The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, January 08, 2012

UFOs: The “Other”


Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.

The dialogue here, of late, is about the cause of images and activities described by persons who’ve had an encounter with UFOs that goes beyond a mere sighting of a light in the sky or a disk-shaped aircraft flying overhead.

Jose Caravaca has provided, here and at his blog (The Caravaca Files), a slew of cases where a person or persons report remarkable interactions with UFOs and entities from those UFOs.

Señor Caravaca points out that the cases he presents don’t include interactions between humans and exotic animals or Disneyland characters, or any other kind of imagery but only that which is clearly UFO oriented.

That is an important aspect of his developing Distortion Theory.

But I’m going to deal, again, with the prima causa that Señor Caravaca and Nick Redfern say or think is responsible for UFO events.

That prima causa, as Jose and Nick see it, is a psychical influence that has been interacting with humankind since the beginning of sentient life (and maybe even before that).

Now I call that prima causa God or the Universal Sentience: the universal, omnipresent mind.

That mind remains apart and aloof from human beings, unless humans try to make contact with it.

(This is the gist, as I keep writing, of Herman Melville’s epiphanic work, Moby Dick, which you can find an exegesis of by Googling Lewis Mumford, among others.)

God or the Universal Mind intersected with the likes of Moses, Socrates, Joan of Arc, and countless others over the eons of human existence.

But why would my Universal Mind use UFO imagery to make contact with some hapless humans doing nothing but engaging in mundane activities?

Señor Caravaca’s “other” and Nick Redfern’s psychical presence seem more suited to the UFO events they have proffered.

My ubiquitous and totally engaged “divinity” seems a bit too grandiose to take part in the UFO events that have been reported over the years, even that of Ezekiel in the Hebrew Bible.

But in the hierarchal categories of the Gnostics and other esoteric theologies there are minor divinities that one could attribute to the bizarre UFO encounters that have occurred over the years.

So I can accept (and do) the idea that something has interacted with some humans, in former ages as witches or various chimerae, and in (relatively) modern times as elements with the accoutrements of extraterrestrial technology.

But is it possible, and I think it is, that, perhaps, no outside “presence” is involved in UFO activity at all, that psychological or neural machinations may be an integral part of or the prima causa of UFO experience(s).

I think Bruce Duensing agrees with me.

Don Ledger, a peripheral and irrelevant ufologist, mostly in situ at UFO UpDates has been pooh-poohing the psychological etiology for UFOs.

Why do I eschew Don Ledger?

Here’s Mr. Ledger’s recent broadside, at UFO Updates, against Joe McGonagle, a British (skeptical) ufologist with much cachet among UFO cognoscenti about a questionnaire that Joe brought to the attention of UpDate “listers” (as UpDate members like to be known):

From: Don Ledger
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:45:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study

>From: Joe McGonagle
>Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:12:14 +0000
>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study
...
Any damn fool can find the nut cases out there and lump them in
and poison the whole data pool.

And cut the poor-mouthing Joe; your [sic] not fooling anyone. If I ever see anything positive/upbeat come out of your postings, it will be a day of wonder.

Don Ledger

Note the errant use of “your” for “you’re.”

Mr. Ledger strikes me as a pinhead, so when he eschews the psychological explanation for UFOs, I dismiss his observation.

It is palpable, to me, that neural parameters have much to do with UFO sightings and especially UFO encounters.

One of the reasons that I accent the psychological is that nowhere in the sightings offered by Señor Caravaca is there sheer terror. Yes, some witnesses expressed fear or anxiety but none had indicated terror, like that which some victims of nightmares, night-terrors have reported.

The UFO encounters noted by Caravaca and Redfern are oneiric (dream-like) or similar to a movie or television show.

Now this is for the “modern” era events.

The horrors that humans experienced in the Dark and Middle ages were sparked by the imagery that the Church promulgated, and such enterprises as The Inquisition exacerbated.

The “modern” era allows for a SciFi ambiance, supported by the fecund presence of SciFi imagery in the magazines, movies, TV shows, et cetera that we’ve inserted here in the past few weeks or so.

It doesn’t take an external presence to create UFO events. That indicates a presence that has nothing better to do but play games with a few, insignificant human beings, in lonely places who have no significant societal presence, and only are known by the deep-digging research of such persons as Jose Caravaca (and his Spanish colleagues) or the investigative work of Nick Redfern.

So, where are we in this discussion?

We (my group and some aligned visitors here) have got to find the neural mechanism that could cause he UFO events that occurred in the recent past, but are not taking place now. (And why is that?)

Or Jose Caravaca and Nick Redfern (and even Jacques Vallee) have got to come up with the viable “presence” they say is the instigator of the UFO events or reports that create an awe in some of us.

That’s where we are.

RR

41 Comments:

  • There are no Gods, demons, extraterrestrials or Satan himself involved in this phenomenon. I honestly think everyone needs to take a step back and re-examine the evidence. What is this, the 12th Century? One projection versus another. It makes me dizzy.
    What of unknown natural causes that only appear to be "supernatural"?
    I throw my hands up in feigned exasperation. Whatever everyone else is drinking, order me one.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • So, Bruce...

    The neural mechanism is what?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • I think ( suspect) it is photonic.
    If you read my last post at IM, there is a more complete outline.I also suspect bio-photons play a role.
    This theory seems to correlate information and energy in a unique way, that remains to be investigated fully..but.. the physiology of this is tantalizing to me. The psychology as of late seems secondary, an effect rather than an origin.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • Yes, I agree, Bruce...

    The physiology can be tricky but amenable to study.

    The psychology -- the images and their affect on the persons who experience them -- are similar to Outsider Art; one can analyze the images until the cows come home, but that doesn't tell us anything except something(s) about the percipient.

    The UFO events are filmic and intriguing but essentially worthless; they tell us nothing about the cause, whether that cause is from a psychical presence or a neural glitch.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • I agree, the psychological effects are secondary to the physiology as it is related to how information is processed.Physiology creates the psychology, in this phenomenon in my view. The question to me is can a information field "fission" to create unique spacial characteristics? Of course, to use the term "fission" infers a local release of energy as an effect, such as stalled cars, cups flying off shelves, failed radar systems, etc. Photons appear to a common denominator inasmuch they carry visual information as well as being a source of illumination so often cited. Under certain circumstances, those prone to these effects as well as being in a favorable orientation experience extraordinary events.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • This is, Bruce, where Persinger comes in.

    His electromagnetic influence could account for the stalled cars and other electric anomalies.

    Although one has to allow the Toyoto hypotheses: such failures are the result of human error, mistakes caused by the excitement of the event taking place, people doing the wrong thing but not realizing their errors or actions because of the stressful situation.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • If there is an outside influence (debatable), it is likely natural, rare, and random; also likely it's a physical event that our current science is not yet able to identify and describe (despite our mistaken belief we are scientifically advanced), which nevertheless, has a profound influence on any nearby human brain when it occurs. The imagery evoked could well be the result of the unconscious application of current cultural and personal beliefs to the experience. In brief, the brain's wiring is briefly short-circuited by the event.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • I took a look in another post at the error factor in relation to Betty Hill and the prelimbic cortex.
    How the brain influences the mind when faced with a "shock". The error in Betty was that there was no way she could be cognizant of her own brain physiology could structure events to create a reactive state, so she made a critical assumption that she paralyzed from without, etc. It is understandable in these terms, rather than an external, nonsensical "abduction" in a cartoon scenario.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • Overall amazing argumentative juxtapositions here Rich. Killer!

    I don't think I'm going to touch on what are the "Collective consciousness" relevant issues you touch on, other than to admit from personal experience, it really hurts to show your ass. Especially out in front of people that deep down under your own impulsive ego driven passions you would absolutely count as your best friends and colleagues any other day of the week. Whereas emotionally based expressiveness will go a long way in conveying the mind's thoughts, the same can sure get you into trouble in our weaker moments.


    @Bruce,

    "What of unknown natural causes that only appear to be "supernatural"?"

    Isn't that precisely what those forwarding the notion that quasi externals are involved, have been attempting to expressively support right along?

    It certainly is what I have personally been suggesting here from the beginning.

    IMO, we are part in process of an ongoing natural phenomena for which we presently have no formal definition.

    It would not seem logically possible for an external agent to be involved unless that external agent is merely an as yet undefined superior sentient member of a larger native (to us) natural environment than we presently comprehend in an applicable sense.

    @Rich
    "But is it possible, and I think it is, that, perhaps, no outside “presence” is involved in UFO activity at all, that psychological or neural machinations may be an integral part of or the prima causa of UFO experience(s)"

    IMO, yes to the first part of the question, and an almost "emphatic yes" being the hypothetical answer to the second part of the question whether there is, or isn't, an external agent involved.

    Rich Reynolds states: "It doesn’t take an external presence to create UFO events."

    In the context of of a myriad of cases highlighting the most colorful Distortion relevant aspect of UFO sighting experiences, this is true. Within the context of far more "black and white" legitimately substantiated and documented cases, this is almost certainly incorrect.

    Bruce Duensing states: There are no Gods, demons, extraterrestrials or Satan himself involved in this phenomenon.

    Scientifically, of course not. When's the last time we could test or duplicate as much? Nothing to due with a developmental time line here though I'm afraid, that's just good ol' scientific methodology and goes without saying.

    That's why I am not honestly as intrigued by the external's definition at this point as I am the hypothetical interaction taking place.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • In terms of effects on anything dependent on electromagnetic energy, there are also "pulse" phenomenon arising from a localized burst that causes these same effects which may fit into Presinger's theories inasmuch as intense illuminations accompany them which then are labelled as mythical "flying saucers"
    manned by supernatural creatures.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • I don't think that a nuts and bolts ET visitation and various paraphysical phenomenon are mutually exclusive.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Sunday, January 08, 2012  

  • All of this presumes that "the Other" is a single entity. What if it is a species, for lack of a better term, engaging us in the level suggested? In some cases, we would be dealing with the more refined sorts - the equivalent of a Bach, perhaps, or a Sophocles. In other cases, perhaps the more mundane types - Lady Gaga, maybe, or Stephen King. Most of us get the latter (like attracts like), whereas a few of us are lucky enough to make contact with the former.

    There could also be a link to intelligence at work. The really bright humans can comprehend more, because their mind can handle / process more information. The hoi polloi, on the other hand... well, not so much. :-)

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Paul opens an avenue of inquiry that might be pursued, especially via Parakletos, our resident philosopher...

    I was about to look through my eight volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy when Google called out and searching for Universal Mind, I was directed to Wikipedia and ended up with the entry about Hegel's Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807) noted as one of G.W.F. Hegel's most important philosophical works. It is translated as The Phenomenology of Spirit or The Phenomenology of Mind.

    Perusing the content, one can see where such musings apply to the commentary here.

    However, this takes us back to abstractions that can't be verified tangibly.

    Therefore another approach is needed to explain the UFO-specific elements in Jose Caravaca's case studies.

    The open ended and all-encompassing "other(s)" of Paul, Nick, and Jacques Vallee may be applicable to the intrusions recorded over the years, but Senor Caravaca's cases seem only to fall within a small spectrum of imagery and "drama" -- UFO-specific imagery and drama.

    Why is that?

    Why not witches and goblins, or saints and angels anymore?

    Has or have the other(s) -- the sentience -- gone secular?

    And why has no UFO researcher asked witnesses about their religious leanings?

    Does a heavy religious bent factor into the sightings, even if only tangentially?

    Also, what about the dichotomy that Pal Kimball suggests; i. e., that some persons are approached by a higher intelligence and common folk by a lower form of the universal intelligence?

    Is there a multifaceted intelligence, a presence with many faces (like some of the gods of old) or are there a family of intelligences, a species of various intelligences, interacting with humans that each presence finds accomodating?

    Are UFO witnesses less intelligent than those who are riven by saints or muses (as artists, writers, and composers are)?

    Those who have UFO enounters do seem to be among the hoi polloi, as Paul notes, rather than among the intelligentsia.

    Is there a point in going further with this?

    Would it resolve the UFO phenomenon?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • I refer back to my theory of a third state of a unitary information field. In of itself, information has no bias, no images, no aim other than the origination of itself toward more complexity called evolution. Access to this field is akin to reading as you write information. It is variegated and unified by the observer. No two individuals can contain the same aggregate sum so no two individuals access this field in the same manner while the field itself is unbiased. Intelligence is a valuation that the field does not have. A lump of clay does not turn itself into a pot nor cares if it is an ashtray or a cup. Everything without exception is information including time, space and a weed.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Let me, Bruce, try an analogy based on your musings...

    The information field is like a library or grocery store and each individual gets the books or groceries suited to his or her evolutionary process or intellectual stance.

    Are the books or groceries thrust upon a person or do they have some part in what they pick -- a conscious choice as it were?

    Where does the information field come from?

    Who are what maintains it?

    How does it evolve? Does it evolve? Or is complete from the outset like the gods?

    And is everything truly information or are there shards of sh*t mixed within the effluvia that humans stumble upon or have pushed upon them?

    You've created a "field" that is as ill-defined as the UFO phenomenon itself, so where can we go with your abstract construct?

    It's all a bit ephemeral for me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • In terms of the imagery, let me put it to you like this - all aspects of the paranormal can be viewed as a form of artistic expression (the theme of my forthcoming book). Just as we have music, and prose, and poetry, and painting, perhaps "the Others" (or the "Zorg" as I call them, with tongue firmly planted in cheek), present us with UFOs, and ghosts, and the dreaded synchronicities, and so forth - some more "high brow", and some more *ahem* down to earth.

    It's possible that the Zorg covet the interaction that these displays provide, in the same way that a musician covets the thrill of performing live, and interacting with the audience.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Our ontology derives from biology in that the whole of this field is bi-folded into an exterior and an interior, that creates a skewed view of reality. No one will dispute that one depends on the other in relationships but we cannot perceive both sides of the coin as a unitary system by perception. The same applies to the sensate divided from the non sensate , the invisble from the visible and yet all of these orientations can only exist by the relationships with a unified field otherwise any correlation would be impossible.
    To give a prosaic example, nuclear fission derived from information contained in the form that was extracted from the environment which read as it was written into a theory. Plutonium did not invent itself and yet it always existed before it was discovered otherwise it could not have been accessed.
    Everything is divided into material and non material by the observer whose ontology is skewed by biology. The issue you raise is the myopia caused by concepts that are artifacts of biology, wherein the labels themselves become realities but they are not, they are simply semiotic referents caused by the orientation of our biology. In the matter of it being here versus being there, the non local versus the local, or this information field existing outside of ourselves in some monarchical arrangement is to reverse causation as to what arranges what using what.
    To me this information field is a non biased methodology to study phenomenology, without loaded labels. Rick Phillips and I have gone down this path to explore it in order to explore it's efficacy.
    The universe explores itself through us as we explore ourselves through the universe. The universe is an information field that as a aggregate sum as we cognate it, has many similarities, and yet if incommensurable to any similarity.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • So, Paul, you're giving reality or, at least, abstract tangibility, to the "Zorg" -- they are real in some sense...

    Therefore you agree with Nick and Jose?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Paul
    Your theory strikes me as encapsulating surrealism as a creative phenomenology ( that is a structure) that imagination is a form of energy, as well as organizing principle of information whose expression is subjective in relation to who is observing \creating it. Then if this is so, what is the purpose? Art for arts sake? I follow you up to a point and then you lost me.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • More specifically,
    If time and space are artifacts of perception then origination is the wrong question as you are mixing cognition of artifacts as referents with causation. Where the field comes from depends on ones orientation to it, it has no spacial characteristics. You are mixing relationships with the contingents of manifestations. The field of information maintains itself by differentiation as deflections by observation. Think of the universe as having one point of self observation versus a countless number in order to ascertain it's intrinsic nature as a matter of self organization. From our view it is very much like Borges Library of Babel, each book contains a variation. In nature we have species that in turn reflect a living system, whose organization is self maintenance within a larger purview of itself as it is expressed by the contingencies of manifestation. In this view dinosaurs still exist while the contingency of their manifestation is absent and yet the information to have them reappear remains. This is a difficult matter to express.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • BTW
    Shards of s**t is a valuation, the human impetus for self preservation that the field does not contain, other than what we have input into it. Its a matter of relationships in terms of how we are oriented toward it, so it does, but it does not. Who throws the ball depends on our orientation as a valuation.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • So Bruce your information field and/or the Universe is devoid of "personality" -- it is not unlike the Universe of science, one that is random but made cohesive and sensible by us, right?

    You make us integral to the Universe and the universe (or information field) integral to us.

    This is the kind of philosophical jitterbugging that Parakletos and I got into a minor brouhaha about a few weeks back.

    It's all fun to play around with but has nothing to do with practical reality, or the issue(s) at hand.

    You're making the topic more complex than it needs to be.

    Erudition is a fine thing but when it starts to exclude those who want a simpler debate arena, it has to go.

    Simplify, simplify, simplify...

    (My brain is starting to hurt.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • And Bruce, you're finding it hard to follow Paul's thinking?

    Ohmygosh, ring the bells...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • This is a difficult matter to express, writes Bruce...

    You're telling me?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Simpler..
    The observer organizes a close encounter as a contingency, an observable mirror much like a dream ( akin to art) as a result of biology in relation to the absence of normally stable referents in the environment.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Simpler..(Bruce writes):

    The observer organizes a close encounter as a contingency, an observable mirror much like a dream ( akin to art) as a result of biology in relation to the absence of normally stable referents in the environment.

    The biology is needed, but what happens after the demise of biology; that is when one dies?

    You do believe that the mind goes forward or onward after death, do you not?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • As a point of information about how these comments end up here...

    Blogger just slots them any which way.

    I've tried to keep comments tied to the each other, in proper sequence, but Blogger just won't let that happen.

    There's some kind of algorithm at work that is more obnoxious than the thing we're discussing.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • My Greek friend and I discussed this at some length, whom I suspect is Parakletos. Perhaps not.
    The short answer is a suspicion as death and life are states, not defining characteristics of the same field as bi-folded by biology. The common thread between NDE experiences and "extraterrestrial" visitations suggests Ibn Al Arabi was probably correct when he observed no two individuals experience the altered state of information in the same way as it relates to a non corporeal environment while the two are the same side of the coin in the information field.
    The inside becomes the outside in the field when referents are removed. The similarities of many types of manifestations suggest this.
    The cybernetics of information as explored by Gregory Bateson explores self referential systems of information in relation to a non biased environment as a matter of providing coherence to chaos. If we cannot contain the sum of information, the sum appears chaotic as in the uncertainty principle, unpredictable, therefore we avoid the fluid and create artifacts of perception that
    create as R,A Wilson said, a "naive realism"
    Another way to put it, once a differentiation in the field is created, it cannot be "undone" but it can change states.
    Every indication is that the universe has an analogous memory and we are expressions of a differentiation that cannot be "undone"

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Oh, now I get it...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Rich,
    Some of this is referenced in G Spencer Brown's "The Law of Forms" which simply put, is that material reality is made of distinctions. or what I call the differentiation of the field. When I referenced information as variable distinctions that can change states, I meant state as a reorientation to their context in relation to the field.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Bruce:

    Reality or realities, for me, lie in layers, mostly within the context of psychological categories.

    Quantum reality is obviously different than macro-reality or Newtonian reality.

    I need to deal with realities, UFO or other, as a separate, fixed state, whereas I see your outlook as a river wherein everything is interelated, awash in a current or flow.

    The river is the reality for you, in its totality, while I'm looking at the sediment, the fish, the rocks, and the water, each separately.

    It's an Aristotelian view.

    I'm trying to get you (and others here) to fixate on one element of the UFO encounter scenario; to look at one aspect, divorced from the general view, the overwhelming view of reality that you want to discuss.

    I'm asking for specialization, although I know that my comment about Gestalten observation last week may contradict this current stance of mine.

    We have gotten so far afield here that we've lost touch with the issue and are in areas that your blog deals with, not what this blog tries to deal with.

    The issue is that UFO encounters are either brought on by some presence that evokes images and drama for some (unknown) reason or the UFO encounters are neurologically engendered.

    Getting into Chomskian syntax or Gurdjieffian "theology" is far outside what was intended by my posting(s).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • A much simpler way to put it is that the relationship between the observer and the observed is full of human artifacts of perception which are skewed by biology Compound that with images that derive from that reality and you have a dog chasing it's tail. Compound that with a natural phenomenon that is unknown so much so, that 99% of what is written about "ufology" is off topic for this reason going nowhere now and in the future as it is self referential.
    Compound that with frameworks of the "other" that have a answer superimposed upon examining a question.
    Compound that with opinions being the gist of the answers that have been provided by all of the above.
    We have to change the context of the dialog, the fundamental terms.
    Otherwise, we remain in The Library of Babble.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • "The Western World has been brainwashed by Aristotle for the last 2,500 years. The unconscious, not quite articulate, belief of most Occidentals is that there is one map which adequately represents reality. By sheer good luck, every Occidental thinks he or she has the map that fits."
    R.A Wilson

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • The biology thing, Bruce, is throwing me off, among other stuff.

    The neural interactions surely cause some of the imagery, but Jose Caravaca's Distortion hypothesis shows manifest similarities among the UFO enocunters he's listed.

    Yes, there are minute details that differ but, over all, the events have a distinct similarity.

    If the biology or psychology of each witness were similar, one could make a case for your view or mine.

    But Jose points out, rightfully, that individual psychologies are not the same, and can't be, therefore something else is at work in his cases.

    Adding your biology quotient merely complicates the matter, even though what you're saying has merit.

    For me, the biology is a no-go. It's all mind, all psychology; that which continues after the body is disposed of by death.

    The brain/mind connection of most neurologists turn me off.

    No one has provided proof that brain controls mind activity, even though I accept a tenuous connection between the two.

    The mind is often flummoxed by brain activity -- Persinger's view I imagine.

    But when the brain is dead, the mind goes on, divorced from the vicissitudes of the brain's activity which is primarily to control the activities of the flesh, the biological body.

    You may want to debate this, but I do not.

    We have crossed the rubicon, and lost a few people along the way.

    The arcane aspects of the comments have winnowed the crowd appreciably.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • And Wilson is a better authority than Aristotle?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Well, if I put folks off your blog, then I withdraw for the same reason as leaving the campfire as being abstruse. If your social network has experienced an adverse effect, it was not my intention. My participation was to expand the dialog but, I this is perhaps not the venue that invites this other than what is desired by you. It's your court and I respect this. Sorry for the distractions, old friend..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Bruce:

    You and I, and a few others, can dialogue all we want, but others are being treated rudely.

    That is, we've become exclusionary.

    Your depth of understanding and reading far surpasses mine, and certainly surpasses the bystanders.

    I'm trying to get a clearer view of Jose Caravaca's hypothesis, as are you.

    And I need to know more about Nick Redfern's views, and Paul Kimball's, since he has a book coming out that I'll need to trash, er...I mean, review.

    The discursive debate we've been having is beyond the ken of most, even some of the Einstein Fellows in Ann Arbor, who eschew this UFO blog, are snickering.

    We've ignored those at the party by concentrating on our own interests.

    We've gone to sea without a compass to get us back home nor an oar even.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Rich,

    I think that any speculation as to what the Zorg might be, should it exist, is futile. Further, does it even really matter? The Native Americans didn't care whether the first explorers were from Spain, or France, or England - all that mattered was what they represented.

    To me, what matters is the potential information that may be communicated, and the manner in which it is possibly being received. Those are the patterns that intrigue me, because those are the areas where I think one can have a useful and informed (albeit still speculative) conversation.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • You're right, Paul...

    In this matter the medium isn't the message; the message is the message, whatever that might be.

    Some, however, think the staging, the drama is the message.

    I don't.

    The message is inscrutable, subliminal, obscure -- the UFO scenario just the attention-getter.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 09, 2012  

  • Frank Stalter has it correct:

    "I don't think that a nuts and bolts ET visitation and various paraphysical phenomenon are mutually exclusive.

    AJB
    Anthony Bragalia

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, January 12, 2012  

  • Don Ledger has rabies.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Sunday, January 15, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home