what mcguffin is6

8/12/2019 What Mcguffin IS6

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-mcguffin-is6 1/6



/y “"rucial )ictions% thesis is not that understanding the psychology of

trauma can explain away the ()* and other paranormal phenomena,

but that it can, and indeed does, make a great deal of sense of them.

)irstly, it allows us to see them as experiences that arise out of anunconscious “dialogue% between the psyche and the body7 and secondly,

it opens up the uestion of a more far6reaching interaction between the

psyche and external reality, including the hidden, so6called “psychic%

aspects of reality.385

9ightly understood, psychology +observation of the psyche must

encompass all human experience, at least up to total enlightenment or

the discovery of absolute reality, free from psychic projections. Ifpsychology has any value at all, it can-t be separated from any of the

other, lesser disciplines, because the one thing we always bring to the

table is our psyche. It-s the instrument of study which we are always

studying, whether we like it, or know it, or not.

9eturning to 'ung

%e &ho &ou#' fathom the ps$che must not confuse it &ith consciousness, e#se he!ei#s from his o&n sight the obect he &ishes to exp#ore On the contrar$, to

recognie the ps$che, e!en, 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, uite rightly, that their experience is being

marginali1ed out of existence by skeptics. ;ut that-s nothing compared to

what-s being done to the psyche. 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. 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, the psyche is now in a similar position to the()*, that of being roundly “debunked,% not only by science but by almost



every other field as well. :ven psychology has largely turned its back on

it#

I think this has to do with the common mistake of euating psyche with

mind, and the view that the mind is merely a by6product of the body and

therefore can be treated as a chemical imbalance. $his may be true of

the mind but it is not true of the psyche, because the psyche corresponds

not with the conscious mind but the unconscious or total self, which is

euivalent to the idea of the soul&an idea which science has even less

time for. <et even those who believe in the soul have a tendency to

overlook the unconscious&the nature of which, after all, is that it is

overlooked.

/y impression +especially since I began trying to communicate these

ideas is that ufology +among other fields fears and resents psychology

because it thinks it will be used to “explain away% the data. *f course it

can be used this way, or rather misused, just as psychology can be

misused to plunder someone-s nervous system with drugs and other

technology. ;ut it can also be used, more wisely, to deepen our

understanding of what is happening, and maybe even to crack the codeof the ()*. =roperly applied, psychology won-t bring about the end of

(fology but a new departure point. $his is the departure point put forward,

as far back as 4>?>, by 'ung in Flying Saucers: that, as a living

archetype, the ()* speaks the language not of the mind but of the soul.

If the ()* is trying to communicate with us, then its message is not

coming from outer space but from inner space, from the realm of the

psyche. $he only way to understand the ()*, then, is to learn thelanguage of the unconscious, a language not of words, or even concepts,

but of symbols. /ore baffling still, this language is one that is particular to

each individual psyche, and which can only be learned by entering into a

fully su!ective relationship with what we are studying&the psyche first,

and only secondly the ()*.

(fologists and experiencers can assign all the objective reality they like to

()*s and aliens, but our experience of them is still going to be subjectiveand it-s na@ve to suggest otherwise. +*r rather, it-s only possible by



ignoring the reality of the unconscious. Ae don-t even experience our

spouses or children as they actually are, 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 , ". 0.'ung clearly describes the mechanism of projection

/ust as &e ten' to assume that the &or#' is as &e see it, &e na0!e#$ suppose that

peop#e are as &e imagine them to be 1## the contents of our unconscious are

constant#$ being proecte' into our surroun'ings, an' it is on#$ b$ recogniing

certain properties of the obects as proections or imagos that &e are ab#e to

'istinguish them from the rea# properties of the obects 2n#ess &e are

possesse' of an unusua# 'egree of se#f3a&areness &e sha## ne!er see through our proections but must a#&a$s succumb to them, because the min' in its natura#

state presupposes the existence of such proections It is the natura# an' gi!en

thing for unconscious contents to be proecte'4.

Ahile a (fologist might assume my approach to be reducing his or her

field to something less real, I would argue the reverse. ;y giving the

psyche its due as the primary, maybe even the sole, creative force in our

experience&not counting 0od, of course&we are granting to the ()* afar more vital role than that of a mere nuts6and6bolts “miracle.%

$he argument rests, not on whether one believes in the objective reality

of alien abduction or not, but on whether one is aware of the reality and

potency of the psyche. If I am uestioning the objective reality of ()*s, I

am also uestioning the objective reality of everything . $he ()* is a

good place to start, however, because almost everyone agrees that it

can-t be pinned down to an “object% +flying or otherwise. $hat unknowing

generates a uasi6religious fren1y of belief and disbelief around it, 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. ;ecause belief not only moves mountains&it

builds and destroys empires.

$he problem we are faced with when we enter into the realms of theparanormal is the literal6mindedness that insists that, for something to be



real, it has to have concrete objective existence which others can agree

u$on. $his is a problem precisely because, when we think this way, we

are unable to recogni1e the reality of the psyche or to understand the

nature of our experience, and instead we are interacting with our ownphantasy narratives. Ironically, the insistence on such phenomena having

an objective reality is itself a symptom of disconnection from psychic

reality, which can only ever be subjective, that, in fact, must become fully

su!ective in order to be objectively real to the experiencer.

2dmittedly, this is a difficult concept, one that has to do with embodiment

to be fully present, in our bodies, is to be fully in the position of subject.

<et if the psyche is the true subject or self, it can only experiencethe o!ective reality of the ody by being fully aligned with, or centered

within, the body.

$herefore, to see reality as totally and inesca$aly su!ective is,

paradoxically, the only way to know objective reality.

5. 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, the obect 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, an' the other ans&ers, 6Oh, that’s a McGuffin7 The first one as+s

6What’s a McGuffin?7 6We##,7 the other man sa$s, 6It’s an apparatus for trapping

#ions in the Scottish %igh#an's7 The first man sa$s, 68ut there are no #ions in the

Scottish %igh#an's,7 an' the other one ans&ers, 6We##, then that’s no McGuffin97

:. One ob!ious ;uestion about the 2<O materia# is, if trauma is someho&

informing an' e!en generating the ab'uction experience, an' if trauma is a

uni!ersa# occurrence, &h$ aren’t more peop#e reporting ab'uctions? 1ccor'ing to

Strieber an' others, the phenomena does touch on a## of our #i!es, but on#$ some

of us reca## it I &ou#' put some cre'ence to the i'ea that the ab'uction experience

is, #i+e trauma, in some sense uni!ersa#= but if so, 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



-. Ibi', p -

4. @ G /ung, Dreams (<rom Ao#umes 4, B, 5:, an' 5C of The Collected Works

of C. G. Jung ) (De& in Paper), trans " < @ %u##, Princeton 2ni!ersit$ Press,

:E5:, p Page FE

what mcguffin is6

Documents