Fair enough. But I LIKE “kooks” and “cranks.” I have been labeled as such on occasion. It don’t bother me none. My first business card (when I was in my early ’20s) bore the phrase “The kooks are our future.”

As you point out, one person’s kook or crank is another’s genius, and the definition changes once they become popular (without necessarily being “right.”)

Sorry if it sounded like I was complaining, I’m just saying that there is a difference between, for example, an outsider artist and contactee or kook and crank. The difference is one is endearing while the other is judgmental. Nothing nice ever comes to mind when we hear kook or crank. You never know, maybe someday a kook or crank will solve the UFO mystery to everyone’s satisfaction, and then how will that make the rest of us look?

No complaints about my other posts on contactees, outsider artists, and other non-standard UFO personalities? It’s all part of the puzzle.

Not all of my posts attempt to “solve” the UFO enigma.

I like Campbell’s lectures on James Joyce.

I’ve always liked Shaver too. Have you seen my posts on him? Just type his name into the search box at the top of the page.

This isn’t about Campbell, the person, but about the accuracy of Campbells words — and they seem to be very accurate.

“For example, Sage, when Jung demonstrated psychokinesis to Freud — the whole hot solar plexus, book shelf cracking noise thing — this is an example of how psychological projections create PHYSICAL changes”

1) That was an example of a false memory
2) That has nothing to do with Campbell

“Pretty basic idea there Sage — I recommend reading Nandor Fodor’s MIND OVER SPACE (or close to that title). Then there’s D. Scott Rogo’s follow-up masterpiece: MIRACLES”

I am only interested in peer reviewed scientific literature, not pseudoscience.

For example, Sage, when Jung demonstrated psychokinesis to Freud — the whole hot solar plexus, book shelf cracking noise thing — this is an example of how psychological projections create PHYSICAL changes.

Pretty basic idea there Sage — I recommend reading Nandor Fodor’s MIND OVER SPACE (or close to that title). Then there’s D. Scott Rogo’s follow-up masterpiece: MIRACLES.

Anyway thanks for sharing.

Humans desperately need fairytales in order to live life to its fullest — they cannot survive without them. That is why even though the UFO mystery had been solved a long time ago by psychologists like Carl Jung, no one cares what actual reality is like concerning them. To misquote Joseph Campbell, “Like dreams, UFOs are productions of the human imagination. Their images, consequently, though derived from the material world and its supposed history, are, like dreams, revelations of the deepest hopes, desires and fears, potentialities and conflicts, of the human will…Every UFO tale, that is to say, whether or not by intention, is PSYCHOLOGICALLY symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors…the UFO narratives…are hermetic fields within which those apparitions known as…demons, angels, demigods, ETs and visitors and the like, typify in the guise of charismatic personalities the locally recognized vortices of consciousness out of which all the local theater of life derive their being. The figurations of UFOs are expressive, therefore, as those of dreams normally are not, of a range of universal, as distinguished from specifically individual, concerns…The distinguishing first function of properly read UFOlogy is to release the mind from its naive fixation upon such false ideas, which are of material things as things-in-themselves” (THE INNER REACHES OF OUTER SPACE, Joseph Campbell, pgs 55-57)

Sorry, couldn’t resist…anyway, favorite kook is probably Richard Shaver.