The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, March 29, 2008

The UFO Indifference

indifference3.jpg

One factor that eliminates the Jacques Vallee and Mac Tonnies hypotheses that there might be co-inhabitants of the Earth who live in an isolated plane of existence or underwater as a full-borne civilization that interacts with human beings via UFOs, paranormal manifestations, et cetera is the non-interference in Earth affairs.

That is, the UFOnaughts or other-dimensional beings – the co-inhabitants – have not interfered and do not interfere, directly, overtly, or meaningfully, in Earth’s activities: warfare, pogroms, genocides, natural disasters, migrations, or anything of consequence.

holocaust.jpg

And if there were co-inhabitants – subliminal or otherwise – evolutionary aspects, emotional and psychological more than physical, would force these entities to eventually become affected by the emotional elements that make up mankind.

No entities, imperceptible or sub rosa, could escape the influence of the beings that share the landscapes of Earth with these invisible residents as Ivan Sanderson put it.

Alien beings from extraterrestrial worlds could, possibly, be devoid of feeling, and that corresponds to that happens when UFOs interact with humans, especially in the abduction scenarios.

These entities are without compassion or empathy, if witness accounts have any veracity at all.

But co-inhabitants, if they’ve been interacting with humankind for the millennia that Vallee, Tonnies, and a few others suggest, would have, by evolutionary parameters, adopted or been affected in some significant way by the psychological machinations of humans.

This evolutionary effect is outlined in Lecomte de Noüy’s book, Human Destiny.

But nowhere is there evidence, of a credible kind, that UFOs or the entities that pilot them interact with humans sympathetically; quite the contrary.

This mitigates against the crypto-civilization thesis.

And, in some obtuse way, it augments the ET thesis, if one is inclined in that direction as an explanation for the UFO/flying saucer phenomenon.

aaa.jpg

Bruce Duensing has a blog, like Tonnies, devoted to the idea that human beings have “brothers and sisters” of a different nature, who share this planet, and have since time immemorial.

It just doesn’t work that way if Darwin, Teilhard de Chardin, and de Noüy are right, and the fact of non-interference seems to indicate that they are quite correct.

The aloofness, cold, indifferent interaction by UFOs and their beings (if any) should be a cause for paleo-psychological investigation, and the continuing colloquies about a shared civilization or group of beings (or things) that move about without feeling or empathy for the race that overtly inhabits this planet should be seriously reconsidered.

21 Comments:

  • Agreed, if the angle is the idea that they are sympathetic, which would logically serve as a catalyst to involvement (of which there seems to be little, in terms of positive intervention). I think I'm reading you right here. If, on the other hand, these entities are influencers for the demise and misery of humanity, then the lack of involvement we perceive is no lack at all. I don't know about Mac Tonnies, but here is one place where Vallee has let his own biases blind him a bit. He ignores a "spiritual" solution (i.e., demonic), or at least doesn't want to speak of it in such terms (although he does view these beings negatively in much of what he says). That said, I can't blame Vallee for his rejection of this "spiritual world" in favor of something more naturalistic, which is in line with his agnosticism. Why? Because Christian theology has done a fairly miserable job of articulating (with any coherence) what the Bible actually describes when it speaks of angels, demons, gods, etc. These are NOT "spiritual" beings -- rather, they are MADE of something. Indeed, they MUST be, for biblical theology to maintain its strict dualistic view of creation (I speak here of a sharp distinction between the Creator and everything else - every created thing). The Bible is quite clear that all other gods, angels, demons, etc. were created by a single God. Hence, it is best to talk of an UNSEEN world, not a "spiritual world." God exists apart from creation and yet interacts with it. He therefor can interact with both the seen and the unseen worlds, but the unseen world is in fact material -- that is a biblical idea, regardless of how badly it's been articulated by theologians and church authorities (many of whom knew very little of the scriptural text). This has ramifications for Vallee's "interdimensional entity" idea (and anyone else's): it's actually very biblical -- so maybe it's time to get into tune with the rest of what the ancient book says about the unseen world and the freedom and power of these beings. One suggestion: check denominational checklists and catechisms at the door first.

    By Blogger MSH, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • MSH:

    An insightful response, and points out that while compassion may be lacking from the UFO or unseen entities, a demonic influence may be at work, an influence that might account for the Evil that mankind has been subject to, since the beginning.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • "It just doesn’t work that way if Darwin, Teilhard de Chardin, and de Noüy are right, and the fact of non-interference seems to indicate that they are quite correct."

    Maybe Godel was correct.If you base a position on what is self evident to you, you may be wrong and if any further elaboration on a critical assumption is made, the subject of proof is moot. You speak in negative absolutes. You go to a diner with a large menu and order by saying no repeatedly. A crusade that produces nothing. What is your theory as I assume you have one? Is a seagull sympathetic? Is good and evil a default human definition rather than a set of objective truisms? Does projecting them in a anthropomorphic assumption of similarity a disproven saw? It is difficult to understand this reasoning as you have presented no basis as to what you yourself are suggesting..which is what? I am confused. No is not a theory.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • Bruce:

    No theory, just an (obvious) observation.

    The "unseens" (and equivalently UFOs) do appear, blatantly anyway, to be indifferent to the horrific disasters that beset mankind, by nature or by man himself.


    Evil is tangible (The Holocaust or Darfur or the African Slave Trade, to scratch the surface) but nowhere do the "forces" that supposedly co-exist with human beings (or visit from outer space) intercede, unless they provoke the Evil, as MSH suggests.

    This observation doesn't require a theory; it just is the way it is.

    To ruminate, endlessly, about the hypothetical co-existent entities doesn't ameliorate the Evil, and a theory by us, or anyone else, is just a futile diversion of the intellect.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • If you desire an example of evil, which I agree does exist...although your assignment may be premature..I just posted the first of a series..this one on vampires...an allegorical reality. We seem to be on a parallel course as always..while wemay disagree I think discussions are essential and are the point of the exercise...I have no absolutes. I was I count count the times I said 'perhaps", "maybe" etc. The post of yourswas an essential provocation although same may take offense..I do not.
    Best Wishes As Always

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • Bruce...

    We didn't mean for the post to be a "provocation" -- that's for our other blog.

    I read your interesting Vampire post -- not verbose in my estimation and intriguing as one expects from your writings.

    While there is no doubt, in my mind, that there are paranormal phenomena, some with "personalities" as it were, the point here was that the phenomena doesn't interact compassionately with human beings, and thus couldn't be a parallel, cognizant "species" to the human race, if Thomas Huxley et al. have it right.

    That is, evolution brings about concomitant attributes to everything in a kind of linkage that isn't exactly clear (or so the Creationist tell us).

    Lecomte de Nouy deals with the "spiritual" aspects of this, and writes that human beings move towards an Omega Point by the creative good works of "mutants" --not the hoi polloi (or masses).

    These mutants evolve by an interaction of empathetic activity that is endemic to their natures.

    Human beings who don't do this can be categorized as Evil, but they are not indifferent.

    Since your "unseens" (along with Tonnies' and Vallee's) don't interfere with humans in a way that can be measured, they are indifferent, which isn't possible if de Nouy and Huxley are right.

    Extraterrestrials, however, would very likely not be evolutionary in the same way as humans on Earth have been, so their non-interference and indifference would not be unusual.

    MSH's "demons" are possible, and may be the instigators of Evil here on Earth, and could be parallel creatures of a non-material kind.

    I could accept that but it seems odd that these "demons" wouldn't be affected by the good that humanity has proffered over the millennia.

    One can suppose that those "demons" were essentially or intrinsically evil, as Aquinas postulates, and the Gnostics attribute to the very nature of the demi-urge (Yahweh perhaps).

    But I go astray.

    The "indifferent" post wasn't meant to offend, just to present a view that differs from that of the fellows who see a parallel, interactive creation as part of the make-up of this Earth.

    RRR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • I think provocation is a good thing, substitute stimulation to discuss...

    I think what you are referring to as compassion in regard to another species toward us...what form of behavior would that be?
    How would that be effective toward changing our own behavior?
    You must have something behind your conclusions on indifference and I am interested..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • Bruce....

    I could go into the ecstatic raptures that the saints experience and which seems thrust upon them by outside forces, but that would lead us astray, somewhat.

    By not feeling empathy or compassion, the UFO entities or unseen entities cannot identify with the horror and pain, even death, that human beings suffer, and thus they (the unseens and the UFO beings) do not intercede, something they could do and something that would assuredly stem the events (warfare, genocide, et cetera) that bring harm to humankind.

    It sort of goes to the impotence of God, who is either dead or hidden, as Richard Eliott Friedman discusses in his book, The Hidden Face of God.

    But my thesis (as lame as it is) indicates that the possible co-inhabitants (the unseens) do not exist or are a kind of phantasm that if it does it exist is meaningless or incapable of intervening in human affairs in any significant way.

    The UFO beings, if they exist, might have evolved without the emotional characteristics that humans are endowed with, a curse or a boon depending on one's view.

    That would explain why UFOs have not intruded in any compassionate way, or any emotional way at all, in the human experience.

    And if adductee reports are accurate and true -- something that is iffy for me -- the interventions of the abductors are devoid of feeling, so impersonal and objective as to not exist at all perhaps.

    I won't go further here, in comments, but shall try to elaborate in a posting, if the fellows will allow me to do so on this, their blog.

    RRR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 30, 2008  

  • Are we truly sympathetic to our coinhabitants? We eat them, we farm them, we wear them as clothes, we hunt them and we mount them on our walls as decor and as supposed indices of our bravery. We ruin their (and our) environment, we extinguish entire species with blasé regularity... in short, we use them quite evilly and, by some estimations, demonically, and our only justification is the satisfaction of our own (endless) desires.

    And, of course, our lack of sympathy extends beyond our other-species coinhabitants: we seem to have no inherent problem at all killing or using other humans just as greedily.

    Perhaps sympathy, from crypto-coinhabitants or extraterrestrials, whichever, will come when we begin to merit it. Or perhaps sympathy really hardly exists beyond the conceptual realm... perhaps like us, they simply switch the channel when something that gives them empathetic or guilty twinges comes on.

    By Blogger Saamata, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • Saamata:

    But the unseens or UFOnaughts don't even bother to eat those they supposedly stalk.

    They are truly indifferent.

    (By the way, Mircea Eliade makes the case that incorporating the flesh of animals by eating them makes the animal immortal in a way, since they become part of the being who eats them, and their souls intermingle with their eater's soul.)

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • I think what you are referring to as compassion in regard to another species toward us...what form of behavior would that be?
    How would that be effective toward changing our own behavior?

    I didnt get an answer.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • Bruce...

    The "compassion" comes in the form of "divine intervention" -- that is, the forces that can intervene or should intervene could stop whatever evil is being done.

    For instance, when the Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis, those unseen forces you laud (or the UFO beings) could have intervened in ways that prevented the slaughter of the millions.

    The process could have been blatant and militaristic. Or the process could have been of a kind that we have no comprehension of --a miracle of sorts.

    That the Hebrew God didn't intervene goes to the heart of Nietzche's metaphorical "God is dead."

    But if God is dead (or impotent for some reason), why didn't your paranormal beings intercede?

    They didn't because they are indifferent.

    Why are they indifferent? That's something you might address at your blog, or if you think they are not indifferent, tell us why.

    RRR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • Maybe you are discounting that we are responsible for our own affairs. I an intervention occurred we would go right back where we were. Nothing would change.If God were dead perhaps what you mistake is our referential definition is dead. I did not come from dead matter,however traditional theology and dogma is a human invention. Maybe the point of the exercise is like the uncertainty principal,we are not dealing with absolutes but an interactive process of co-creation. Perhaps we are here for the universe or God to explore
    itself in a process like a mirror. In other words we may be what we observe which is God or if you will the universe. Separating the two may be like Godels statement about self evident deception. The true difference may be one of similarity versus incomparability. God is not blameworthy for having gifted us but we are by turning our backs on our own duties. Thats is where perhaps we differ.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • Bruce...

    Taught by Jesuits in seminary, God is omniscient, and time (or becoming) is not part of the essence of God, as Thomists also tell us.

    So human behavior isn't part of the Divine equation as it is in your scenario.

    Your existential position that we are responsible for our own affairs and have implied duties is arguable, but have nothing to do with the indifference of the "unseens" and/or UFO pilots.

    So I don't know where to go with this.

    Theological arguments seem outside the discussion, which, to me, seems simple enough: a co-inhabitant race of beings (spiritual, as you imply in your postings or material, as Tonnies suggests) do not interact and have not interacted with humankind in any tangible, measurable way.

    I'm trying not to becloud the issue with theological issues.

    RRR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • Well..you base our views on Catholicism which I assume you are
    by your references so they appear to be one in the same. This is not the format to discuss this versus my own views which do not come from any one creed. To say that God is indifferent or dead is in the end as you would agree is your own affair. I believe everything is created and cared for...atmosphere...light...earth. We live in poverty yet we believe the sun rises and falls in our armpits. This is the problem and no amount of intervention saving us from ourselves is going to work if we are indifferent ourselves and place the blame or this indifference elsewhere projected on what have you. We just disagree. Interesting exchange though. Thanks

    Best Wishes

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • When wildlife photographers film animals, they do not interfere with the actions of the preditors when they are making kills. I think the aliens are just observers and wheather or not they feel pity or remorse is not for us to judge and are no more guilty of uncareing than the publishers of National Geographic. To them we may not be all that special!

    By Blogger riggs3234, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • Riggs...

    That's a legitimate point, and a sad one to acknowledge since humans are highly-sentient creatures (usually) with feelings that SEEM to be more acute than those of the animals that National Geographic photographs.

    But your point is well-taken, as the UFO beings may exist on a higher(?) plane, or have no feelings at all (which is the gist of our original post).

    But crypto-humans? Their uncaring (or indifference) is not so easy to dismiss.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • There's really no evidence indicating that any high-sentient cohabitants are ignoring us -- just that they're not making their presence felt in any large-impact, high-exposure way. They could easily be making themselves known to individuals, in isolated circumstances... just as they could conceivably be interfacing with secretive organizations and government entities. Given the human proclivity for violent behavior across the board but especially when confronted with the alien, the Other, perhaps a bit of deliberate "ignorance" would be prudent.

    As far as ingestion as a path to immortality... well, that just reeks of a carnivore's self-justification. By Eliade's own criteria, immortality is similarly achieved through living to a ripe old age, dying naturally, and giving back to the earth the atoms that once were cow or chicken or human. If immortality requires a trip to the slaughterhouse, an oven, and someone else's stomach, I'd sooner embrace my useless anonymous mortality :-)

    By Blogger Saamata, at Monday, March 31, 2008  

  • S:

    Interesting observations, but an objective (indifferent!) view would find the incorporation of humans and animals into each other as okay, in the great, atomic scheme of things.

    It is appalling though, as you note.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 01, 2008  

  • Just come to Portugal.
    You´ll be amazed.
    Just study and learn.

    By Blogger Mr X, at Tuesday, April 01, 2008  

  • logic and emotion don't mix well.

    By Blogger saturn5, at Wednesday, April 02, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home