The messages delivered by visions, for example, fall under what we call “archetypes”. Carl-Gustav Jung studied this area very well and defined archetypes as carriers of both a symbol and an emotion. However, a symbol requires an interpretation which itself involves analogical reasoning, which is irrational and only leads to probable conclusions.

We immediately see that it is not in principle possible to assert something peremptorily based on a paranormal message and its interpretation. Logic, however, remains essential in the way of drawing conclusions from this interpretation, but without being able to arrive at irrefutable deductions.

We therefore see that the irrational is unavoidable in the field of the paranormal. In other words, our psyche is not made to function solely on a rational basis, but by integrating and harmonizing the two approaches: the rational is essential for what concerns matter, or elementary human behavior, but the irrational remains master of the most subtle part of our consciousness, that which is populated by archetypes and leads by nature to our spiritual evolution.

It is in itself an error to oppose the two approaches, they are complementary.

Why has this divide become established in our Western culture? The loss of access to the paranormal dimension, under the effect of factors that remain to be determined, generated a sort of cognitive rationalization, or reaction formation: the overinvestment of the rational gave the illusion of compensating for the lack. By denying the very existence of the paranormal, we no longer had to suffer from its absence. But this negation itself is irrational: it is not because we have not been able to observe or experience paranormal phenomena that they do not exist. It is therefore again impossible to get rid of the irrational… And the distant memory that remains in our unconscious sometimes emerges in the form of superstition…

Let us note in passing that sociopsychology fundamentally distinguishes logical thinking from social thinking. The first obeys the rules of logic, but, very often, the reasoning that we hold and which is authentic on the social level, are sophisms or analogical reasoning and lead to errors. However, we prefer them when they suit our interests or protect our self-esteem. Or when they reproduce commonly accepted stereotypes and prejudices. More generally: when they require less intellectual effort from us. The “cognitive cost” often determines our positions, because human beings would by nature apply the logic of least effort…. Whatever the case, we find the irrational in social thought, the very cement that holds the human community together…

Evolutionary ecopsychology offers another solution: determining the factors that make it possible to regain natural receptivity to the paranormal, putting the rational and the irrational in their place. Then distinguish in the latter the part of deviations from the rules of logic, counterproductive, and the part of contemplative openness necessary for the reception, the interpretation of transcendent messages and their always beneficial accomplishment at the level of our destinies…