Archived podcast for paid Subscribers only. Please login to access.
Hot on the heels of last week’s Dreamland, famed experiencer, visual FX wizard, and author of But Something Is There, Steve Neill joins us on The Experience for the first time–and for a completely new round of questions!
 
Find out about Steve’s series of multimedia projects on his webpage: www.steveneillsgarage.com.

 

16 Comments

  1. Hi Jeremy,
    Regarding your

    Hi Jeremy,
    Regarding your question about why the more awakened among the western culture don’t simply turn back to the earlier oneness cultures as the answer, I think it’s because that’s not the aim of the evolutionary force, rather it’s to assert or, re-assert, that oneness from within the separation-consciousness of the western culture. In other words, that separation-consciousness arose originally as a challenge to that oneness-consciousness, if it can accept and be victorious in that challenge then it will be stronger and more comprehensive than it ever was before. That’s the nature and the process of the evolution; not to go backwards, even if apparent conditions would improve, but to accept all challenges, because in overcoming them it gains a strength and security that would otherwise not have been possible.

    Our human consciousness cannot comprehend the strength of the evolutionary force. I once had a dream where I felt the burden of a dead world, and I saw it from the point of view of the evolutionary force. It was not the least bit discouraged nor disheartened, it simply took up its work and began to evolve again. Time, the incomprehensible time it would take, had hardly any meaning to it.

  2. Actually, my question was
    Actually, my question was narrower than that–Why don’t experiencers (or even interested people who “believe”)–turn to those who claim to be in contact for, like, some pointers on how to make contact? The answer may ultimately turn out to be something we have to deal with on our own, in the vein you’re talking about, to get right within ourselves first. But that question is a step beyond the basic, “These people say they’re doing what we dream about doing. Why are we ignoring them?”

    It’s an especially good question in light of all that we see of their other ways of being in the world that we once disregarded on prejudicial grounds, but now are taken for granted as correct or beneficial.

    1. Well, the experiences may be
      Well, the experiences may be the same, or of the same source in both cultures, but the context and purpose would be radically different for each. How far along the ‘experience’ continuum must a western mind(set) go before they even recognize the sameness? If you take the lessons they teach, and not necessarily the experiences themselves as the essence of the matter, how far can the common ground really take each? Will they really have anything significant to say to each other except, of course, at the end?

  3. It’s great to hear Steve’s
    It’s great to hear Steve’s voice so clearly, as opposed to during the Dreamland interview, where I often couldn’t catch what was being said, due to dropouts, or reduced connection quality.

    Anyway, as is often the case when I listen to these interviews, I kind of Zen-out, like I’m in a trance, or something…but in a good way…and I often have thoughts buzzing around my mind when I come to, that I feel I need to get down…nothing new, I’m sure…but here they are…

    I wonder why the phenomena discussed changes over time?…like shifting sands in a desert, you come back to the same spot after some time and the topology has changed…you’re lost, disoriented…it can’t just be for fun, surely? Is it so we don’t get bored…so we don’t just pass off an experience with a plausible explanation?… so the ‘No, this is something else’ thought is still present?

    If so, is there something about that state of mind, that thought, that forces us to evolve? If we move away from the nuts and bolts alien hypothesis and towards something to do with consciousness, I have to ask myself again, ‘What is the source of it?’…maybe us, maybe the Universe…I’m not sure anymore there is a difference…but I get a sense of a paradox, like trying to pull yourself up with your own bootstraps…the Universe, this consciousness, forcing itself to evolve – the monolith and the monkey.

    It reminded me on some level of the book Supernatural by Graham Hancock, where it is suggested the explosion of consciousness depicted in cave art starting around 40,000 years ago, may have coincided with the availability of naturally occurring hallucinogens, like psilocybin.

    It’s almost as if the Earth itself was forcing this evolution…so could the modern day equivalent of this be the multifaceted phenomena we’ve been hearing about on the Experience? If so, is it the Earth again? Is it that consciousness is demanding its own evolution?…but because we don’t recognise ourselves as being connected to that source, we assume the demand to be external? The Universe, the Earth, Humans…these phenomena…the lines are so blurred…it feels like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with your eyes closed…maybe that’s just where we need to be.

    Going back to the monkey and the monolith from 2001, maybe we could have our own movie premise…where the obsidian black of the monoliths, morphs into the dark eyes of the visitors…both the tool of an unknown force, sent to accomplish whatever needs to be done…in forcing our (/ its own?) evolution.

    1. That’s an interesting
      That’s an interesting question Sherbet, but is the changing nature of the phenomena native to it, or to us? Does it change similarly for those in the heart-culture, which is a culture in which change is more a reflection of cosmic rhythms, slower and more comprehensible, as opposed to ours, in which change is something we seemingly instigate, and yet are at the same time its helpless victims? That fact alone makes the world less comprehensible to us. In standing on our own, we inevitably discover we have no ground to stand upon. The phenomena may reflect that reality back to us, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re in it up to their chins as well…

  4. Star Trek nerd alert: For
    Star Trek nerd alert: For what it’s worth, I’ve heard a few vaguely different incarnations of the story behind the writing of “Fire In The Sky” in interviews with Tracy Torme, and he almost always acknowledges that he ‘sold out’ on the fictionalized abduction sequence, and always has regret that it went down that way. I think these days Torme wishes he hadn’t given in on rewriting the last act to suit the studio, and has lamented to that effect publicly.
    I also remember another interview with Torme where he told a story about asking Gene Roddenberry about the UFO question in the mid-80s, during the production of Star Trek: The Next Generation (and also during the period where Torme was writing and trying to sell “Fire In The Sky”). Torme said that Roddenberry was extremely dismissive of the phenomenon as a whole, and very sternly reprimanded Torme for even indulging it, strongly recommending him to abandon his interest in it both personally and professionally. Although, like Steve Neill said in the interview, there have been persistent rumors for years that Roddenberry did have some kind of experience earlier in life that led to him wanting to launch Star Trek, and apparently was much more amenable to the phenomenon in the 60s and 70s.

    1. Am I wrong in thinking that
      Am I wrong in thinking that the story of Gene Roddenberry having been influenced by “aliens” to do Star Trek (or maybe Star Trek Next Gen writers?) came from disgraced remote viewer Courtney Brown?

      1. That’s probably the case
        That’s probably the case given Torme’s first person account. Roddenberry was similar in his world view to Rod Serling; both were “rational moralists”. In using the Sci-Fi meme to convey his message, he implied that humanities survival and prosperity depended on finding an innate morality which was fully independent of any religious or racial foundations. Serling had the same message but used the Supernatural meme to convey it, the latter of which I’ve read he actually didn’t believe in. Since this type of mental independence is a prerequisite to arrive at a moral world view based on it, it isn’t surprising he would give the advice he did to Torme, especially since the phenomena’s reflection in humanity at the time seemed to threaten an Adamskian religious turn, which he would probably see as a threat to the mental independence that was the foundation of his morality.

      2. From the one book of Courtney
        From the one book of Courtney Brown’s I read (“Cosmic Voyage”), he seemed to draw heavily on elements of Star Trek in building/’describing’ the universe he’d ‘viewed’ to the point of basically using Trek motifs as shorthand in his various claimed extraterrestrial contacts, in addition to making claims that aliens had implanted all these ideas of intergalactic federations and prime directives, etc, in Roddenberry so that he might go forth and prepare us for how the larger galactic community supposedly worked… but I don’t know that Brown claimed direct contacts between aliens and Roddenberry (Brown definitely claimed telepathic idea implantation from afar, though).
        As far as Brown being the first one to say Roddenberry was influenced by aliens, I don’t think so. There’s a really trashy book called “Captain Quirk: The Unauthorized Biography of William Shatner” which came out a year before Brown’s “Cosmic Voyage,” which discusses how Shatner is rumored to have had a bunch of alien contacts while making the original series, and heavily implied that most of the original cast and crew were all abductees/contactees during that time, too. I believe all those “Roddenberry got Trek from the aliens that time he saw a flying saucer!” rumors had been floating around since the 60s before starting to come out in interviews around the time of Roddenberry’s death in 1991, and I’ve hardly researched exhaustively those rumors’ origins, but the “Quirk” book was the first time I can recall that I’d seen them in print. It is probable that Brown’s version of the story is more widely known, though, given that his books were more popular than an exploitative ‘tell-all unauthorized biography.’
        Also, I clearly know way too much about Star Trek. 😀

        1. In light of these new facts,
          In light of these new facts, I speculate that Sylvia Brown’s dead great aunt inspired My Mother the Car.

          1. Sadly, I remember that
            Sadly, I remember that show…Trust me, you youngsters missed a bullet on this one…Worst TV show…EVER. 🙂

          2. That does sound craptastic.
            That does sound craptastic. Or is it just crap?

          3. Well, we are talking about
            Well, we are talking about Sylvia Browns dead great aunt…

          4. Uh… that would be just
            Uh… that would be just crap.

  5. Jeremy & Steve,
    This was

    Jeremy & Steve,

    This was excellent, thanks for sharing.
    Look forward to seeing the show when it’s ready.

    -SD

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.