Peace to the Sky
Sky to the Earth
Earth beneath the Sky
Strength in Everyone.
~ from Morrigu’s Prophecy

Friday, June 12, 2009

Testing and Attending to Group Coherency In Exopolitical Mediation

Testing and Attending to Group Coherency In Exopolitical Mediation
By Cyrellys Geibhendach
Copy & Distribute Freely
Compass Morainn
Compass Morainn Journal

The exopolitical mediator closely observes participant coherency or group coherency in mediation situations. The observations are used to manage the group communication perspective. A litmus test for evaluating the dialog compares and applies the most useful communication questions to the trends or events within each revolution of the discussion or communication event. This allows the mediator to recognize the development of new levels of stress associated with unfulfilled needs, and the subsequent trends transcending fair reason in participant expectations.

“Taking a communication perspective, the most useful questions are not "can you hear me?" or even "do you understand me?" They are "what are we making together?" or, referring to specific events or objects such as a person, an organization, or a culture, "how is it being made in the process of interaction?" or, "how can we make better social worlds?"” ~ W. Barnett Pearce (1)

W. Barnett Pearce discerns and illustrates the root intent of modern group communication. These questions being descriptive of the effort embodied in exopolitical communications regarding the contact paradigm can then be applied in the evaluation of the following exopolitical trend issue: would exopolitical researchers be reasonable in expecting or demanding that Insider disclosers of the Contact Paradigm violate national security in order to produce a proof of paradigm along with their communication event in order for the event to be seriously receivable by the exopolitical community? It has been suggested that due to past disinformation campaigns, information obscuring, the use of exit strategies, the preponderance of unverifiable stories, and the heaps of community conjecture thrown upon every event which researchers must wade through, that the future of insider communications is in severe jeopardy. Rather than engage in the formulation of an equitable solution such as an Amnesty for insiders or the contact control structure itself as has been requested repeatedly by insiders, some participants in the exopolitical community have agreed with the following in regards to unproven communications (communication events without verifiable proof of paradigm claimed), “If they are intending to obscure, then they have. For now, we are no further in knowing the truth. Perhaps we should put a sign out in the front: "Proof, or no entry".” (2)

The individuals who would consider this constriction are indeed asking, "what are we making together?" In their perception the Insiders communication events fail to fulfill (with 50 years of routine consistency) the expectation of working together; producing clear forward movement. However, asserting such restrictions upon the communication event, without first providing an avenue for them to legally produce and release that level of expected proof (without undue risk to personal self-injury), is certainly unreasonable. It is an example of failure to partake in a team effort or the outright withdrawal from group coherency. In promoting such restrictions they may be asking "what are we making together” but they are not allowing an equitable joint effort to occur. Therefore their response becomes self-defeating for their particular needs.

Of serious concern, when participants retreat from group coherency, they open themselves to follow with even greater emotional responses, exerting their personal power of self-assertion and aggression in order to cut through barriers, penetrating the consciousness of the other participants, such as considering more extreme requirements or actions which violate the sovereignty of other participants. An example in this manner of a further reach for proof and power can be found in the suggestion that abductees, contactees, and MILAB victims relinquish their sovereignty by allowing themselves to be chipped with a device like the RFID tag made by Verichip which can then be tracked via GPS. According to this suggestion, such a device would be formatted to output a minute by minute log of where the device has been and could even be networked into Google Maps to track its movements in real-time. Verichip’s human implant device has been almost wholly rejected by the major public whereas in contrast it has been toyed and experimented with on a small scale by elites and their high security facilities. It’s blatant violation of human rights and privacy has largely restricted its use despite international governments plans to implement it as a data gathering, security and control staple in human society. Allowance of this suggestion to manifest into real use could carry consequences which legally impact a population subgroup of unknown size around the globe and then traverse the scope of application to enact itself upon a determinedly unwilling global population which creates a spiral of conflict outside of the contact paradigm. Such a conflict would be a detriment to both the Disclosure process and the secrecy maintenance proponents.

In exopolitical mediation, the participants are struggling for their legitimate rights to power and affirmation. We tend to look on power in a negative way and associate it with abuse. Rollo May, however has a different take on it. Mr. May, a psychologist of distinguished career, “whose contributions to the humanistic movement are highly significant, contended that power is a fundamental aspect of the life process. Indeed, he believed that powerlessness corrupts the human personality by robbing the individual of a sense of meaning and significance…He argued that power occurs in an individuals life in five functional forms.” (4)

Those forms are the ‘power to be’, ‘power as self-affirmation’, ‘power as self-assertion’, ‘power as aggression’, and ‘power as violence’. A legitimate use of power can include actualizing one’s own self in a perceived hostile environment. Many in the public, and the exopolitical/ufology community view the secrecy paradigm as a hostile environment. Therefore a leap to the destructive use of power occurs when tolerance to powerlessness is exceeded. This can be seen when exopoliticians leave the group coherency in aggression to inflict injury, unjust restrictions, or the taking of power simply to increase the range of their control. In the personal experience of these exopoliticians the sense of meaning and significance they gain through the mediation event has been lost.

The application of the communication perspective questions, open the door to an extended depth of dialog regarding what limitations or extent should be applied to the pursuit of truth and participant expectations, in order to maintain human liberties and ethical conduct on all sides. In the evolution of the contact paradigm, wide ranging impacts and consequences to participant approaches, touch everyone on the planet. It has the potential to set disconcerting precedents that can be applied even beyond the management of the paradigm’s direct influence. It is therefore highly important for Exopolitical Mediators to be very conscious of the directions communications among participants take.

An exopolitical mediator may choose, upon perception of these trends, to intervene with a directional comment or open the floor to a discussion of the larger picture where the consequences of the limits or extents of the pursuit of truth are addressed. If the participants can discover for themselves through topic interaction, an understanding of how their expectations and efforts impact the other participant members or the wider global scope then a reformulation of group coherency may evolve with positive results.

“that which is utopian is not that which is unattainable; it is not idealism; it is a dialectic process of denouncing and announcing; denouncing the dehumanizing structure, and announcing the humanizing structure.” ~ Paulo Freire (3)


  1. Toward Communicative Virtuosity: A Meditation On Modernity And Other Forms Of Communication; page 3 © W. Barnett Pearce, 2005, School of Human and Organization Development Fielding Graduate University
  2. Fore - Reply #1864, Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III; Open Minds Forum,
  3. Communication for Social Change Anthology: Historical and Contemporary Readings, A Farewell to Aristotle “Horizontal Communication”, Lewis Ramiro Beltrain, © 1979, pg 157,&source=bl&ots=6BGLQatRbP&sig=krL_ZSeeX344i9EmJSmtNLcl9QE&hl=en&ei=ATwUSunGBKCc8QTl-5CKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA158,M1
  4. Power and Society, Thomas R Dye & Brigid C Harrison; © 2005 Wadsworth – A Division of Thomsan Learning Inc. page 159