You write: "The UAP experience collapses object and subject, perception and consciousness, matter and mind," but then one must point out so does phenomenology (and certain strains of philosophy post-Kant).
The subject-object division was already subject to critique in Kant and its being laid down by epistemology as an abstraction borne of reflection on sensuous experience was criticized by Adorno, to give just two examples. A reading of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty would considerably problematize the matter.
Same with "perception and consciousness." For the phenomenologist (and much of post-Kantian German Romantic and Idealist philosophy) consciousness is not a thing (as per Descartes' res cogitans, a concept much in need of scrutiny) but a relation. Likewise "matter and mind" (I imagine you are nodding to the dualistic philosophy which is part of the reception of Descartes) has been problematized, for example, in the Anglo-Saxon Analytic tradition by Gilbert Ryle.
The focus on the these oppositions by Kripal et al. is borne not so much out of the phenomenon or its problematics but their framing certain aspects of sighting and encounter reports within their reception of phenomenology and hermeneutics, which has been nowhere to my knowledge set forth for itself, rather only applied (as in Kripal's collaboration with Strieber) or outright misrepresented (e.g., in The Flip Kripal clearly misrepresents Kant).
I'm all for bringing the philosophical tradition to bear on the question, but it needs be carried out with the utmost scrupulous rigor (as per Husserl's call to make philosophy a rigorous science) and a hard won fluent acquaintance with the relevant literature. At the same time, I've made no secret of the need for bold speculation, but I balance that call for it to be balanced with the vigilant, careful thought in the spirit of Husserl (and others). Otherwise, we're just indulging the kind of metaphysics (What is reality in itself?) which in the wake of Kant and especially the Jena Romantics is at the very least deeply problematic...
Thanks for this thoughtful reflection. When I incorporate phenomenology into UAP studies, I begin rather simply. I simply wish to include the subjective dynamics right along with analyzing whatever might be perceived objectively. This takes us beyond the simple question: are UFOs real? Then, it gets more complicated. Many UFO experiencers claim that they feel in contact with something like a changed reality or even ultimate reality. This is where a Heidegerrian or even Husserlian phenomenology might help illuminate what questions we should pursue.
Your approach here I perfectly understand. Phenomenology in general brackets the skeptical concerns about the status (the "reality") of what is perceived to focus on "the things themselves," the concrete content and structure of an experience. What troubles me is how this bracketing too quickly becomes a back door to let in the "the reality" of the phenomenon or philosophically unwarranted speculations about reality, matter and mind, etc. Has the question, to your knowledge, of the applicability of phenomenology to _esoteric_ experiences been raised? The movement's major thinkers tend to restrict themselves to the exoteric, e.g. Heidegger's "average everydayness." Further, is there not an existing body of work on the phenomenology of religious experience or Altered States of Consciousness to be consulted at the very least as preliminary survey of the extant literature?
Just to be clear where I'm coming from, my own thinking has been fairly consistently (as far as possible) "phenomenological" in this sense, avoiding debates about the reality or nature of what is reported to focus on "the reports" (as per Vallée's first book) and their cultural and social significance.
My own method begins with phenomenology by bracketing out the objective reality question in order to discern the meaning structure. But, then I put on my theologian's hat to analyze according to categories in systematic theology. I rely on a theory of religion derived from Mircea Eliade and Paul Tillich which perceives meaning expressed symbolically. Vallee has good hunches. But he lacks the sophistication in religious matters to pursue where clues lead. This is not a criticism of a fine person. It's just a way to assemble the best tools for analysis.
Eliade and Tillich, heavy hitters... Is the 2014 edition of your book on UFOs "updated" or revised from the original 1977 (?) edition. I take it you put to work some of these symbolic categories or functions in that study?
Yes, the 2014 edition of UFOss-God's Chariots? includes material from the 1977 edition and adds treatment of John Mack and similar developments. After the 2017 NY Times watershed, it probably needs another updating.
Thanks--and thank you for indulging my comments and questions. I trust their sometimes forceful directness was at no point taken to be less that respectful.
You write: "The UAP experience collapses object and subject, perception and consciousness, matter and mind," but then one must point out so does phenomenology (and certain strains of philosophy post-Kant).
The subject-object division was already subject to critique in Kant and its being laid down by epistemology as an abstraction borne of reflection on sensuous experience was criticized by Adorno, to give just two examples. A reading of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty would considerably problematize the matter.
Same with "perception and consciousness." For the phenomenologist (and much of post-Kantian German Romantic and Idealist philosophy) consciousness is not a thing (as per Descartes' res cogitans, a concept much in need of scrutiny) but a relation. Likewise "matter and mind" (I imagine you are nodding to the dualistic philosophy which is part of the reception of Descartes) has been problematized, for example, in the Anglo-Saxon Analytic tradition by Gilbert Ryle.
The focus on the these oppositions by Kripal et al. is borne not so much out of the phenomenon or its problematics but their framing certain aspects of sighting and encounter reports within their reception of phenomenology and hermeneutics, which has been nowhere to my knowledge set forth for itself, rather only applied (as in Kripal's collaboration with Strieber) or outright misrepresented (e.g., in The Flip Kripal clearly misrepresents Kant).
I'm all for bringing the philosophical tradition to bear on the question, but it needs be carried out with the utmost scrupulous rigor (as per Husserl's call to make philosophy a rigorous science) and a hard won fluent acquaintance with the relevant literature. At the same time, I've made no secret of the need for bold speculation, but I balance that call for it to be balanced with the vigilant, careful thought in the spirit of Husserl (and others). Otherwise, we're just indulging the kind of metaphysics (What is reality in itself?) which in the wake of Kant and especially the Jena Romantics is at the very least deeply problematic...
Thanks for this thoughtful reflection. When I incorporate phenomenology into UAP studies, I begin rather simply. I simply wish to include the subjective dynamics right along with analyzing whatever might be perceived objectively. This takes us beyond the simple question: are UFOs real? Then, it gets more complicated. Many UFO experiencers claim that they feel in contact with something like a changed reality or even ultimate reality. This is where a Heidegerrian or even Husserlian phenomenology might help illuminate what questions we should pursue.
Your approach here I perfectly understand. Phenomenology in general brackets the skeptical concerns about the status (the "reality") of what is perceived to focus on "the things themselves," the concrete content and structure of an experience. What troubles me is how this bracketing too quickly becomes a back door to let in the "the reality" of the phenomenon or philosophically unwarranted speculations about reality, matter and mind, etc. Has the question, to your knowledge, of the applicability of phenomenology to _esoteric_ experiences been raised? The movement's major thinkers tend to restrict themselves to the exoteric, e.g. Heidegger's "average everydayness." Further, is there not an existing body of work on the phenomenology of religious experience or Altered States of Consciousness to be consulted at the very least as preliminary survey of the extant literature?
Just to be clear where I'm coming from, my own thinking has been fairly consistently (as far as possible) "phenomenological" in this sense, avoiding debates about the reality or nature of what is reported to focus on "the reports" (as per Vallée's first book) and their cultural and social significance.
My own method begins with phenomenology by bracketing out the objective reality question in order to discern the meaning structure. But, then I put on my theologian's hat to analyze according to categories in systematic theology. I rely on a theory of religion derived from Mircea Eliade and Paul Tillich which perceives meaning expressed symbolically. Vallee has good hunches. But he lacks the sophistication in religious matters to pursue where clues lead. This is not a criticism of a fine person. It's just a way to assemble the best tools for analysis.
Eliade and Tillich, heavy hitters... Is the 2014 edition of your book on UFOs "updated" or revised from the original 1977 (?) edition. I take it you put to work some of these symbolic categories or functions in that study?
Yes, the 2014 edition of UFOss-God's Chariots? includes material from the 1977 edition and adds treatment of John Mack and similar developments. After the 2017 NY Times watershed, it probably needs another updating.
Thanks--and thank you for indulging my comments and questions. I trust their sometimes forceful directness was at no point taken to be less that respectful.