Final Conclusions Regarding UFOs

a reply to: Peeple

Every living creature has peaks and valleys of capabilities.

It's he very stuff of descent through natural selection with inheritance.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

yes, the thing is once you're convinced you/something are/is good you take that as excuse to do the most horrific things.

One moment I fight for Darwinian Evolution and NeoDarwinian synthesis tooth and nail,
and then I talk about 'fairies' for 5 pages.

I make myself smile too.

But if any hypothesis/theorum/law/postulate/observation is show to be incorrect,
I will recant INSTANTLY.

I don't have a horse in any race, well hardly any horse. I still ride the Pony a bit.
It's in the nature of limited and temporary beings to wish to feel alive, and to
play with all the shiny toys.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I love most parts of Darwin.
I believe in evolution.
But... I got to admit I also have a thing for determinism and am not a fan of chance.

Not saying "look I got all the answers", just that it feels odd.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

yes, the thing is once you're convinced you/something are/is good you take that as excuse to do the most horrific things.

Any form of Zealot, even a zealot 'for good' is one of the most problematic things of all.

a reply to: Peeple

If all possibilities are actual and happening right now, then there is no chance.
That's super determinism, and it's one possible solution for quantum mechanics.

Mystics call it the 'eternal now'.

At first glance, that's a depressing solution, but if 'delusion' is baked into it all,
and it is, due to the limits of knowledge, then hardly anyone would ever know.

Kev

originally posted by: Peeple
While the thing that has driven and bitches humans most of all, the question of consciousness is now almost officially a taboo topic.

That's #ing odd, excuse me I'm not buying that we're this brilliant while so super stupid.

I see what you mean now and yeah, perhaps not in the same way, but I don't entirely buy that either. I think elsewhere I put forth a "blockage" explanation (or hypothesis maybe?) but I meant it specifically in that instance not generally as here.

Is it a taboo though? I seem to get a lot of articles that dance around the issue on my feed - perhaps it's more a matter of the discussion of consciousness has diversified because we have begun to accept the diversity within our own species and that diversity is represented by differences in perception?

We invariably come to what I call a glass ceiling of facts about this phenomenon of ufos and alien reports.

And that is, we always come to the same point—the point of not reaching any conclusion. Just can't reach that final PROOF or any real proof.

From day 1, it has been all about: do I believe or do I not believe for the vast majority.

Even If the alien Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind events were genuine, then still that's an infinitesimal number of people who can say they barely know anything about it.

And all the most genuine events reach a glass ceiling at best, with no facts to draw any reasonable conclusions.

It's a constant cycle of belief and or disbelief, or I don't know.

Reminds me of something else.

The parallel between ufology and religion is truly amazing:

Religion has witnesses or experiencers who say they have seen God or God-like entities.

Ufo has the same element to it.

Religion has the esoteric, or more intimate experiences, and the exoteric, the more distant believers.

There are numerous ufo religions with founders or leaders whom I would equate to the priests and clerics in religion.

And in religion, there are numerous scholars whom I would directly equate to the ufologists.


The only difference is ufology is so new it hasn’t produced as many killers as religion has. Though there have been many suicidal ufo cults and some of them involve murders.

But give it time it will catch up.

a reply to: Willtell

Even the best cases are only of value for the person experiencing them.

That ought to be a clue to their nature and purpose.

Kev

a reply to: Willtell

The reason for the glass ceiling is quite obvious.

If indeed 'reality' is nothing parading as something, or 'something unpleasant' parading as 'something fun', then, the 'prime directive' would be to allow only those who have exhausted the 'game' to watch the concluding moments of the production.

And that's exactly how it works.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I never said that they all wanted to eat 'humans'. Besides, 'souls' are only 'ejecta', a temporary thing that often decays into a 'shade'. All the older cultures viewed it this way. Now, yes, sometimes 'souls' are hoovered up by a faction, human or non-human. Some 'souls' on Earth probably originated from elsewhere in the Universe even. But un any case, it's a temporary thing. There are various models of interaction; yes, being consumed is one of them; having a symbiosis is another, or just being left alone.

I know this all sounds 'crazy'. But it's the sort of thing you learn if you study esoteric history or have personal experience.

'hypothetically'

I know you didn't mean all of them, you just give the impression sometimes.

. . . and it doesn't seem 'crazy' to me.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

The idea behind human's infection, for the part that I've thought about, comes from prior posts of KPB in the thread.

It reminded me of these myths about demigods, or nephilim and how they were generally seen as impure or unworthy to be considered "full-fledge" gods.

So I tried to make a connection between impurity and the process between humans and "them". Then I pondered about the idea that if humans "sacrifice" something during the process, so probably do the "other". The only thing it can "sacrifice", as far as I understand, would be revolving around the concept of divine purity.

That is, I don't think I had an 'encounter' with the "other" (if so, I don't remember it). Hence, I can't really put anything on what is the purity in question.

Just for fun, I wonder if the concept of purity and the demigods could have something to do with KPB's analogue/digital hypothesis and trans-humanism. In that scenario the trans-humans would probably consider themselves superior to the naturals. They would probably start a war to eradicate the impure. Or the naturals might start a war to prevent being eradicated.

You would also have the early developmental prototypes and experimentals; the hybrid oragnic-machines. These unfortunate people might be considered abominations in he eyes of both the analogues and the digitals.

That scenario would probably end up a big mess with lots of killing. I wonder how many times humanity has tried this trans-human thing, a lot of the old myths would fit.

-----------

I think there would generally be something that both parties gain or lose in encounters. What would be lost or gained would depend on the nature of the encounter and who initiated it. Like when a human encounters another human, we could get mugged, or we might make a new friend.

I don't know if "sacrifice" is really the right word. Give and take? Or just give or take as the case may be.

The context of purity was something out of folklore that KPB brought up; that the encounter corrupted both parties.

There certainly seems to be a definite and life changing effect on humans when these encounters occur. Who initiates the encounter generally has the advantage because it is on their terms the encounter takes place. The 'alien abduction' scenario for instance, or the enlightenment scenario.

I'm rather cynical, so I see enlightenment in the same light as I do the abduction. In practice people are hijacked, so two sides of the same coin.

But the table can be turned sometimes. Especially if the encounter is ongoing and becomes intimate.

May I dare to ask; is the house and the person clear-cut separated beings? In other words, does, at some point, the person and the house become parts of the "self", so that haunting the house really is "crossing boundaries of the self"?

The concept of 'boundaries of self' came about from examining what happens in my own encounters. The other party does things and behaves in a way that makes it obvious there are boundaries that they are well aware of and are working with.

In practice, the house and the person begin as clear-cut separate beings. The change occurs when the person makes the house a home thereby extending the self to include the house - territory.

With the concept of territory come the concept of trespass.

In the haunting one needs to take into account who was there first. If the 'ghost' was there first the house can be considered their home and territory. Sometimes we can be the trespassers.

A home, a self, a territory, and trespass, they all fit together.

originally posted by: Willtell
The parallel between ufology and religion is truly amazing:

Religion has witnesses or experiencers who say they have seen God or God-like entities.

Ufo has the same element to it.

Religion has the esoteric, or more intimate experiences, and the exoteric, the more distant believers.

There are numerous ufo religions with founders or leaders whom I would equate to the priests and clerics in religion.

And in religion, there are numerous scholars whom I would directly equate to the ufologists.


The only difference is ufology is so new it hasn’t produced as many killers as religion has. Though there have been many suicidal ufo cults and some of them involve murders.

But give it time it will catch up.

I'm rather cynical, so I see enlightenment in the same light as I do the abduction. In practice people are hijacked, so two sides of the same coin.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I agree, "sacrifial" isn't the most accurate word in the context, that's why I've put it between quotation marks. Though I partly agree with the give/take aspects.

I do believe there's a give from each party in order for the process to unfold. For the take part, I agree with KPB and you that the "other" mostly benefits from it. For humans, it seems a bit more nuanced. I guess it would ultimately come down to what has changed and what one decides to do with this change.

As for the house;

In practice, the house and the person begin as clear-cut separate beings. The change occurs when the person makes the house a home thereby extending the self to include the house - territory.

That's pretty much what I had in my mind while writing the question. But I wasn't implying "territory"; rather, I was questioning whether "permissions" could be applied to the house, when it becomes home.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

If the primordial prokaryotic cell hadn't been a 'demon' and 'abducted' the bacteria,
there would have been no eukaryotic cells, no 'us'.

What starts with violence, sometimes becomes mutually beneficial.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Yup.

There is 'enlightenment due to surrender..

and there is 'enlightenment' due to rape.

But most of all, that's a terrible word, that should be retired entirely.

I prefer the word 'freedom'.

Freedom is entirely positive, though it too can be won at the point of a sword.

Kev

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Beautiful.

Once the bacteria is a mitochondria or chloroplast, it is now 'home'.

We simply must talk about 'cakras' soon. You must imagine I squeeze all (or most) of the BS out of them.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

I guess it would ultimately come down to what has changed and what one decides to do with this change.

I see it that way too.

That's pretty much what I had in my mind while writing the question. But I wasn't implying "territory"; rather, I was questioning whether "permissions" could be applied to the house, when it becomes home.

Wouldn't the idea of permission grow out of the idea of territory?

Frankly?

I don't know how much of a 'UFOlogist' I feel like being these days. I mean, I was never a 'UFOlogist' really.

Though the point is well made, that 'UFOs' are often 'vehicles of spiritual experience', which can be mutually beneficial or rape.

In this vast sea of 'subjectivity', it certainly seems possible to find seeming relative islands of stability, where more objective-seeming information and theories can be found.

For example, I cannot recommend highly enough:

THE BRIMSTONE DECEIT: An In-Depth Examination of Supernatural Scents, Otherworldly Odors, and Monstrous Miasmas
by Joshua Cutchin (Author)

and

THIEVES IN THE NIGHT: A Brief History of Supernatural Child Abductions Aug 2, 2018
by Joshua Cutchin

It's purely delightful for me, an extreme loner of research, to years after all the dust has settled, to see someone do such an admirable job, to do such admirable research.

If I was a 'UFOlogist' I'd do more research like this.

Now mind you, Joshua comes to 'squishy' (glass ceiling type) conclusions too.. somewhat..

But let me tell you, that since I was paralyzed by one of Direne's 'feisty dwarves' for 10-15 minutes,
when Joshua discusses such things 50 times over, with new things to consider and chew over,
it's delightful.

It is always wise to celebrate 'truth', no matter where it is found, even should it be in a box of "cracker jacks" (to rip off a Sea Bird); and sometimes that 'truth' is distributed among us all, and all over the place.

Kev

a reply to: Erno86
Sorry about everyone's Pets...I used to have a few rabbits that I groomed and showed for 4H Club every year at the County Fair.
A couple of them were Angora, which if you feel the fur, you know it's super soft. I used to shave them down and give the hair to folks in the neighborhood to make Angora sweaters.
So I don't really like rabbit stew, for obvious reasons...