Dr. Mack Responds to Psychology Today Article
Distributed on a list frequented by ufo researchers, July 2003

By John E. Mack, M.D.

Dear Friends/List,

I cannot comment directly on what was said in the Psychology Today article, for, like many people in this and related fields, the distortions of positions and outright misquoting is so rampant in most mainstream articles on these subjects that it is impossible to “set the record straight.” It may be unwise to give interviews at all, but there is always the hope that something useful may get across — the reporters always assure you of their openness (they may be sometimes; editors and executives is another matter). There is also the damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't problem: if you give an interview you're likely to get distorted or boxed by a twisting context; if you don't they sometimes get downright nasty.

With regard to my position on UFOs and abductions, and the criticism that I am wishy-washy and come across as confused, there is only so much that can be said.

Do I believe UFOs are real? Yes.

Do I believe they are physically real? Yes, sometimes.

Are abductions real? Yes.

Are they physically real? Yes.

But these statements must be qualified by another question:

Are they _only_ physical? No.

What does that mean?

Here is the way I would like to approach that question. At the time of my fourteen-month “trial” by a Harvard committee, I received an outpouring of support from the UFO community, and from some mainstream scientists and philosophers, for which I will be eternally grateful. Some of these individuals, especially Bruce Maccabbee and Stan Friedman, addressed specifically and in convincing detail the matter of physical evidence, for the committee reflected on many occasions how poorly informed it was on this subject. In fact, I received an avalanche of solid material documenting the physical reality of UFOs which was incorporated in the brief that my attorneys and I prepared in response to the committee's report. Needless to say, this did not convince its members, but, I believe, made them more cautious and contributed greatly to the favorable outcome. I was and am prepared to stand by what was said in our response to the committee's poorly informed assertions. With regard to Stan's comment that I accepted that “one can't get there from here,” this is simply not true. Obviously I don't know enough about engineering to comment on this at all. But the beings may not rely on our conventional technologies. That they get here, by whatever means they use is, to me incontrovertible.

In the years that I have been investigating the alien encounter phenomenon I have been impressed with many of the ambiguities and paradoxes it contains. Sometimes the contact seems physically real, but not always. Sometimes there is physical evidence, but not always, and it is often rather elusive. This has forced me — I'm not alone in this — to become more sophisticated about how we understand or think about reality.

For many scholars, including psychiatrists, philosophers and theologians, reality does not fall neatly into two categories, viz. physical or mental, external or internal. There are other dimensions of reality and phenomena can be both. Several write of a third domain, ”one that draws upon the psychological and physical, but that is reducible to neither” (Tulane Professor of Philosophy, Michael Zimmerman).

With regard to UFOs the renowned transpersonal psychiatrist, Stanislav Grof, wrote to the Harvard Committee:

“Conventional approaches to this area are characterized by thinking in terms of a simplistic dichotomy: real material events involving extraterrestrial spacecraft and alien visitors from another part of the physical universe versus hallucinations of a psychotic person.”

Grof then suggests that the discoveries of contemporary physics have

“dramatically changed the understanding of the physical universe and the relationship between consciousness and matter, yet an outdated model of reality continues to dominate the thinking in other disciplines, including psychiatry and psychology.”

The research that has been done to establish the physical reality of UFOs and abductions is of great importance, however, in my opinion, it is not sufficient for understanding these phenomena. They require — in addition to direct perception — more intuitive, holistic or “heart” knowing. For clinicians this has always been essential for learning of the experiences of other people.

The idea, a nineteenth century holdover, that we can learn about what matters to people — surely alien encounters would fall into this
category — simply by objectifying them is wrong. We must make a connection by entering their worlds and learning together. This co-creative learning process may tell us something of the physical events of a person's life. But just how to credit reports of reported abduction experiences is a complicated and important scientific question. We need to establish clearer criteria for assessing the accuracy, precision, reliability and ontological status of such reports. But even without such certainty these accounts tell us a lot more that is important — for example, about the meaning of the events, the state(s) of consciousness in which the experiences occurred, and the necessity of trying to grasp the significance of the expanded view of reality that these experiences reveal. These are huge questions that deserve a lot more attention.

With warm regards,

John

John E. Mack, M.D.
Cambridge, MA
June 24, 2003

Note from the editor of Dr. Mack's website: Dr. Mack did not read the Psychology Today article, as he prefers not to read bad reviews. Rather, this statement was a reply to discussion about the Psychology Today article.