I've just skimmed what's all there, so can't comment much. But a couple of things: seems Daniel Pinchbeck, who I greatly admire, has issues with Strieber, as I've commented on the past as well. Two psychonauts I respect at odds with each other. Always interesting. Then there's the late Mac Tonnies' thoughts on Strieber (Mac being another person I admired) -- which are very intriguing -- referenced on the RI OP. But what to think? Seems as wild in many ways as the simple idea Strieber is saying he experienced exactly what he did, indeed, experience. Can we fault the "experiencer" for stumbling around and trying to process the incredible? What else is he/she to do? And what of the enigmatic remark from the author of this post at RI about "psychic" interplays? via computer?:
"I posted a response suggesting an alternate explanation to Strieber’s paranoid insistence that sinister forces were behind the edits, namely, that Whitley had unconsciously altered the text via some sort of psychic interface with his software (something which has almost certainly happened in my experience)."That's quite a concept, one that's never entered my mind. And yet, I had something close to that myself once...does this mean the computer can be a conduit for communication for "them" as with ghost/hauntings -- those spirits and energies that use electricity to communicate? Which would mean Strieber's mind wasn't playing tricks on him, but "they" were.
I'm not defending anyone here, nor, attacking. Both seem downright stupid as well as silly and petty. When it comes to the individual and his or her experiences, we can't dare to tell them how to go about their journey, or be so presumptuous, as so many are in this field, to tell them how to interpret those experiences. Follow the magical threads here: rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Is Whitley Strieber Advocating Implants?