UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, July 10, 2011

UFOs, Moby Dick, and Quantum Theory

mel10.jpg

Herman Melville’s masterpiece, Moby Dick, is an excoriation of God, with a prescient intuition about quantum mechanics.

Melville’s premise that God is Evil, is “footnoted” by the subtle suggestion that those who give credence to God -- pray to Him/It – get His/Its attention and bring catastrophe down upon them.

moby10.jpg

Their “observation” interacts with God and draws Him/It to behave intimately with the observer, often malevolently (as was the case with Captain Ahab), sometimes benevolently (but such instances of benevolence are rare).

Melville’s literary tenet and insight ends with the maxim that to survive whole and intact in this life one should take a benign attitude when it comes to God (Moby Dick): Ishmael.

The quantum intution is about how observation of events (measurement of them) affects the outcome – the reality – of those events. (Schrodinger’s cat is the theoretical example.)

schrod10.jpg
Lithograph by Jie Qi, 2007

Now, since brilliant UFO mavens, such as Bruce Duensing who visits here, and a few others, think that UFOs are affected by our observation of the things, one can intersect Melville’s view with the ongoing and historical observation of flying saucers and/or UFOs.

The difference is that UFOs are not God – nor even a manifestation of God – and observing them hasn’t brought dire consequences down upon observers, generally.

dire10.jpg

But observation/measurement of UFOs has, according to devotees of the quantum effect, caused them to behave in ways they are irrational, much as quantum artifacts behave irrationally when observed/measured.

I, personally, don’t think UFOs are metaphorical quantum artifacts. And I think that while observing them in he past may have had an effect upon them, what they do or how they appear now indicates that observation of UFOs has no bearing upon them.

UFOs have become benign, ineffective, and without obvious purpose or intent; they operate like God before Ahab paid attention to Him/It.

ahab10.jpg

Melville’s God is dead, and so are UFOs, as they once were in their reported incarnation(s).

RR

9 Comments:

  • You assume a Sea Change in the phenomena. I answer with another bit of Shakespeare- A deed without a name.

    By Blogger RadioFree6EQUJ5, at Sunday, July 10, 2011  

  • Although many would argue with me (yourself no doubt), I would say the whale symbolizes the capricious indifference of the natural world upon which the author juxtaposes the captain's insane hubris as a testament to modern man's ego-driven divorce from nature (that could be argued as a biblical dictum by many at the time). This socio-ecological consciouness was a common motif among the Transcendentalists.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Sunday, July 10, 2011  

  • Cullan:

    Your view is somewhat acceptable and like a slew of others that I've accumulated, as I see Moby Dick as the best piece, arguably, of literature ever written.

    My theological bias stems from Mumford's essay and Melville's note to Hawthorne about the work:
    "I have written a wicked book, and feel spotless as the lamb."

    Also, the Biblical underpinnigs, symbols, and references tend me in the direction of my view.

    (I eschew the Freudian interpretation and existential slant accordingly.)

    Melville hits on the true nature of God, and Jung went forward with Melville's view by positing the fourth face of God, the Evil face which makes up the Holy Quaternity.

    (This in Jung's treatment of The Book of Job.)

    Ahab wasn't hubristic but righteous in his "madness" against the Evil of God, with which I am in total agreement.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 10, 2011  

  • Tossing hydra headed coins on a Sunday seems apt,and the phenomenon as a part of our own greater nature or we from that as a binary tale, are equally capricious when seeking fair play, which to us, simply means, winning on our terms whoever or whatever we may be, which of course assumes the game isnt always changing beneath our feet. If a charitable God gave me what I desired at 20, or 40, I would rue the day I received justice on my credit. Allusions and illusions are my lot as I am as ignorant as the day I was born, perhaps more so, a bit more bloodied and a bit more reluctant to cry out.
    I think it was Nick Lambert who told me that his vision of the UFO was that of a monk-gardener tending his garden and the UFO lands in his field and he dismisses it by shooing it away as one would a crow.
    There seems to be some wisdom in that as the phenomenon we ask too much of, we ask it to do heavy lifting..which, given our situation we seem to be set up to do akin to ants building mounds.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, July 10, 2011  

  • BTW, your view matches the depth psychology of Sufism, with their one hundred "most beautiful names." as well as the one of the oldest cultures of Nature as The Peacock Angel, the dark and the bright, the high ambivalence toward high ambitions.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, July 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Profound truths lie at the center of your abstruseness.

    Thanks.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 10, 2011  

  • Methinks I recognise Gregory Peck from the film.

    Would you care to predict what UFOs seen post-2050 or even post-2100 appear as?

    Buck Rogers was of the 25th century. Would you care to speculate on 25th century UFOs? Yes there will be plenty of them, but in what form and context?

    You can assume Arnold, Roswell, etc. will be consigned to ancient history by then.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, July 11, 2011  

  • CDA:

    I don't even care what UFOs look like now, despite my apparent -- and I accent the word apparent -- interest in the things nowadays.

    I'm merely filling space here as I try to wean myself from the topic.

    But perhaps someone else will take up your challenge.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 11, 2011  

  • Bruce Duensing has provided an excellent counter-point to this posting, over at his blog:

    http://materialintangible.blogspot.com/

    He favors Joseph Conrad's take on existence, and its a superb one.

    Check it out.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home