reflect our daily lives. I feel we get constant input from all levels of ourselves that affects other levels--including this one, and we are simply not aware of it doing so. When we wake up, we lose that perspective, and often the attempts at translation--in memory, let alone words--leave one baffled. But the memory being nonsense here does not mean the experience there is.

If other "planes" of consciousness, bands of color in the spectrum, are equally valid (though different of course), this has some interesting effects on the way we interpret things. No longer are dreams the junkyard of the psyche: dreams are our translation of our simultaneous existence in another band of the spectrum, or in another part of this band. On the mental plane, physical objects as we know them here don't exist. Things that here are considered quite intangible, like a concept, or an emotion, are just as real from that perspective as anything else. Concepts, ideas, even thoughts, are as literal and alive as we are. It's simply that they are not physically active on this physical (red) plane. They do exist and affect this plane, and I would say they even take up space as we know it—but not in a solid-mass sort of way.

Because the solid-ness of physicality that we know here does not apply to that state of perception, the hard edged boundaries of "identities" do not exist as clearly. Here, a person cannot simultaneously be a table, and the concept of "justice" and the memory of your first grade teacher doesn't really apply to either of them. But in the astral (and this becomes more so as one gets higher in frequency, or let's say higher on the color scale), since it lacks the density of this "red" plane, the criteria for determining what is "real" is changed, and the separation of reality-components, as seen here defined by space and density, is mostly extinguished.

You may find yourself having a discussion with a table who is simultaneously your first grade teacher; their identities are quite literally blended. You may describe later that you were standing at today's place of work, and yet it was somehow simultaneously 20 years prior; your identity is not linear nor separate either. Identity, physical space or mass, and time, none of these are separate "solid" objects except here in this "red" perception. You may find yourself having a conversation with what turns out to be the concept of, say, justice—which may look like a black knight chess piece, your own symbolic interpretation. But that interpretation is not "fake" or "just your imagination." That symbology is a valid translation of the data you perceived in/from a different point of reference.

The fact is, even with our eyes in "physical reality," trees only look like trees to us—our "picture" of them is our translation. That doesn't mean their existence should be dismissed, simply because our biology affects how we subjectively perceive them. They look dramatically different from the perspective of different views, such as varying kinds of technology or light. Which view is "real" or "valid?"

With sonar equipment, what is perceived at one point by the machine may not be able to be perceived (or even conceptualized) by the senses we have biologically. So it has to be translated by the machine into something we can both perceive and make sense of. The fact that it is obviously a translation does not invalidate it, nor does it indicate the data translated is non-existent. True sonar is not the dot on a computer screen either, but it would be silly of me to argue that since man created the dot (translation), the dot was merely an inventor's imagination, and what the sonar measured does not exist because the data can't be seen with my eyes.

And yet, this is what has been happening with the and "paranormal" field for a long time. Translations are considered symbolic garbage. Inconsistencies within this frame of reference about things "there," or things about "here" told to them "there" (often created by trying to translate one system of perception to another, and losing a good deal in the process) are used to demonstrate unreliability. Even the most linear accounts relating to a place and/or people "there" were—and still are—diagnosed as hallucinations or frauds.

This might have continued indefinitely, were it not for the "contact" field that is considered a part of "UFOlogy." For the first time, we have a subject that a vast range of people are experiencing, to various degrees. The places seem to look the same. The same things seem to happen in those places. The people and entities seem to look the same. Even the personalities are similar. The circumstance is often the same. The manner of arriving "there" is often similar. The manner of perception returning, or arriving "here," is often similar. The psychological, emotional, physical, mental, and other symptoms and reactions to the events show commonalities. Even the psychological and physical history of individuals prior to known events show commonalities! I can't imagine that we lack data for studying this, given all of the above.

Some of the people who've contributed to firsthand witness evidence in these fields are credible enough to convict a nun in a court of law. If this "place" were a land behind a mountain range that for some reason we could not traverse or fly over to verify, the world would long ago have accepted the "reality" of the place, based on empirical evidence alone. The medias present the abduction field as a fictional fringe, and yet there's more than enough reason for that attitude to be revoked--and retroactively.


Conclusions?

OK, so it's not the belief system I started out with. So what?

Perhaps I should be more awe-struck. Or at least less flippant. But I'm not.

There are other "identities" than what most people are familiar with. A few are able to be physical-in-our-reality, but mostly of them aren't. Mostly they operate somewhere "in between" that we can't even describe yet--alternate dimensions, alternate realities, who knows.

We are 'equal to them in density while there' in terms of mass-physicality, which doesn't mean that it needs to comparable with whatever goes on with us 'here,' of course. This causes no end of confusion, since our society isn't ready for the idea that anything besides our reality even exists--let alone that we might not be the center of that existence, either.

It is like Galileo all over again, only this time the religion is Scientism.

The separation between 'them' and 'us' is not yet clear. To some degree I refer to most things as "archetypes." But my use of the term does not preclude the ability for them to operate in a tangible-equality sense with me. In other words, it's just a word--they can be as distant as a dream, or as solid as your neighborhood bully.

They can be abusive, or act like we're inferior. They can also be joyous, sensual, and invoking great love and loyalty.

The experiences can be scary or wonderful, dull or fascinating, and defy any one category or explanation.

I am personally far more interested in learning about myself, and the "fuller spectrum" of myself--which includes all this and more--than I am in learning about anything or anyone else. I would say that the more one learns about themselves, the more one encounters other perceptions and identities—because we exist in a much fuller sense than we realize.

Focusing on the sights along the way, rather than the Self, may be little more than an unfortunate distraction. Like an experience vaguely "faery" that I recounted in this study, becoming involved with the interesting games found "there" may only trap one at that "level," making moving above that -- or 'evolving' above that -- more difficult.

As for the confused and often bizarre modern interpretations of "aliens," I say: Let the historians worry about history. Let the psychiatrists worry about insanity. Let the government worry about the military. It just doesn't matter to me. Either way, I still have to get up in the morning and make a living, right?

It's just another day.

Love,

Palyne

[end of Book I. Last date: November 1, 1995.]
Continue to "Notes about the Author"


"Bewilderness" title and text are Copyright 1993-1998 by Palyne "PJ" Gaenir. All rights reserved. Feel welcome to send me email -- I always appreciate feedback.