UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, April 13, 2015

Phenomenology and UFOs

No, I'm not going to subject you to a discussion of phenomenology, as such.

(I find, as some of you know, that philosophy, quantum mechanics, and other academic or scientific disciplines are, virtually always, presented in abstruse terms with arcane logic and thought to leave the impression that the topics are rarefied and only accessible to adepts -- the priests of the disciplines.)

But there are elements within the thought of phenomenology as presented by its notable "originator" Husserl and his acolytes Heidegger, Sartre, et al. that might help define what happens when one sees or reports a UFO.

Past and present UFO sightings might be explained by the vicissitudes of phenomenology.

I'll highlight, in the segments below (pulled from the internet sites, linked) that which might be helpful when one is trying to decipher classic or contemporary UFO accounts and sightings....


Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This ontology (study of reality) can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.

Whether this something that consciousness is about is in direct perception or in fantasy is inconsequential to the concept of intentionality itself; whatever consciousness is directed at, that is what consciousness is conscious of. This means that the object of consciousness doesn't have to be a physical object apprehended in perception: it can just as well be a fantasy or a memory. Consequently, these "structures" of consciousness, i.e., perception, memory, fantasy, etc., are called intentionalities.

According to Heidegger, philosophy was not at all a scientific discipline, but more fundamental than science itself. According to him science is only one way of knowing the world with no special access to truth. Furthermore, the scientific mindset itself is built on a much more "primordial" foundation of practical, everyday knowledge. Husserl was skeptical of this approach, which he regarded as quasi-mystical, and it contributed to the divergence in their thinking.


Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.

Conscious experiences have a unique feature: we experience them, we live through them or perform them. Other things in the world we may observe and engage. But we do not experience them, in the sense of living through or performing them. This experiential or first-person feature — that of being experienced — is an essential part of the nature or structure of conscious experience: as we say, “I see / think / desire / do …” This feature is both a phenomenological and an ontological feature of each experience: it is part of what it is for the experience to be experienced (phenomenological) and part of what it is for the experience to be (ontological).

As we interpret the phenomenological description further, we may assess the relevance of the context of experience. And we may turn to wider conditions of the possibility of that type of experience. In this way, in the practice of phenomenology, we classify, describe, interpret, and analyze structures of experiences in ways that answer to our own experience.

In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. 

Originally, in the 18th century, “phenomenology” meant the theory of appearances fundamental to empirical knowledge, especially sensory appearances.

Phenomenology studies phenomena: what appears to us — and its appearing

In Franz Brentano's Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874), phenomena are what occur in the mind: mental phenomena are acts of consciousness (or their contents), and physical phenomena are objects of external perception starting with colors and shapes. For Brentano, physical phenomena exist “intentionally” in acts of consciousness.

Phenomena are whatever we are conscious of: objects and events around us, other people, ourselves, even (in reflection) our own conscious experiences, as we experience these. In a certain technical sense, phenomena are things as they are given to our consciousness, whether in perception or imagination or thought or volition. This conception of phenomena would soon inform the new discipline of phenomenology.

Realistic phenomenology studies the structure of consciousness and intentionality, assuming it occurs in a real world that is largely external to consciousness and not somehow brought into being by consciousness.

How I see or conceptualize or understand the object I am dealing with defines the meaning of that object in my current experience.

Consciousness is a consciousness of objects, as Husserl had stressed. In Sartre's model of intentionality, the central player in consciousness is a phenomenon, and the occurrence of a phenomenon just is a consciousness-of-an-object.

Neuroscience studies the neural activities that serve as biological substrate to the various types of mental activity, including conscious experience. Neuroscience will be framed by evolutionary biology (explaining how neural phenomena evolved) and ultimately by basic physics (explaining how biological phenomena are grounded in physical phenomena). Here lie the intricacies of the natural sciences. Part of what the sciences are accountable for is the structure of experience, analyzed by phenomenology.

“Phenomena”, in the Kantian idiom, are precisely things as they appear in consciousness, so of course their appearance has a phenomenal character.

Intentionality is a crucial property of consciousness, according to Brentano, Husserl, et al., the character of intentionality itself would count as phenomenal, as part of what-it-is-like to experience a given type of intentional experience.


Kant endorsed "transcendental idealism," distinguishing between phenomena (things as they appear) and noumena (things as they are in themselves), claiming that we can only know about the former 
phenomena are things as they appear. They are not mental states but worldly things considered in a certain way. 

Phenomenology, then, is the study of things as they appear (phenomena). It is also often said to be descriptive rather than explanatory: a central task of phenomenology is to provide a clear, undistorted description of the ways things appear.

In ordinary waking experience we take it for granted that the world around us exists independently of both us and our consciousness of it. This might be put by saying that we share an implicit belief in the independent existence of the world, and that this belief permeates and informs our everyday experience. Husserl refers to this positing of the world and entities within it as things which transcend our experience of them as "the natural attitude."

The subject matter of phenomenology is not held hostage to skepticism about the reality of the "external" world. 

It is possible that the implicit belief in the independent existence of the world will affect what we are likely to accept as an accurate description of the ways in which worldly things are given in experience. We may find ourselves describing things as "we know they must be" rather than how they are actually given.

It is vital that we are able to look beyond the prejudices of common sense realism, and accept things as actually given. It is in this context that Husserl presents his Principle of All Principles which states that, "every originary presentive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition, that everything originally (so to speak, in its 'personal' actuality) offered to us in 'intuition' is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there." 



  • hear! hear! But I wonder how you square this much welcome detour around endless debate about the "reality" (Husserl et al. would say "being") of the phenomenon and the stubborn fact that the data of ufology--as Vallee remarked to Hynek or vice versa-- is/are reports, a linguistic phenomenon.

    By Blogger Bryan Sentes, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • I have a take on linguistics, and don't see the topic as a hurdle to UFO explanation, Bryan, as the uniformity of reports, no matter in what language, have core similarities, meaning, for me, UFOs transcend individual consciousness, generally.

    However, Jose Caravaca's "Distortion Theory" seems to indicate that the phenomenon -- some of it -- is an adjunct to personal, individual contexts.

    I don't expect many of the visitors to this blog to get involved.

    It's beyond them, for several reasons.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • My query is prompted by phenomenology's focus on the "perceptuality" of phenomena, to the point that Husserl never really came to terms with the problematic relationship between language, consciousness, and experience, like Sartre, tho Heidi addresses it in a hyperbolic way ("language speaks") and Merleau-Ponty in a more sophisticated manner. Any application of phenomenology, which I approve as you know, must grapple with the narrativity of much of the data of ufology--an exception, maybe the only one, might be the Hessdalen Project, which is much more scientific in this regard (not that science escapes language or culture, either!)

    By Blogger Bryan Sentes, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • Bryan:

    I think the debate has to exclude data and stick with narrative only.

    Data is static, or should be, and it's the narrative as psychoanalysis accents which is what will define the UFO phenomenon.

    We have lots of data, as Vallee, among others, has proffered, and it tells us, coldly, what UFOs do but not what they are.

    I'm a fan of Sartre and have done a thing on Being and Nothingness re: UFOs at this blog or the RRRGroup blog, a while ago.

    But Sartre's approach takes us into the neverland of philosophical foo-foo, just as (all?) philosophers do, getting heady with their strained articulation of thought.

    Even Husserl falls victim, but the premise Husserl works with may be applied, by sensible rumination.

    You like the machinations of philosophy, which I eschew and have for a long time.

    Stripping away the philosophical argot might open the topic of consciousness to those who avoid the matter because of the usual argumentative periphrases.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • Phenomenon are distinctions within relationships made only partially coherent due to an incomplete data base of thought that creates variables of the whole.
    Yet interdependence rules perception while the mind is a containment field. The mind works one way and nature in another.
    I suspect the universe is not a Swiss watch or frozen in amber.
    It is always in process being reinvented.

    The mind is comparable to not seeing beyond the horizon of comparisons it is capable of in relationship to the whole and this does relate to the maths of language being a trap in of itself.

    Language is repeatable and demonstrable whereas a description is not what is described.

    What we term self awareness is imaginary or image based. No instance of phenomenon is directly observed.

    Its all subject to one's orientation and so perhaps experiential phenomenon are subjective just as spacetime is relativistic depending on whose ruler you are using.

    The mind divides...the whole by what relationships it contains.

    What ruler you use constitutes perception in relation to phenomenon.

    Anomalies within this hint that something other than human distinctions are at play.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • Bruce,

    You pose a view that strikes at the heart of Husserl's concepts, and I think you are wrong.

    There is a phenomenological reality, which can be distorted by neurological maladies but the reality remains intact for persons who have brains and consciousness that one can call normal or healthy.

    I've highlighted the phenomenological views prevalent within the topic.

    You are roaming outside those views.

    And you may be on to something but only in the way that mental illness allows.

    Moreover, the subject matter is phenomenology, not reality or consciousness that is tapped by those who prefer to eschew phenomenology as an aspect of philosophical musings.

    Your statement, "What we term self awareness is imaginary or image based. No instance of phenomenon is directly observed" is hooey, and I say that not to provoke discussion but to quell the nonsense of the statement.

    And I write this as a rebuke from my position not as a rebuke of the possibility that you may be right, "may" the operative word.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • I hate to break your chain of custody in regard ro your reality but everything you experience is not directly observed. It is a interpretation and simulation of the environment not the environment itself. It runs by simulations that are neurologically based, and are processed as biochemical signals using an energy field. You can describe Rich or I could but Rich is not what is described by any description..to think otherwise is a game of language or thinking a referent has a reality in of itself. You seem to be stuck in this.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, April 13, 2015  

  • Bruce:

    Where we differ is that I think there is an objective reality that can be realized by consensus and you think, if I have your view correctly, is that reality is composed of electrical and biological factors that don't allow a perception of reality that is actual.

    We, you think, merely try to describe what we think is reality but we cannot do so, objectively or in any defined way.

    That view is rife among many who see consciousness as amorphous and fraught with vicissitudes that interrupt any possibility of a true view of things.

    I'm Cartesian mostly but tried to present the phenomenological view, without falling back on my affection for Plato's real reality.

    You present a view or views steeped in the thinking of Gurdjieff I believe.

    Profound, even with your tucking of electrical impulses into the scheme of things, but hooey, from my understanding and acceptance of shared reality by human beings, in most instances.

    A retired physicist, Edward Adelson, wrote a letter to the Times Literary Supplement [4/3/15] in response to a review of Anna Marmodoro's book on Aristotle by Christopher Frey, wherein he (Adelson) took to task the misrepresentation of what was written about colour [this is a British publication as you know].

    Adelson wrote " ... there is no need for speculation about the physics of colour. One may speculate about what 'the thing-in-itself' or 'energy' is, but that is trying to see beyond a glass darkly. No two people are likely to have the same distribution of rods and cones and dyes in their eyes, let alone all the same nerve cell connections in their brains, so no two people are likely to see exactly the same colours when looking at the same phenomenon." [Page 6].

    I had crossed a line through that hooey.

    And it's your view too: hooey.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • I suspect there is no singular reality of conclusive or monarchical rules to this game such as Phenomenology that we can say lie at the heart of the matter although we would prefer consistency, predictability and a framework as we have none of the above in ourselves or in this world.... as we ourselves define those terms in their suitability as buffers and self comforting psychologies.
    Fantasies abound here. So does self suggestion from within that reflects the same from without...as an imprint. That has much to do with UFOs.
    Phenomenology as a description lacks qualifiers.
    I think that if I thought for a moment that a rose is a rose is a rose, I would be taking a defensive posture. I think deconstructing and questioning why this or that arises as postulates for a singular reality versus a more plural definition is healthy and not a psychological malady. Scientists have theories and we have opinions as to the nature of reality in ourselves and they are cut from the same cloth of a guessing game trying to find a grounding of existence in purpose which is colored by our definition of it.
    UFOs are a signet of this situation and are a litmus test of how we measure a blank page in order to fill it in.
    I have no school of thought I follow. There is more to a human being than our adaptation to biology and there are parallel realities to this we can only speculate upon...I think if we knew all the answers, we would turn into marble statuary and be bored to death as there would be no new worlds to explore.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Yes, Bruce...

    We are all flailing away at the problem: what is reality, with its corollaries, consciousness and meaning of life.

    But each of us has to settle on something or other, else we'd withdraw into ourselves to the point of oblivion as Melville points out in Bartleby, the Scrivener.

    In my posting, I had hoped to offer a mechanism by which one might see if they could approach UFOs differently but, as usual, we've gone astray, into the murky world of philosophical musings where nothing makes sense.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Theres nowhere to go with any approach.
    I dont think we have a conceptual model but we do have chief attributes. However we all know theres no cogent framework or theory by which to contrast and compare them with. We have thrown the kitchen sink at it.
    We have philosophies instead of analysis, story telling, even religions, cults, paranoia, etc.
    ET as a theory is dead among many and this latest exercise in mass hypnosis over some slides underlines this for many, myself included.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Ah, those slides....

    I see the matter of the slides as an entryway to many truths, none ET oriented necessarily.

    I think Tim Hebert sees possibilities for "revelations" of a behavioral kind also.

    The slides (like UFOs generically) allow a glimpse of a reality blip.

    The whole reality shebang is, as the Cabalists tell us, beyond our understanding, in this life.

    Phenomenology hints at this, and other disciplines have told us that too.

    The incomprehensibility of life is what we as humans should be trying to unravel, but nonsense intervenes.

    You, Bruce, keep struggling with the meaning of your existence and ours also.

    Me? I'm cavalier about it, hoping that when I pass from this mortal vale, I'll have an answer.

    If there is only a black void or nothingness, what does it matter?

    Meanwhile, things like UFOs or those damnable slides will abide with me, keeping boredom at bay, since Las Vegas or trips to Alaska don't beckon as sops to a life of intellectual ennui.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • I dont think we descended into philosophy as an end run around the topic as phenomenology is a philosophy and it struck me in terms of architecture,"that only philosophers understand philosophers" as a technical language of conclusions placed before the horse.
    I just do not see its efficacy but I can appreciate your struggling (as well as others) to domesticate a will o the wisp as all things are contingent on their interdependence....its all fair game and anyone's guess. Its provoking the provocateur that makes the day less dreary and I mean that in a creative not disparaging way.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • It's taken this long for Phenomenology to come up? Sad.


    By Blogger Rick Phillips, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Thanks, Rick...

    I've posted previously on the topic at one of our other blogs, and thought it was time to do so at this blog.

    Thanks for the link.

    Maybe it will spur others to look at the subject.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Rich, wow! You’re really making me nostalgic. The last time I was given the firehose treatment of Husserl, Heidegger, et. al. the year was about 1970, and I was about 22 years old. It was about 2:00 AM and some young flower child was trying to impress me with her intellect through the red wine and marijuana-fueled haze that permeated the Berkeley crash pad. Ah, those were the days.

    Then, as now, my immediate reaction was well summed up by the quotation attributed to Zoroaster in “Also Sprach Zarathustra”. This is a paraphrase, because I’m too lazy to look up the exact citation—but he is presented as saying “I cannot stand the Philosophers for they muddy their water so that it appears deep.” I can't think of any philosopher more deserving of that description than Husserl.

    You definitely are a classic, liberal arts-type intellectual. I don’t know any other type of mind that would try to explain one mystery (UFOs) with another (consciousness).

    Good luck with that project.

    By Blogger Larry, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • And this, Larry, made my day:

    “I cannot stand the Philosophers for they muddy their water so that it appears deep."

    From the ever great, even in a paraphrase, Nietzsche.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Great post Rich! And thanks for diverging from the current path towards "slidedom."

    The question to ponder is whether consciousness is a collective process, such as William James "conscious stream," or an individual neurological construct that may involve an external trigger (culture, religion, etc) that indirectly influences our perception to phenomena as germane to your post.

    You and Bruce touched on, but not in detail, something similar to Chalmer's "hard question" such as describing the color of red.

    Again good post and hope to see more when you can spare the time.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, April 14, 2015  

  • Larry
    I think consciousness studies and research in relation to neurology and psychology do have a strong possibility of having a link to this phenomenon in terms of the enormous variability of “creatures” reported as well as craft. Also, there appear to be waves of coherence or similarities between types when there is a viral distribution of images that appear to be cloned from one another albeit they are similar in short cycles. We cannot pin down a UFO or whatever it may be in order to study it but we can study the observers in order to separate the wheat from the chaff outside of the parameters of outright pathological liars. While I dont think phenomenology is a good choice I do think Rich has an outstanding job of looking at this from every angle.
    My own conjecture is that perhaps an exposure to these localised high energy fields do have an effect on mental processes that create a fallback toward self suggestion and creating a narrative sewn together by memory….a hallucination for lack of a better word...when one is completely in a state of disorientation due to an incommensurable state. Perhaps not.
    I tend to think there is more likely than not “something” is going on and I don’t think we are in a position to eliminate other scenarios outside of traditionally envisioned “nuts and bolts” saucers...and Kodachrome slides as a hook for projecting fantasies and utilizing mass hypnosis by the repetition of suggestions.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, April 15, 2015  

  • Bruce wrote: “…I think consciousness studies and research in relation to neurology and psychology do have a strong possibility of having a link to this phenomenon in terms of the enormous variability of “creatures” reported as well as craft….”

    I do too. In fact I’ll go you one better. I think what we call psychic phenomena or psi, is real and has a role to play in the UFO phenomenon.

    I just don’t think Husserl has much to add to that discussion.

    By Blogger Larry, at Wednesday, April 15, 2015  

  • No, Larry, Husserl and his extrapolators, especially Heidegger, allow us to see PSI or psychic phenomena as "real" -- or actual replications of consciousness.

    That takes us into the reality of consciousness, of course, which will get messy, but phenomenology permits the discussion and we can thank Husserl for that.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 15, 2015  

  • Rich wrote: "...phenomenology permits the discussion and we can thank Husserl for that."

    Empirical science also permits it, and we can thank Targ and Puthoff (and others) for that.

    By Blogger Larry, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • Larry
    I think a potential and still theoretical explanation for these strange encounters is in a paper published some time ago by Brian Josephson, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge who published "Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality" which then was followed up in the work of Stuart Hameroff and Rodger Penrose regarding microtubules in the physical brain that have quantum properties.The sort of mix of the chaotic and the coherent in many accounts might make neurology and physics a avenue for providing potential explanations.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • As somebody who likes Umberto Eco, you should have Ulf Harendarski on your screen. He wrote his doctorate thesis about the UFOS especially the alien abduction. His aproach is more from the philosophy of semiotic influencend by the work of Charles Peirce THeory of Signs and Umberto Eco. Instead of "phenomena" he sees UFOs as "signs" .He had a whole chapter about intentionalties in his thesis. Unfortunately it is only available in german.

    By Blogger Zak McKracken, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • To add to Zak's contribution: Terry Matheson applied narratology (the semiotics of narrative) to the alien abduction phenomenon in his _Alien Abductions: Creating a Modern Phenomenon (1998), and Thomas Bullard famously (?) drew in part on Barthes' notion of 'mythology', structuralism, and narratology in his own magisterial study _The Myth and Mystery of UFOs_ (2010), all which approaches, like the phenomenological, sidestep attempts to explain (away) the phenomenon or determine its "reality" in favour of delineating as carefully as possible the phenomenon's meaning and the workings thereof (hence the application of of semiological or semiotic approach, which, unlike the classically phenomenological addresses directly the linguistic dimension of the phenomenon's various articulations).

    By Blogger Bryan Sentes, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • The articulation differences, Bryan, are minuscule, making me think the phenomenon has a sine qua non existence.

    The differences that one sees only exists in those sightings that involve creatures or beings, and which Spanish UFO researcher Jose Caravaca deals with in his "Distortion Theory" (covered here and at Jose's blog).

    Once ufologists get philosophers involved, as I have, the matter will become even more complex, unnecessarily, as I think Larry, a NASA engineer, indicates.

    As a Will Durant fan, I'm trying to keep the topic popularized but outside the banal, mundane, insipid environment that surrounds most discussions of UFOs.

    We seem, however, to have descended in the murk of abstruse academic debate which will, unfortunately, scare away those who have insights but keep them private for fear that they don't make muster with the ruminations here.

    Phenomenology can be hacked to the point where it makes eminent sense.

    That's why I added it as a topic point.

    I didn't expect -- well I did maybe -- that we'd go off on tangents that take us far from the premise, but here it is....


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • by 'articulation" I mean the system described by semiotic analysis that underwrites the cognitive possibility of any appearance whatsoever, e.g., the linguistic system described by a linguist describes the rules for any possible combination of phonemes into morphemes and morphemes into syntagmata.--And don't you think hard physicalist or softer psychological approaches that both seek to reduce or explain the phenomenon call for some scrutiny and reflection given their inability to a) grasp a measurable, repeatable phenomenon to study, and b) arrive at even a satisfactory speculative answer?

    By Blogger Bryan Sentes, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • (feel free not to answer or post my last contribution, given this thread has unravelled in an unproductive way, as you observe)

    By Blogger Bryan Sentes, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • I love you like a brother, Bryan.

    You make my day(s) here (and at Facebook).

    You are an archetypal academic.

    You take us all into the nether world of academic discourse.

    UFOs are simple things despite the desire of some to make them into a complex phenomenon.

    Trying to explain what they are or might be requires many tools, some scientific, some psychological or neurological, and some sociological.

    But I find many of us going off into worlds of explanation that miss the point: UFOs are basically a simple phenomenon, even those sightings with "crazy" elements.

    Data, as you noted earlier, doesn't tell us anything, other than the phenomenon differs from things that we usually associate with flying.

    UFOs as hallucinations fascinate me (and Tim Hebert), but that doesn't explain all the sightings.

    That's why I tried to narrow the discussion to phenomenological terms, with slight permutations put forward by Heidegger and the existentialists.

    That is, UFOs are an objective reality.

    But then we get into consciousness, and we're off into realms of discussion which are endless -- interesting but outside the simplicity of UFOs as I see the phenomenon.

    UFOs are tangible, maybe even tangible hallucinations.

    They may be ET craft, highly unlikely as I see it but a possibility.

    Or they might be a product of electro-magnetism as Persinger and Bruce Duensing see the "things."

    And here we get to Kant's "das Ding an sich."

    There is an essence to UFOs, but what that essence is or may be eludes us, and has for many years.

    Trying to parse UFOs with philosophical bromides merely confuses.

    And "quantumnizing" the phenomenon as I have many times also confuses.

    By adding these peripheral asides at this blog, I'm trying to make UFOs more exciting than they've become over the years, and by so doing, I haven't raised the bar of clarity. I've often added to the nonsense of the topic.

    But, again, there it is...(my favorite phrase, taken from the emperor's dialogue in "Amadeus.")


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 16, 2015  

  • "I don’t know any other type of mind that would try to explain one mystery (UFOs) with another (consciousness)."

    Or explain one delusion with another! (vbg)

    Good one, Larry! I had a very similar experience about 1974.

    But just the same, I applaud RR's "creative" leap. Yes, like the rest of phenomenology, "UFO" REPORTS are and can be subjectively described endlessly, but what does that get us?

    Not much I'm afraid. It's like just the start of something, a part of some much larger project that demands real-world structure--objects, facts and logic--to form an accurate understanding.

    Imagine some ideal idiosyncratic phenomenologist's philosophy of everything. Imagine it's a name you've heard. What does that tract mean to most in 2015? Not much! And next to nothing to a Scientific realist like me.

    That phenomenologist philosophy is so idiosyncratic, ill-defined (even fundamentally misconceived) and about anything makes it impractical and impracticable.


    Hey RR!

    What's next "'UFOs' and the philosophy of cosmology?" (g)

    That's a topic I've yet to see here. No kidding, that's a real subject now. The idea of which elicits great guffaws from people like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and others, including me.

    Love ya!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 17, 2015  

  • And I luv ya too Zoamy.....

    The next UFO item I'm planning has to do with archaeoacoustics. Yep.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 17, 2015  

  • Here is a semiotic take on pictures and photographies:


    By Blogger Zak McKracken, at Thursday, April 23, 2015  

  • Thanks, Zak...

    You take the topic into an interesting area.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 23, 2015  

  • > The subject matter of phenomenology is not held hostage to skepticism about the reality of the "external" world.

    What does that even mean?

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Thursday, April 23, 2015  

  • I think, Terry, it means that reality is a given; that is, reality exists, a priori.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 23, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home