UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Thinking: The Thing Missing in Ufology

Edward de Bono has established a regimen of thinking that everyone should know, especially those who consider themselves UFO intellectuals or who are part of that pseudo-study: ufology.

Here are some of his books:

And here is a book that is classic that should be in everyone's library, not by de Bono:
The reason I'm suggesting this book and Edward de Bono's regimen about thinking derives from how lame I'm finding my own thought processes to be and those of readers who leave comments here.

It's not that commentary at this blog is unintelligent or fetid; it's just that the commentary is devoid of creativity and/or imagination.

That is, the commentary is, as de Bono calls it, vertical thinking when it should be lateral thinking.

You need to read his books to get the gist or do your usual studying by googling Edward de Bono and reading what he has to say.

(You might also check out the Dimnet book, The Art of Thinking.)

In the Socorro post below this one, there are comments that make my point about "unimagination."

Since UFOs have not reached or even approached an explanation, the phenomenon has to be attacked with an outrageous attempt at novelty and "new think."

The stultifying thought that resonates here, my own included, provides nothing unique or interesting.

The comments are, usually, actually worse than my postings. That's rather sad, pathetic even.

I don't care if I lose some (or many) readers/commentators here with this posting.

What have I really lost? A boring, uninviting set of comments, often florid -- sound and fury signifying nothing.

So, my fellow quidnuncs....hie thyselves to the bookstore or library and read up on where thinking is today and enlighten or edify those of us who need enlightenment and edification.

Please...

RR

4 Comments:

  • You can't expect we simple mortals to be of the same intellectual caliber as Edward de Bono (two of whose books I read a while back).

    He devotes his time to lateral, or other ways of, thinking, whereas people like us tend to shun real thinking and post immediate replies to catch attention. Even those of us who write books or presumed 'learned' articles do not have the time to indulge in the degree of lateral thinking as does de Bono.

    There are exceptions of course, but such people usually avoid these blogs.

    Ufology is full of people who love to insert what they believe are 'new' and exciting ideas. But this is not lateral thinking.

    Would you describe the ancient astronauts thesis as an example of lateral thinking? Von Daniken wanted people to believe his ideas were all new. They were not, of course, but he never told readers this, at least not in his first book.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 22, 2014  

  • The Art of Thinking, CDA, is exactly the book for those unwilling to improve their thought processes via de Bono's techniques.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, September 22, 2014  


  • I look back and am appalled at some of what I have written and I hesitate to express a dark cynicism about the possibilities inherent in lateral thinking. I can shovel sand into the tide with the best of them and have a certain pretense in that I could add anything to these issues. I generally use a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
    Some forms of insanity are institutionalised while some are taboo in terms of these possibilities.
    The issue is the challenge of the incommensurable is the issue of the unjust human situation and, there is a certain underlying despair there are no new worlds to conquer that originate in our imagination given the experiential material we have on hand.
    All we can muster is readopting recycled stereotypes of heterodoxy as ammunition from within a joke without a punchline. Gregory Bateson said it best, the human mind works in one way and nature in another and the older I become, I think it is impossible to avoid ideology in our critical assumptions.
    To borrow a phrase of HG Welles, this is the mind at the end of it’s tether or as RA Wilson said this is naive realism. Whether it is God or the extraterrestrial, its akin to trying to pin the tail on the donkey with the donkey being absent. The danger in expending too much time and energy in ruminating on these things, is depression. On the other hand, I have developed an empathy for my fellow creatures. Anyone who has an interest in these things is by either nature or experience, a doubting thomas without a rejoinder who seeks solace in imagination.
    On the other hand, science and the erstwhile paranormal community have failed when it comes to an agnostic approach to this issue of uncertainty. Reality has become a matter of taste in both, and yet, it is understandable from a certain point of view. From physics, we either live in a bubble, strings or a hologram in a failure to define normal and the other community throws around quasi terms like vortex, demon and UFO that fails to define paranormal. This is the state of the art.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 22, 2014  

  • Before ufology buffs jettison conventional thinking, they should give it a try first.

    When scientists want to learn about a reported event or process, they attempt to reproduce it. If I were a field investigator of UFOs, I would see what it would take to reproduce so-called trace evidence, such as scorched vegetation, ground impressions, radioactive readings, etc. That would give me a much better undertstanding of what could cause such purported effects. I would test witnesses on their ability to identify the size, speed, distance, sounds, etc., of known flying objects (such as scheduled aircraft flights).

    The ultimate test would be to try to reproduce an abduction. I suspect investigators would find it takes a very large team, a lot of planning and reconnaissance, highly sophisticated medical knowledge and equipment, perfect execution, and a lot of good luck. And if they wanted to get it done in two hours without being seen by family, neighbours, passerby and the cops, it would be even harder. (All this assumes a willing test subject, of course.)

    Such tests would change the perspective of UFO buffs, I venture.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, September 24, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home