Decoding Disclosure Day "Pickup" Style

Jamie himself and many other people have asked me what do I make of his presentation? My guess is that my answer is not what Jamie is looking for, because I am not a details girly, I don’t do numbers. I do not have patience for the little details that do make all the difference. Just ask Chance. That trait causes a lot of trauma in my household.

What I am is a big picture girl, and Jamie’s presentation brought sharply into focus for me the nature of reality creation. Something I am simply obsessed about. And so my thoughts focus on that aspect of Jamie’s work and for that I am most grateful.

I am big into frameworks. They help me make sense of the world. That is why I love Swann, Bentov, Bohm and Steiner. Now I have a new one, Pickup, and after finally watching Disclosure Day I am convinced that this is the very kind of material Jaime speaks about in it’s ability to shape reality. I no longer call it predictive programming, as now I believe it is not so much about predicting the future at all, or even preparing us for it. Now I call it Reality Programming, or even better maybe Future seeding.

So while the video above is my review of Jamie’s work, what follows is an application of it, because this is how I learn, and it might be helpful to you too.

Disclosure Day is not a great film from a mundane perspective. I REALLY needed something engaging, an intervention in the moment as a result of my aforementioned attention to lack of detail, so I coughed up the $20 to rent it on Netflix. I NEVER do that.

But instead of being taken on a ride out of my current reality, instead of escaping into Spielbergs creation, and with Jamies framework installed, I was able to see this film from an entirely different perspective. What I mean is that I could now look at the themes in Disclosure Day and examine them through Jamie Arthur Pickup’s framework of symbolic encoding, his “revelation of the method,” and the idea of reality-manifesting programming in mind.

And because of that I now understand what this film actually is. And it is VERY interesting and very well executed. Not as interesting as 2 other examples I have since found, but I want to start here first : )

If we deliberately put on a Jamie Arthur Pickup lens and ask “What if mass media can function as a symbolic/psychological technology that helps make a future imaginable, acceptable and therefore easier to instantiate?”, then what is Disclosure Day really, what is it actually doing?

Well to me if feels like imagining disclosure. It supplies a remarkably complete model of disclosure and then lets the audience rehearse it. And the impressive, or perhaps slightly crazy thing is that it allows for so may perspectives! This film allows you to imagine and rehearse disclosure whether you’re a skeptic, a denier, a true believer, or even a conspiracy theorist.

Well done, Mr. Spielberg!!

The film appears to give answers to many of the questions already circulating in contemporary disclosure culture:

• Are they hostile? Fundamentally, no.

• Has government known? Yes, for decades.

• Have bodies/craft been recovered? Yes.

• Has technology been recovered/exploited? Yes.

• Are experiencers/abductees important? Yes — and contact changes them.

• Are there psychic/paranormal dimensions? Yes.

• Can they manipulate human consciousness? Yes.

• Will disclosure come from government voluntarily admitting everything? No. It comes through individual human intermediaries/whistleblowers who force the information into public consciousness.

• Will religion collapse? Apparently not : )

• What should our emotional response be? Not terror. Empathy.

• What should humanity do next? Listen.

I mean like seriously!!!! I am literally blown away!!!

Because the film doesn’t leave disclosure as something mysterious...

It scripts it.

You could almost reduce Disclosure Day to:

Here is what they are.
Here is what happened.
Here is how society responds.
Here is how religion survives it.
Here is how you should feel about the beings.
Here is what you should do when they communicate.

That makes the final “LISTEN” rather more interesting.

Because I am a student of Ingo Swann’s work, I have a certain intimacy with his thoughts and experiences concerning the telepathic abilities of what, for simplicity, we’ll call “aliens.”

And Ingo was not a fan.

In Penetration, what frightened him most was sheer power of their telepathy. And that matters. Swan was more than familiar with anomalous capacities of mind, and he described their psychic reach as something sufficiently formidable that he preferred to avoid contact with it whenever he could.

And I think that matters enormously.

Here was a man who had spent decades deliberately extending consciousness beyond its ordinary boundaries, yet when confronted with what he believed to be a vastly superior telepathic intelligence, his instinct was not fascination or communion.

It was caution and avoidance.

For Swann, the unsettling implication was that the asymmetry of psychic power might be so great that we could not necessarily trust our own minds in their presence.

And for me this creates a strange contradiction in the movie’s moral architecture:

The beings are presented sympathetically while simultaneously possessing the ability to penetrate/alter/commandeer human consciousness.

Normally, something entering your consciousness without permission would be framed as terrifying.

Here it becomes evidence of connection.

That’s a big deal!

Chance asked me what I thought of the film. My first reaction was that it felt trite, and now I think it was that way because of all the heavy lifting it was doing. It had a lot of bases to cover. And really it did not have to be a great film. It just needed to be seen, and having Spielberg involved virtually guaranteed that.

But on pondering it and if we entertain the Pickup hypothesis for argument’s sake, sophisticated storytelling might actually be counterproductive.

If we are seeding the future, you wouldn’t want ambiguity, or confusion, or opened ended questions ala David Lynch now would you….

You’d want recognition. Touch Stones, Reality anchors…

Roswell.
Bodies.
Recovered craft.
Government secrecy.
Whistleblowers.
Abductees.
Psychic phenomena.
Telepathic communication.
Reverse engineering.
Benevolent NHI.
Religious accommodation.
Mass disclosure.

These are largely pre-existing objects in the contemporary disclosure mythology. The movie gathered them all together and dramatised the whole package.

So rather than:

Spielberg predicts disclosure.

It is more about Spielberg play-acts disclosure.

In several of my classes, I explore the idea that the brain is, fundamentally, a prediction machine. It does not simply respond to reality; it continuously anticipates what comes next drawing heavily upon what has happened before. This is one reason behaviour becomes habitual. Under stress, the brain predicts the familiar sequence…this is when we reach for the wine…and, almost automatically, we fulfill the prediction.

Much of the work in my classes is about interrupting those loop: creating a different expectation strongly enough that the brain has another pattern available when the old trigger arrives.

And this is where the film gets particularly interesting, because it allows you to imagine, and in a sense rehearse what happens when disclosure occurs. It gives the brain a model of what might come next, a sequence it can recognise and predict if something similar happens in reality.

Because rehearsal precedes performance.

What we repeatedly imagine, anticipate, symbolically enact, or emotionally rehearse becomes increasingly available as a future response. Before something becomes an action, it has often already existed as a prior pattern, OR a possibility rehearsed in the nervous system. This is why athletes imagine winning the race.

In that sense, rehearsal is not merely preparation for performance. It is one of the mechanisms by which performance becomes possible.

You construct the event symbolically before the event exists materially.

And this is where we move beyond the relatively safe territory of neuroscience and into the far more provocative territory of reality creation. Because prediction doesn’t simply determine what the brain expects to see; expectation influences what we notice, how we interpret it, how we respond, and therefore what we do next. Our actions then become part of the causal chain producing the reality we anticipated.

That’s much more interesting than “predictive programming.”

The speculative Pickup formulation would be:

Disclosure Day isn’t telling us what will happen.

It’s teaching the collective imagination what the event looks like if it does. It allows us to REHEARSE it before it happens.

And if imagination, expectation and behaviour participate in constructing reality, then collective rehearsal becomes something more consequential than preparation.

The future is rehearsed until it becomes imaginable; imagined until it becomes predictable; predictable until our perceptions and behaviours begin organising themselves around it, and therefore more available to become real.

As mentioned in my video, the people doing this are clearly masters of the technique. They employ it with remarkable skill and at a frequency that is, frankly, quite impressive.

But there is a vulnerability in the mechanism: if we are to become the unwitting instruments of someone else’s will, participants in the creation of their reality, we need to remain unaware of what we are participating in.

Because once we have eyes to see, all that is required is to turn those eyes elsewhere.

Withdraw the attention. Withdraw the participation. Turn instead towards the things we want to create. Imagine the world we want to inhabit, and consciously rehearse that reality instead.

And for this extraordinarily high-definition understanding of how reality is constructed, and, crucially, our own participation in that process—I am profoundly grateful to Jamie.

If you have not seen it yet, here it is