What’s a McGuffin? (The Thing from Inner Space, Part Six) The Ob ecti!

e "ea#it$ of the Sub ect (Ps$che)
“Subjective conscious mind is an analog of what is called the real world. It is built up with a vocabulary or lexical field whose terms are all metaphors or analogs of behavior in the physical world. Its reality is of the same order as mathematics. . . . Like mathematics, it is an operator rather than a thing or repository. . . . If consciousness is this invention of an analog world even as the world of mathematics parallels the world of uantities of things, what then can we say about its origin! "onsciousness comes after language# $he implications of such a position are extremely serious. . . . In reality, consciousness has no location whatever except as we imagine it has.% &'ulian 'aynes, The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind If I present the idea that the only way to be objective about the ()* +or anything else, is to approach it subjectively, then this idea also must be taken as a “belief% of the author, one that can only ever have subjective meaning or reality. So then, what-s my point! *nly this. when approaching any subject at all, we need to be consciously creative, in order to avoid unconsciously fabricating. $he first idea that must be sacrificed to this approach is the idea of “pure objectivity.% $rying to figure out if there-s a sound in an empty forest when a tree falls is the great /c0uffin of philosophy, uantum mechanics, and the ()*. It keeps the plot moving forward&until you reali1e that anything else would do the same job. 2t which point, the mechanics fall down completely.345 /y present approach is case specific, and the idea of case6specificity is central to my argument. there is no such phenomenon as “alien abduction,% any more than there is such a thing as “schi1ophrenia,% “autism,% murder, rape, birth or death, in any general or universally agreed on sense, because every case is unique&as uni ue as the human psyche. $he goal of objectivity then is at odds with and adverse to the nature of the phenomena itself.

it allows us to see them as experiences that arise out of an unconscious “dialogue% between the psyche and the body7 and secondly. It-s the instrument of study which we are always studying. uite rightly. at least up to total enlightenment or the discovery of absolute reality. free from psychic projections. It might be argued that the psyche is every bit as ephemeral or elusive as the ()*7 to some extent that-s true &but only to the extent that we are not directing our attention to it. lesser disciplines.-. %e &ho &ou#' fathom the ps$che must not confuse it &ith consciousness. must encompass all human experience. that their experience is being marginali1ed out of existence by skeptics.385 9ightly understood.ut that-s nothing compared to what-s being done to the psyche. 9eturning to 'ung. whether we like it. . to recogni)e the ps$che. so6called “psychic% aspects of reality. In recent times the institution of psychiatry and the prevalence of medications to treat psychological problems has gone hand in hand with a steady reduction of interest or awareness as to the uestion of the psyche. Ironically enough. that of being roundly “debunked.% not only by science but by almost . including the hidden. e#se he !ei#s from his o&n sight the ob ect he &ishes to exp#ore( On the contrar$. the psyche is now in a similar position to the ()*. it can-t be separated from any of the other./y “"rucial )ictions% thesis is not that understanding the psychology of trauma can explain away the ()* and other paranormal phenomena. e!en. If psychology has any value at all. and indeed does. because the one thing we always bring to the table is our psyche. it opens up the uestion of a more far6reaching interaction between the psyche and external reality. make a great deal of sense of them. or not. psychology +observation of the psyche. )irstly. he must #earn to see ho& it 'iffers from consciousness( It is high#$ probab#e that &hat &e ca## i##usion is actua# for the ps$che* for &hich reason &e cannot ta+e ps$chic actua#it$ to be commensurab#e &ith conscious actua#it$(. :xperiencers often complain. but that it can. or know it.

ut it can also be used. which is e uivalent to the idea of the soul&an idea which science has even less time for. :ven psychology has largely turned its back on it# I think this has to do with the common mistake of e uating psyche with mind. . or rather misused. as far back as 4>?>. this language is one that is particular to each individual psyche.every other field as well. and the view that the mind is merely a by6product of the body and therefore can be treated as a chemical imbalance. is that it is overlooked. after all. then. or even concepts. fears and resents psychology because it thinks it will be used to “explain away% the data. and only secondly the ()*. $his is the departure point put forward. because the psyche corresponds not with the conscious mind but the unconscious or total self. to deepen our understanding of what is happening. by 'ung in Flying Saucers: that. $he only way to understand the ()*. the ()* speaks the language not of the mind but of the soul. then its message is not coming from outer space but from inner space. (fologists and experiencers can assign all the objective reality they like to ()*s and aliens. =roperly applied. and which can only be learned by entering into a fully su !ective relationship with what we are studying&the psyche first. more wisely. <et even those who believe in the soul have a tendency to overlook the unconscious&the nature of which. $his may be true of the mind but it is not true of the psyche. just as psychology can be misused to plunder someone-s nervous system with drugs and other technology. *f course it can be used this way. but of symbols. a language not of words. /y impression +especially since I began trying to communicate these ideas. it-s only possible by . /ore baffling still. as a living archetype. If the ()* is trying to communicate with us. is that ufology +among other fields. but our experience of them is still going to be subjective and it-s na@ve to suggest otherwise. +*r rather. and maybe even to crack the code of the ()*. is to learn the language of the unconscious. psychology won-t bring about the end of (fology but a new departure point. from the realm of the psyche.

I would argue the reverse. not on whether one believes in the objective reality of alien abduction or not. &e na0!e#$ suppose that peop#e are as &e imagine them to be( ( ( ( 1## the contents of our unconscious are constant#$ being pro ecte' into our surroun'ings.ignoring the reality of the unconscious.y giving the psyche its due as the primary.ecause belief not only moves mountains&it builds and destroys empires. and so the uestion of whether what we are perceiving is objectively real or not has progressed from being a merely philosophical one to one of practical urgency and social import. but on whether one is aware of the reality and potency of the psyche.% $he argument rests. however.. Ahile a (fologist might assume my approach to be reducing his or her field to something less real. an' it is on#$ b$ recogni)ing certain properties of the ob ects as pro ections or imagos that &e are ab#e to 'istinguish them from the rea# properties of the ob ects( ( ( ( 2n#ess &e are possesse' of an unusua# 'egree of se#f3a&areness &e sha## ne!er see through our pro ections but must a#&a$s succumb to them. how much less so an entity that belongs to a separate order of existence and that may not even have fixed physical form!# In "eneral #s$ects of %ream &sychology. I am also uestioning the objective reality of everything. If I am uestioning the objective reality of ()*s. Ae don-t even experience our spouses or children as they actually are. for something to be . $hat unknowing generates a uasi6religious fren1y of belief and disbelief around it.4. creative force in our experience&not counting 0od. because the min' in its natura# state presupposes the existence of such pro ections( It is the natura# an' gi!en thing for unconscious contents to be pro ecte'(. $he ()* is a good place to start. ". . /ust as &e ten' to assume that the &or#' is as &e see it. . because almost everyone agrees that it can-t be pinned down to an “object% +flying or otherwise. 0. of course&we are granting to the ()* a far more vital role than that of a mere nuts6and6bolts “miracle. maybe even the sole.. $he problem we are faced with when we enter into the realms of the paranormal is the literal6mindedness that insists that. 'ung clearly describes the mechanism of projection.

$his is a problem precisely because. that. an' the other ans&ers. we are unable to recogni1e the reality of the psyche or to understand the nature of our experience.:. that’s a McGuffin(7 The first one as+s 6What’s a McGuffin?7 6We##. or centered within.5. . $herefore. and instead we are interacting with our own phantasy narratives. it has to have concrete objective existence which others can agree u$on. to see reality as totally and inesca$a ly su !ective is. then that’s no McGuffin97 . McGuffin is the term &hich the fi#m 'irector 1#fre' %itchcoc+ use' for &hate!er e#ement 'ro!e the action of his thri##ers. to be fully present.uestion about the 2<O materia# is.7 an' the other one ans&ers. in some sense uni!ersa#= but if so. it can only experience the o !ective reality of the ody by being fully aligned with. in our bodies. &h$ aren’t more peop#e reporting ab'uctions? 1ccor'ing to Strieber an' others. when we think this way. this is a difficult concept. <et if the psyche is the true subject or self. 6It’s an apparatus for trapping #ions in the Scottish %igh#an's(7 The first man sa$s. 6Oh. #i+e trauma. the body. one that has to do with embodiment. the ob ect a## the characters &ere chasing after an' fighting o!er( The &or' is ta+en from a stor$ about t&o men in a train( One man sa$s 6What’s that pac+age up there in the baggage rac+?7. 2dmittedly.real. which can only ever be subjective. must become fully su !ective in order to be objectively real to the experiencer. 68ut there are no #ions in the Scottish %igh#an's. there are ob!ious#$ 'ifferent 'egrees an' 'ifferent &a$s of 'ea#ing &ith it>both trauma an' ab'uction>or of not 'ea#ing &ith it an' pushing it a## the &a$ into unconsciousness( . 6We##. is to be fully in the position of subject. One ob!ious . the only way to know objective reality. in fact. an' if trauma is a uni!ersa# occurrence.7 the other man sa$s. if trauma is someho& informing an' e!en generating the ab'uction experience. the phenomena does touch on a## of our #i!es. paradoxically. but on#$ some of us reca## it( I &ou#' put some cre'ence to the i'ea that the ab'uction experience is. the insistence on such phenomena having an objective reality is itself a symptom of disconnection from psychic reality. Ironically.

B. Princeton 2ni!ersit$ Press.. 5:. trans( "( <( @( %u##. :E5:.-. Jung) (De& in Paper). p( ?-( . an' 5C of The Collected Works of C. Dreams (<rom Ao#umes 4. Ibi'. p( Page FE? . G.4. @( G( /ung.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful