Author: Giorgio Piacenza

After a clear UFO sighting with multiple witnesses within 300 feet in the Peruvian coastal town of "Chilca" in 1975, I participated with the Mission Rahma contact group and befriended several contactees from this and other contact efforts. I also researched many aspects of the UFO phenomenon for several decades and feel inclined to contribute in the confluence of philosophical and scientific perspectives.

Retrocausal Human Power and Hidden Extraterrestrial Interests: A Search for Integral, Scientific and Metaphysical Answers

Are the concepts of retrocausality, Philippe Guillemant’s “Theory of Double Causality,” Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory” and Oleg Linetsky’s coherent propositions on fundamental “Boundaries” keys to understand crucial aspects of an assortment of extraterrestrial and otherworldly Interactions?

What kind of basic science emerging in the XXI Century we need to be aware of in order to relate more intelligently with the solid emerging evidence for extraterrestrial contacts and abductee interactions?  Issues about “Time” (changing the past, modifying the future, time-travel, choice and free will, visitors from the future, timelines, etc) has always been part the history of UFO research and the ET contact movement. Sometimes cryptic messages about the purpose of ET interactions have been transmitted to experiencers. What does this all mean?

Well-known, “no-nonsense” meticulous UFO-ET scientific researcher Jacques Vallée recently mentioned in a TED talk conference (held in 2011 at Brussels) chief issues in relation to retrocausality. A  U tube link is:

When in the XX Century chief quantum physicists like Dirac, Klein, Gordon, Wheeler, Feynman, Cramer, Aharonov and other creative mavericks provided evidence for the possibility that retrocausality may be a fact of nature, most scientists were slow to consider this plausible because of their fixation with subluminal, time-forward, entropic, cause and effect, macro physicalist, intuitive perceptions adapted to the regular world consciously experienced through the physical senses.  Nevertheless, considering that “advanced waves” from the future may be physically real is a perfectly plausible way to understand some relativistic-invariant solutions that modify a purely probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics’ critical “Schrödinger’s Equation.” In fact, probabilistic and realistic interpretations may coexist under a more inclusive view, being an upcoming agreement more like a “both-and” issue.

Nowadays, with the influence of carefully conducted  psi retrocausal studies (as the experiments conducted by Dick Bierman of the University of Amsterdam  , Dean Radin’s work with IONS  and Daryl Bem’s Meta analysis of “presentiment” experiments ) , attitudes are slowly changing.  Likewise, the long-standing implications of the “Quantum Eraser Effect,” (explored along with other “entanglement” issues by MIT’s Seth Lloyd, who posits that the Universe may be like a quantum computer), University of Vienna’s Anton Zeilinger’s   experimental production of a posteriori quantum entanglement (apparently after particles have ceased to exist) and other important discoveries are opening scientific minds to an understanding that retrocausal influences are dynamically real influences is gradually being recognized.

Into this discussion now enters French scientist Philippe Guillemant ( who has structured an interesting model called “The Theory of Double Causality.” This model is not only praised by our esteemed colleague Jacques Vallée but –in my estimation- its main tenets seem to entail some of the reasons why ETs (apparently not just from ‘our’ physical realm but from alternative physical sub-realms more connected with “supraphysical,” Subtle Realm functioning) proceed as they do. In a universe (or Multiverse) in which the “common currency” seems to be “information structuring reality,” an issue of “their” interest or need seems to be the “management of experience” (their experience). It seems to me that we humans have a potential to connect with or to access already established timelines in a manner which “they” cannot.  This possibility becomes evident either in the interest varieties of “greys” and others seem to have upon the nature of our feelings (perhaps linked with our deep and soul-secluded, creative ways to connect with and-or ‘manifest’ realities) or in what allegedly benign ET “older brothers” and ET “guides” have directly told some contactees as, for instance, within the long-standing (since the 1970’s) “Mission Rahma” contact movement: .  To be more precise, in this multiple contactee case focused upon altruism and often upon young, enthusiastic Latin Americans (in spite of some misinterpretations of the ET messages and human errors also among some of the alleged contactees) the human power to compassionately modify destructive prophecies (through a conscious alignment of body, mind, will, action, feeling and spirit) has constantly been reiterated along with broad, inspiring messages that recognize that our human power is ultimately much greater than “theirs.” In fact, “they” appear to have repeatedly said that, while “they” have to use technology to enhance “their” reality-modification activities (limited by their focus upon mental capacities and their tepid feelings), we can effect a wider multi universe-modifying connection among what they called the three main “universes” (the Physical, Mental and Spiritual universes).  This is due to the fact that we possess deeper feelings which can connect with the higher planes of existence and because we are a product of the combination of multiple ET races and their capacities with indigenous, hominid evolution on Earth. “They” also have said that we have the potential to modify the history of a large portion of the Cosmos while simultaneously affecting “their” and our timelines.  “They” still say that, the choice for the highest (unbeknownst to them) outcome must be creatively and uniquely ours, that “they” cannot openly interfere with our progress in becoming self aware and in making our collective decisions. “They” say that not all ETs coming to Earth are of the same benign, general intentions and that, although “they” are protecting us from unwarranted incursions, some rogue ET entities have gained the right to interact in a limited way with us. “They” say that “we” were placed on Earth with genetic contributions from many (mostly human-like and sometimes warrior-like) ET species because we could eventually help them to get collectively unstuck from the (high but currently immobile) degree of evolution “they” have already reached, one excessively dependent on their logical minds and technology. A link to a consensus of messages received within Mission Rahma can be found at:

So, after all, how could we get closer to the “cosmic guild” of those who know how to change their lives by changing timelines? Maybe we should pay attention to Philippe Guillemant’s “Theory of Double Causality” Seven Key Points:

  1. Our destiny is already realized in the form of a temporal line.
  2. Our temporal line is not fixed: It can be replaced by another line parallel with the present (in the Multiverse’s network). 
  3. All that which is not determined by the past is determined by the future.
  4. The function of present time is not to create reality (it already is created) but to choose our common future by the cumulative effect of all our consciousnesses.
  5. Election is difficult because our free will generally is illusory: Authentic freedom requires a mental unconditioning and a spiritual awakening.
  6. Every change in the temporal line is made by gliding, sliding or displacement along the supplementary interior dimensions of the Universe.
  7. Love is the essence of this gliding or sliding toward interior space (7D?), like gravitation is for exterior space (3D): We attract and are attracted by that which we love.

Besides the work of Philippe Guillemant (which today is mostly found in French) I (often) recommend the profuse and highly informative compendium on retrocausality (including the human intuitive perception of retrocausal influences) by Antonella Vannini’s works on “Syntropy.” An available link is:

 In Frank Visser’s “Integral World,” a web site which explores “theories of everything” and in which Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory” (which I think has elements of a trans-parochial universal theory ETs might relate with) is creatively criticized and reviewed, Oleg Linetsky presents us far-reaching ideas compatible with how “reality” is manifested and with this essay’s theme. In Linetsky’s ideas, the importance of FEELING is emphasized. If I’m correct, feelings are understood as ways to bring coherence into our experiential worlds; as responses of our embodied consciousness in relation to inevitable, primordial, pre-cognitive (and –in my view- retrocausally pre-conscious) experiential “energy tensions” or “conflicts” appearing due to the fundamental existence of “boundaries” created by the (conceptually) paradoxical coexistence between consciousness in its absolute character and consciousness as an entity experientially embedded in its own relative Kosmos.

 If my reading of Linetsky is correct, these “conflicts” (of which five main essential kinds are posited and which, I assume, should affect every kind embodied consciousness, including ETs, however advanced) would be caused by four fundamental and unequal ways in which all embodied consciousnesses are required to interpret and harmonize how their experience of “reality” or of the Kosmos comes into actual being.  The first two essential “conflicts” would relate to Ken Wilber’s discovery that all which arises in the Kosmos expresses in four distinct ways. The three other essential “conflicts” would be caused by how we interiorly experience the influence of the Kosmos’ three main realms of existence (also in relation to the four main ways anything in the Kosmos is expressed).

Retrocausality-related conflicts would correspond to attempts to bring more personal experiential coherence and resolution to at least one of the five main “energy tensions” or “conflicts” posited by Linetsky (the conflict arising from the dichotomy between a Gross, stably patterned experience and a Subtle, more fluid, varied and experimental one).  These “tensions” affecting every sentient being are generated by how our embodied consciousnesses respond to the simultaneously tensional arising of Interior vs. Exterior aspects, Individual vs. Collective aspects (summing up Wilber’s four quadrants of the Kosmos), Gross (physical) vs. Subtle aspects, Subtle vs. Causal aspects and Causal vs. Natural Non-Dual aspects.  Please also note that the recognition of non-physical realms (the Subtle and Causal) in embodied experiential influence is utilized to attempt to understand the predicament all embodied beings have to face. In my view, the recognition of non-physical realms with which our consciousnesses may be experientially connected and with which our particular physical universe may interact and depend upon is of great scientific and philosophical importance. In a metaphysical sense, non-physical realms may be understood as potentially real for us experientially focused in ‘our’ particular physical universe. In a metaphysical sense, we could say that Subtle and Causal realities are time-shifted into our probable futures. Our actual experiences may be potentially conditioned in a modifiable way by how we align our experiences with these non-physical realms, not unlike to how Guillemant posits that we can change our timelines by choosing in relation to already existing futures (which even if existing in their own right can also be considered as “potential” until connected with).

 These issues may be hard to understand at first but please let us hone our interpretive skills to get a better grip on what is going on. Let’s try to boost our understanding of the nature of reality to share a common language with beings which may come from “supraphysical” universes. Searching for a scientific and metaphysical understanding of the interactive nature of our Physical Realm with non-physical realms has been a common theme in my other writings. Please, as more inclusive-integral persons, as exopoliticians, as philosophers, as scientists, as UFO researchers and as responsible, concerned, thinking beings, let’s try to develop an updated scientific and philosophical foundation which may be useful in our attempts to make sense of the complex world(s) of Exopolitics, ETs, UFOs, Disclosure and even the related subject of human survival after bodily death. This, along with our healthy, integrative intentions is part of our preparation to establish a closer, mutually beneficial exchange with our selves and with other cosmic civilizations. Along these lines, let’s make an attempt to delve into more encompassing, coherent models such as Ken Wilber’s (still incomplete but evolving) “Integral Theory.” Let’s attempt to develop a careful understanding of what kind of a Multiverse or living Kosmos we might be in if retrocausality is a fact and if deep existential propositions like those found in Linetsky’s “Open Letter to Ken Wilber and Integral Teachers” are valid. A link to Linetsky’s work is found at:

By Giorgio Piacenza

Why “They” Don’t Contact Us

What is the deepest problem with humanity? Besides the mechanistic, scarcity “paradigm(s)” with which we are collectively operating from and, besides the political self interest, cover-ups, etc, I think that the main reason why even most of the ET beings (among an apparent substantial variety) don’t seem too interested in unequivocal disclosure is that our human minds inevitably generate conflict due to more psychic attention given to physical-biologically defined primordial instincts. This doesn’t mean that there’s no solution besides genetic engineering or, perhaps, a higher dimension ascension-promoting vibration taking over the planet (as some channelers have allegedly transmitted from higher sources), for example. This situation doesn’t mean that we can’t rely up to a point on our own souls, our wills and The Universal Spiritual force to change ourselves. It means that the problem is really DEEP and usually unrecognized, even by most pro-disclosure activists and UFO researchers. It is our own human innate reactions (that may, for instance, manifest as not wanting to know about higher worlds, possibilities and “spiritual evolution” or as becoming simplistically over-enthusiastic if we are open to believe). BOTH are problems of the human mind and naturally arising sentiment attached to a physical-biologically programmed instinct. The physical world tells us that that most anything is not to be trusted and this generates a sense of fear and a need to be selfish or to defend from other genuinely selfish humans or those also acting from a self-defensive attitude.

I’ll say that mentally and technologically advanced (perhaps even Multiverse-shifting inter-dimensional) ETs won’t risk altering us even further. They won’t risk further stranging us from a possibility to reconnect with higher aspects of our natures. I think that “they” have observed us way past beyond our paradigms and those power groups concealing “the truth” from us. They know that the main issue is deeper than these secondary factors and than even what disclosure activists and most advanced integral and-or holistic thinkers normally muster about or suspect. We unavoidably create and re-create unnecessary divisions in many, many painful, life-limiting ways, at personal, local, nationwide, international and inter-species levels and, unless we know why, we’ll continue to do so. We do it primarily because, upon being born, we greatly disconnect from a natural knowledge of higher worlds and of the ways they function.

Power and control groups restricting freedom and information out of selfishness, or fear or patriotism are an important effective factor but, ultimately, they also are products of the main problem. These groups are a natural outcome of our innate, earthly human nature, a nature stubbornly more influenced by a pre-verbal, instinctive sense of limitation than of abundance. This may be why during abductions, some varieties of ET elicit our more atavistic emotions and observe us ‘eye to eye’ closely. They may not only be trying to see or understand our crudest “human emotions” (due to their lack in this area). They may be trying to connect with our hidden, non-physical, higher instincts which still show through in spite of our blockages. This may be why even the apparently spiritual and respectful “space brother” types mostly give us advice, platitudes, warnings and generalities. Probable associations of ET groups and independent groups (either benevolent, needy, atrophied, curious, rogue, too exotic for us to understand and even –perhaps- unkind) may all know that without our pre-verbal connection with instincts related with non physical realities, they’ll not be able to relate.

I think that we may need to learn how to connect with non-physical, non-biological, “higher” Subtle body-related instincts to supersede, include and transcend the mindsets and paradigms associated to the more elemental physical-biological instincts. We need to understand our lives in higher bodies and higher worlds. Who we are in relation to non-physical worlds should not be boring, uninteristing or fear-laden.

Without a pre-verbal and deeply felt connection with our higher body instincts we won’t be able to take spiritual ethical teachings or the  rational (nowadays “ecological”) need to respect the natural world and all living beings seriously. We won’t be able to “love” or respect our “neighbors” and we won’t be able to know ourselves in them, as them.

Thinking other more inclusive, non-mechanistic paradigms may be useful but insufficient. Continuing to develop technological gadgets (however they will change how we physical and social patterns) is insufficient. We need to understand that the origin of the physical worlds and their value is in non-physical worlds and, eventually, in spiritual ones. We need to understand the “cosmic rules” already living in us. We also need to make otherworldly phenomena scientifically understandable to realize that we are part of a much grander Multi Realm Multiverse with multiple Physical and Subtle Realm worlds and interacting sub-worlds. This theoretical “making sense” may help us to become more comfortable with who we are as, up to a point, it would be associated with knowing ourselves and (as Socrates and Plato may have agreed) this is a liberating knowledge which leads to the Good and to genuine happiness.

Advice and holistic or integral paradigms are useful but, in themselves, are not enough without including in a deep, kind feeling (in a deep sense of reality) a recognition that the other worldly already exists in us. It must be a set of realities with which (at this stage in our collective development) we should no more feel distant and therefore in adoration or in rejection by also being so uncomfortable. Being comfortable with the other worldly is crucial; it is key to accepting ourselves, animals, plants, all sentients and, therefore, also thinking-feeling beings from other civilizations…accepting them as equals in spite of their degrees of advancement and intentions. Then respect will promote a sense of natural reciprocity (like in the Inca-Andean “Yanantin” practices) and of equality or brotherhood (like it should be in the Inca-Andean “Masintin” practices). Without accepting that our roots rest in higher worlds (from which even “advanced “ETs equally depend) we’ll generate conflict with “them” as we already inescapably do on Planet Earth among us.

Once again, the issue of preparing for contact is deeper than normally thought (even by most forward thinking contactees, researchers and activists). This is so because it includes re-acquiring or, rather, reconnecting with other instincts that inform our minds and sentiments differently. These instincts tell us that reality at its core is quite different. It is not simply a matter of demanding justice to our authorities or of creating a better paradigm as both of these actions may motivate some progress but still generate more conflict. It is not simply a matter of re-acquiring a sense of spiritual sovereignty and that “we can create our own reality.” It is not a matter of being a good Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Indian or of surrendering to a “Higher Power”,  if we block out a natural sense of how this “Higher Power” has manifested higher worlds wihin a creative order calling upon us. Without deeply feeling the influence of other more inclusive, spiritually favorable instincts connected to higher non-physical realms, we won’t be able to live up to the expectations and standards set by the most reasonable philosophy, however true it may be; we can’t be sufficiently peaceful and kind to all sentients even if possessign a deeply religious, pious and, even, broadly compassionate sense; we can’t genuinely live in a  “Heaven on Earth” if we are sincere new agers. We won’t be able to do it without unendingly finding or creating good or bogus reasons to have more conflicts in relation with each other.

The only solution I see is connecting with the normally unrecognized instincts associated with the subtler bodies, bodies which we already inhabit and which operate under different laws closer to the expression of universal principles. Otherwise, we’ll just generate and regenerate all kinds of enmity, dichotomic divisions, conflict, pain, further cycles of cruelty and abuse and unfulfilled, unrealistic expectations. The instincts giving us our sense of what is real and what is not, of what matters and what doesn’t, are more crucial. “They” won’t contact us thoroughly, openly, unequivocally even if technology (like quantum computers and what not) blooms on Earth; “they” will contact us thoroughly when our minds, feelings and tendencies are “rewired” and re-informed by connecting to instincts that reflect the greater safety and less scarcity of higher worlds which are not subject to macro inertial, entropic physical laws. Then we’ll know not just theoretically but in a deep, personal sense that the Physical Realm depends upon the higher Subtle, mental Realm and that physical laws are good but not absolutely binding. Then we’ll know that there are in fact other genuinely applicable possibilities and we might be able to use emerging technologies connected with these higher realms without almost inevitably destroying ourselves, our planet or finding reasons to attack intelligent sentients from other worlds.

By Giorgio Piacenza C.

Toward a Multi-Realm Multiverse Theory Suitable for Contact

How can we effectively promote social acceptance and comfort with the possibility of extraterrestrial and otherworldly encounters? Our minds heavily influenced by instincts affecting us through our physical bodies or through our biology as pre-verbal needs of immediate, intuitively Newtonian physical survival  interests seem to be at odds with any unusual inter-realm related events that produce physically detectable effects. Unless we are even more inspired by other instincts of a higher nature in touch with the higher realms which our non-physical bodies inhabit, we seem to find ourselves at odds and dumbfounded. Neither the full implications of quantum physics nor any physics of the paranormal or of  inter dimensional-inter-realm contacts seem to be widely realized nor to harmonize with the physical, mechanistic survival instincts and this is a major problem impeding acceptance, progress and comfort in the UFO field.  Nevertheless, in my understanding, we also need to become familiar with a physical theory deeply dependent upon information and the mind sin order to establish a common ground with any advanced extraterrestrial entities capable of escaping from mechanistic, linear, physical limitations.

Returning to the issue of our psychological wherewithal, we need to understand how our human minds operate in order to make sense of our responses to the UFO phenomenon and hopefully through this stimulate an awakening of the higher instincts given by the higher bodies and eventually make collective and individual strides in our relation with the whole Cosmos. We indeed seem to be collectively attached to a physical-biological way of making sense of our experiences and this way is inimical to a healthy and practical appreciation of otherworldly phenomena. Our physical-biological instincts adapted to a highly entropic world tell us in a very deep and influential way that only a mechanistic world makes sense and these same instincts may distort us into unconsciously reacting as gullible believers or as over-skeptical deniers. In the first case we are surrendering our independence to greater “others” and in the second case we are denying aspects of who we already are. 

As exopoliticians we should seriously ask what’s really going on with the human mind to simplify and react with denial or with gullibility. Why do skeptics take exclusivist sides on the UFO phenomenon? More poignantly, why do non skeptics also take exclusivist sides on it? Why should we tend to prefer a particular contact experience, unproven inspiring message or leader, picking and choosing among not too many carefully considered options with little serious analysis and insight? Why is objectivity so influenced by feeling? Aren’t  non skeptics responding as radically in their own ways as close-minded skeptics?

We need to understand our human psychological responses to the unknown in order to better understand our own participation with the UFO phenomenon and with other reality-challenging phenomena of physical consequence. We pick and choose so lightly according to our preferences in a field of inquiry that is quite complex. Do we prefer to study or become passionate about the cover-up, about contacts and contactees and their inspiring messages?  Do we only render credible a “nuts and bolts” approach? Are abductions more credible than “space brothers”?  Is ascension as explained through channeling more suitable than inquiring about secret  technology? Off course all of these themes are also somewhat associated in our understandings but most of us also have preferences that exclude a dispassionate analysis of all aspects. Is this a natural human response to uncertainty, especially an uncertainty in which otherworldly phenomena give rise to physically detectable events?

I believe that, unless we come to understand some of the basics of a universal knowledge applicable to the physical, psychological, spiritual and social sciences, we won’t have a sufficient common basis to dialogue with more advanced Multiverse-faring civilizations. In the new and developing idea of the “Multiverse” we should perhaps even  consider that it may extend beyond the realm of physicality. By understanding the laws behind iner-realm interactions we may get a deeper appreciation of the origin of physical universes and of their qualitative aspects.

The idea that there are non-physical realms may be a key concept that needs to be carefully developed in order to find common ground with advanced civilizations capable of moving across our physical universe, other physical universes and-or different kinds of universes. The idea of three main kinds of realms correlating with Physical, Mental and Spiritual characteristics should be considered, even to develop a more updated scientific understanding. In this regard, philosopher of science Karl Popper’s proposal of “three worlds” intrigues me. In spite of his materialist stance, in this proposal the recognition of qualitative aspects in what can be theoretically understood opens up and, in my view, unless we better understand how qualitative aspects relate with quantitative ones, theories in which choice plays an important part will not move beyond their current lack of predictability and internal coherence. The scope of these theories may include higher forms of physics and the workings of the mind-body problem as well as paranormal and ufological events.  I definitely think that scientists working with non classical (perhaps “quantum” and related) physical theories also currently need to make bold moves to understand the relation of exterior, objective “Matter” with information, evaluation and consciousness.

Thus, physical scientists, social scientists, ufologists and paranormalists may have to open their minds in a non-classical, counter- intuitive way. They may also have to delve into metaphysical issues concerning the nature of reality. The question is how to do it without our minds being distorted by our instinctive blindly favorable and blindly rejectful reactions towards “strangeness.” For instance falling into misguided flights of prophetic-like fancy taken for well-established facts as seems to be the case of some enthusiastic new agers and many genuine and alleged contactees.

All kinds of scientists may have to eventually open their minds against their physically-biologically originating distorting-misinterpreting instincts and do so in a non-classical, counter intuitive way against their intimate “matter of fact” sense of what is and is not “real.”  Will this be done without a new kind of “cargo cult” reaction? Will this be done without falling into magical-mythical forms of thinking in which self worth is typically linked with the need to please “superior” deities? Again, can it be done both without a crude rejection of higher spiritual truths and without misguided flights of gullible fancy taken for well-established facts? Well, perhaps it may be done (without genetic modification?) only if the human mind already possesses untapped resources in a higher instinctual contact with the truths or ways of higher realms and if it is flexible enough to educate itself to the point of transcending and including its more primitive instincts. There must be a natural, eye-opening recognition that we already are participants in the “otherworldly,” that we originate in it, that our human constitution extends into other realms and depends upon them, that we can tap into an instinctive sense of safety in relation to other realms and to other vehicles of consciousness we possess in them. Moreover, I think that developing improved theories which can have practical and applicable consequences in relation to otherworldly phenomena would also contribute to the process of becoming comfortable with various manifestations of the otherworldly. Nevertheless, this means that the adequate theoretician on these matters will likely have to connect his or her scientific predispositions to the improvement of essentialist, emanationist, panentheistic metaphysical concepts and to non physical related phenomena.

Regarding future theoretical directions, I think that the relation between the “three worlds” needs to be worked out more clearly. An interesting source of ideas may be Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory” (which still needs improvement to adequately deal with otherworldly phenomena). In this theory, every event, every detail of reality, eventually recognized as a “holon” or part which is also a whole to other parts is hierarchically connected. I think that even entire realms of existence could be considered as holons and that our Physical Universe may itself be part of a Mental-Subtle Realm. Perhaps an infinite number of physical universes would be part of the Mental-Subtle Realm. Interestingly, each holon (no matter how encompassing or small in the number of sublevels or parts it contains) would possess an Interior psychological aspect, an Exterior material aspect, a single-individual or unitary aspect and a plural-collective aspect.  Within a single holon these aspects are said to correlate or to manifest all together in a simultaneous way and no event or occasion is without them. The four main aspects would be the result of duality and they would exist whenever or wherever there is duality…including all of manifestation and the three main realms variously posited through different mystical and esoteric traditions. Nevertheless, what could their relation be like as aspects of holons relating across realms? Extending these concepts to realms relating as holons would be useful to begin deducing the kinds of relations among them. We would find that the Interiors and Exteriors of higher realms would not manifest with the same intensity as the ones of lower realms. For instance, matter or substance would be less intense and influential in the Subtle Realm than in the Physical Realm. I would also expect(speaking in terms of an emanationist essentialism) the Interior, subjective, experiential aspect to be more dominant so that, generally speaking, Exteriors would conform to it. In other words, there would be a differential relation across realms and this would render an interaction (perhaps a unique kind of exchange of forces) possible. This would also mean that a scientific approach to inter-realm activity would be possible.  

 Another interesting idea (sometimes brought forth by contactees) is that physical universes may come in different varieties and themselves display various degrees of etherealization. My idea is that the various so- called “densities” of different physical universes may occur according to how intensely they interact with the Mental-Subtle and Causal realms. Some extraterrestrial beings may come from less physically restrictive physical universes and by this I mean, from universes in which experience depends less upon exterior causes. In these universes, the influence of the Mental-Subtle Realm in which its matter or substance apparently responds to Interior mental causes without delay may be stronger. For instance, in these universes inertia may be weaker.

Furthermore, how a theory holds on internally and how it corresponds to empirical verifications would remain important.  I think that our theories can indeed improve in order to embrace and explain more of the paranormal, the mind-body problem, inter-realm and inter-dimensional physics, the physics of extraterrestrial spacecraft and so forth. Also Popper’s idea of “falsification” (or being able to refute a theory) is adequate as it renders theories open to modification through a scientific objective approach. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to be refuted at all costs but that Popper’s idea is more like a normally useful recommendation or guideline like the so-called “Occam’s Razor” is. Even other realms may be suited for scientific exploration through physical instruments that interact with Subtle matter or by using our Subtle and Causal matter senses through collective experimentation and validation or refuttal. Our quest for better knowledge is constant and may progress towards the infinite. 

 Popper’s “World One” reminds me of what in Vedanta, Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory and Theosophy could be called the “Physical Realm,” “World Two” reminds me of the “Mental and/or Subtle Realm” and “World Three” of the “Causal Realm” or world of first principles and first causes. This series could be typically associated with the “Body-Mind-Spirit” metaphysical trilogy. Now, by extending Ken Wilber’s integral model, I understand that each “realm” has an Interior and an Exterior aspect. Every thing describale or recognizable in a dualistic way does.

Popper’s distinction between “World Two” from “World Three” may not be clearly understood as the nature of the Causal or “seed” world may transcend Popper’s understanding of abstract concepts. Moreover, a clear understanding of this issue doesn’t seem to be shared among proponents of the more recognized modern and premodern esoteric schools from the East, the Middle East and the West. Broadly speaking, these “three worlds” seem to have a more direct connection with Vedanta.  Moreover, Andean cosmological thinking seems to somewhat agree with it as three worlds have also been traditionally posited as far back as for thousands of years (In “Caral” America’s oldest urban center  the stair-like symbol used by the Incas to represent the three worlds has been found).

In the basic 5000 or more years-old Andean cosmology (also inherited by the Incas) there’s an underground world (the normally chaotic and past-oriented world of the deceased, now sometimes associated with the subconscious mind), there’s the world of actual or ‘present’ experience (normally associated with people living in the physical world and now is often associated with the conscious mind) and there’s the higher, future-oriented, heavenly world of abstract ideas and cosmic principles which today is sometimes associated with the higher, supraconscious or cosmic mind. These worlds are called “UKU Pacha,” “KAY Pacha” and “HANAN Pacha” respectively. Persons (called “Runa” in the Quechua Inca language) are said to be able to officiate as a bridge to connect the three worlds. Could we say that his or her consciousness “collapses the wave functions” that appear as possibilities in relation to the lower and higher worlds correspondingly centered in the past and the future?

Are you familiar with the Kabbhala? If the upper trilogy of the transcendental divine Being (Ain, Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur) is part of a transcultural, intuitive and rational discovery of three main subdivisions, it may be represent three-in-one transcendental essences giving rise to each of the three main (Causal, Subtle, Physical) realms which would be like their reflections within manifestation, appearance or duality. Expressing through the realms, these three “essences” would be outside of manifested duality but also within its manifestation: “Ain” would correspond with and give rise to the Causal Realm; “Ain Soph” would correspond with and give rise to the Subtle Realm and “Ain Soph Aur” to the Physical Realm. Furthermore, the material exteriors of each realm would be different in that they would respectively respond to physical causes, mental causes and spiritual principle causes.

The Light of the “Ain Soph Aur” essence could be understood as the origin of all the gradations of material exteriors and subdivisions in all of the hierarchically connected realms and their sub-realms. A good theoretical understanding of how these realms relate and interact would be a crucial part of a more complete theoretical model applicable both to physical and non physical sciences. This would be the beginning of an understanding which would perhaps be like a common language shared with older and-or more advanced civilizations in the Cosmos which would have some form of Panentheistic understanding.

 This higher, threefold, mystically and rationally-intuited aspects of the Infinite may also correspond to similar intuitions in other religious traditions as in the Christian Trinity since in mystical Christianity the “Father” (as “Ain”) can be considered as that of which nothing can be positively said, “Ain Soph” as the first definition of the limitless (akin to the Logos) and “Ain Soph Aur” as the infinite Light (akin to the Holy Spirit through which non dual “God” creates (by diminishing its plenum and allowing potential entities to express) and maintains a connection with the dependent and apparently real Cosmos). In this little referred to level of mystical understanding within some religious cultural traditions there are shared principles which the rigorous perennialist thinker Fritjoff Schuon elaborates upon.  Regardless, the idea of Three Principles (both transcendental but reflected and embedded in the Cosmos) often comes up and I think that (with his own modern-era version) Karl Popper recognized a basic metaphysical pattern that is too profound to ignore.

As a materialist and classical modern era thinker, Popper seems to have proposed an emergentist metaphysical solution making the physical “World One” primary for the emergence of the other two. Nonetheless, in spite of appearances to the contrary, “World One” would originate in “World Two” and “World Two” in “World Three.” While, from a non-dual perspective, these distinctions may be meaningless, from a conceptual and principial perspective the ‘higher’ (meaning more essential) cannot originate from the ‘lower’. Thus, while in a relative sense emergentism may be plausible, from a principial sense it is not. Nonetheless, they may complement from a dialectic, organicist perspective pointing towards a mutually implied, infinitely recursive, non dual relation.

I think that the relation between the “three worlds” proposed by Karl Popper needs to be understood more clearly in order to learn how visitors from exo civilizations move in and out of our particular physical reality and throughout the “Multiverse” (which should be considered to extend beyond our Physical Universe or physical universes into Mental-Subtle sub-realms and also into highly abstract, universal principle, Causal sub-realms). Already cosmologists are considering that the physical universe or Multiverse originates with information. Will it be long before information is understood as making sense or existing only if recognized by consciousness? The way the three main realms may relate could be principial and metaphysical but also interactive as their exterior material aspects may be said to interact. In this way the qualitative and the quantitative may complement still leaving room for a material scientific approach under a more inclusive view of what “matter” is.

Logical internal coherence and correspondence to empirical reality is part of the legacy or contributions from the Modern Era (which in spite of the practical materialism it originated also served to free many millions from poverty, ignorance, slavery and decease) and I think that it still  needs to be recognized even if we feel spiritually and emotionally predisposed to also recognize a magic and mythic sense of reality. We must understand that (before the extraordinary events granted by UFO and plausible extraterrstrial contacts) subdivisions within the UFO and disclosure movements reflect our more often than not mutually excluding interpretive preferences. This needs to change if we don’t want to be permanent unconscious promoters our own undoing as exopoliticians. An INTEGRAL attitude towards all aspects of the UFO phenomenon is needed -for instance- to move beyond “contacteism vs. nuts and bolts” exclusivist preferences and beyond other such simple dichotomies. An integral attitude should promote closeness with our “exocivilized” visitors.

By Giorgio Piacenza C.

Copyright © 2018 Exopolitics Institute News Service. All Rights Reserved.