Hard Disclosure Right Here

Dude, finally someone who speaks my language....

Regarding abductions:

There is the higher truth that all is one born of nothingness. Then there is the functional existence we normally experience, which is separation. In that normal everyday existence, there are psychotics, criminals, enlightened people, decent people--you know, the whole gamut of "types." If you were to change perspectives to oneness, this would go away. You'd say these are all illusions, ego facades born of human psychology, culture, etc. - that mask oneness. They are functional illusions, right? However you wouldn't deny the existence of individual bodies. There ARE humans. (NOTE: And if you want to argue that all matter is one field projecting separate physical entities, it's not going to destroy what comes next so let's leave it aside.)

Still, one who lives from that oneness point of view is just as liable to be shot by a psycho as one who does not. How they react is the difference. Depending on where you are in spiritual growth you'll want revenge, want that psychotic to get help, believe that the act of violence was a learning lesson for you, have no thought about it at all, etc. There is only one objective material fact there, which is that you've been shot by another human.

If you will grant me that, then why do you say that "aliens" are a projection of oneness--kind of a breathing metaphor, really--reaching through the muck of the separate self and getting distorted by our filters? Essentially we are creating the illusion of aliens, right?

But just as there is the objective fact that you've been shot by another human, is there not the objective fact of the nonhuman interacting with the abductee and the meaning the abductee places on that interaction is dependent on their psycho-spiritual station?

In other words, if a man shoots me, my perception of that depends on where I am psycho-spiritually but the the act happened and the man exists. Why doesn't the same go for "aliens" (or whatever these beings are)? Why reduce them to a human projection? Why not stop at the interpretation of their actions as a human projection?

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]

reply to post by Merigold


Vallee inspired me. His ideas and my own are not at all mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, mutually supportive.

As above, so below.

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni


Sure, there is a lot of room for interpretation. I'm going to save a little bit of typing and repost some posts here that I posted on another website relative to my take on the implications of Wittgenstein's work. It's a bit "stream of consciousness", but I think that my answer to your question can be found in the cracks. Forgive the impreciseness and poor grammar...

----

There is nothing to say, says he, apart from the where and how you say it. I'm getting an impression of his view of language that is compatible with language as a connective tissue. In my mind's eye I see cells under a microscope, membranes pushed together closely, such as the interface of our projections onto the "world" of others and vice versa. If you zoom into each cell you find the things that have unique names cannot be variable and cannot be subdivided, but they, rather than being the plainest thing, are utterly mysterious. The internal cell structures are the objects, facts, and propositions made within a world for presentation to another world, eg another person. The projections are the impressions made by one cell upon another. Where one pushes out, the other draws inward to create a space for it, and vice versa. The rules of language are also mysterious, like the things for which names stand. The rules are like the inverse of things which have names, and all of language is a roiling soup moving in the spaces between these mysteries.

---

The roiling soup has structure - it can't not have structure. We use logical scaffolding to erect complex propositions in logical space, but logical space exists within the membrane of each world and is merely analogous to the logical space in another's world. Given that the projection says of the propositions what the propositions cannot say of themselves, what the projection says is a function of the impact felt on another's world by way of your projections. Not knowing the state of affairs in another's world, you cannot ultimately be certain of your impact on it. In close points of contact, pains can be taken to instill analogous understandings, but these are reflections across a linguistic asymptote, which is the membrane itself. How this analogous construction affects the state of affairs in another world is also dependent on the other projections being impressed upon it.

The study of this feature - of the interaction between worlds, must be similar to computational fluid dynamics.

---

this is an intellectual model of "we are all one" in that it is not possible for us to speak of language outside of language - this is an error. so all language grows up between us and we are both constrained by its rules and deluded by the pressure exerted by the "state of affairs" which is, itself, composed of variable objects. the pressure itself forces compensatory rearrangement of the internal "state of affairs", which projects into the world of others, inducing more compensation, etc. this requires that we are "inside" a system whose rules are mysterious (Godel, again), just as we each are individually trapped inside a "world", and the beat goes on. turtles below and turtles above.

---

the whole thing is a push-pull and negotiation, and this must be somehow linked to entropy. I wonder how pressures work across scales or magnitudes, and if those pressures are ultimately resolvable to "cosmological constants". an argument over the price of a bauble in a bazaar might be an echo of the gravitational exertion of Jupiter as it crosses Saturn

An interesting idea. I too have long thought that there is more to all of this than meets the eye. Reality is, IMO, the collective agreement we share. In the idea of the Holographic Universe, we all share the whole, and are seperate yet semi-equal parts of the whole.

If enough "parts" of the collective agree, that is, concieve and believe, a thing to be true, then it assumes it's place in reality, as we understand it on this corporeal level.

Incidently, such is the basis and teaching of many religions, though dressed in more mystical attire.

Good thread.

"(Dilthey, 1883–1911; Baldwin, 1894; Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934)."

You might want to look into more recent research.

Views on Schizophrenia have changed a lot in the last hundred years.

Makes me a little leery about the rest of your sources.

Any scientific literature review as the one you have undertaken has to include the most recent research.

And if you could cite your info about neanderthals that would be great.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by CallMeMaury]

reply to post by applebiter


Here's something I've been struggling with and maybe you've thought this through:

is it probable that there exists a sentient hive-mind species (one consciousness, many bodies) that believes it is God? You'd think that the moment it came into contact with other species it would have to know itself in relation to others and grow up but does that have to be the case? Could it be just as psychotic, just as infantile as an individual human and get stuck there? Would it create in its bodies a psychotic, reactionary brain chemistry?

I'm not saying this is what 'aliens" are I'm just wondering if you think it's possible for there to be this type of cancer in oneness outside of the imagination. (I like to think of imagination as the virtual storage space for all possibilities through which probabilities and then actuality are refined and brought about.)

reply to post by CallMeMaury


Hehe, they sure have changed a lot. We can get into that, but that deserves its own thread, and I'm not sure it would fit into this forum. Be as leery as you like. SInce you are interested in "new and improved!" theories, you might check this out:

2004 Tucson Conference on Consciousness Studies

and you might also read Julian Jaynes' take on it, vis a vis The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Awful title. Great book.

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni


Sure, it's possible, but we've run into a wall because of the restrictions of language and our sense of temporal and spatial localness. I suspect that there are a very few primitive universal informational constants, and that matter has grown up around them in escalating complexity via involution. In other words, maybe we and the aliens are locked into the same situation Dr. Martin Luther King described. "I can't be at my best until you are at your best."

Originally posted by applebiter
reply to post by CallMeMaury

 

SInce you are interested in "new and improved!" theories....

Well wait a sec...are you saying that there haven't been real advances in understanding schizophrenia? That seems awfully convenient. I mean the Flat Earth Society could just as easily brush off Callmemaury that way.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]

Originally posted by applebiter
reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni

 

Sure, it's possible, but we've run into a wall because of the restrictions of language and our sense of temporal and spatial localness. I suspect that there are a very few primitive universal informational constants, and that matter has grown up around them in escalating complexity via involution. In other words, maybe we and the aliens are locked into the same situation Dr. Martin Luther King described. "I can't be at my best until you are at your best."

I believe that is the case. But if you believe that then you do believe there are other beings involved not just hallucinating humans misrepresenting the call of "oneness."

reply to post by applebiter


You say you where an atheist. Then what do you believe when it comes to "God"?

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni


This, again, is language arguing with itself. Until someone can explain spukhafte Fernwirkung (spooky action at a distance), then you are going to have to accept the idea that everything in the universe is mysteriously connected. We can draw borders around agencies of intelligence, and it is helpful That's how we survive; by dividing the world up into discrete entities in a way that is useful for our pursuits.

Also, I'm not suggesting that psychology/psychiatry hasn't advanced. I am saying that self-consistent theories are tautologies.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by applebiter]

reply to post by applebiter


Thanks for the quick reply. I can see the point you are making.

Looking into that site you linked.

Do you have sources you could post for the neanderthal stuff?

reply to post by applebiter



Mmmm I'd be cautious of ascribing quantum mechanics to anything other than that realm, because this is where crap like "The Secret" gets born. All is one, therefore we control our own destinies through wish fulfillment via laws of attraction and blah, blah.

Try telling my grandfather that. He's been wanting to die for the better part of a decade now. To date, a piano has not dropped on his head.

reply to post by CallMeMaury


I've posted 3 links already in one of my above posts. You can simply google "Neanderthal" and you'll have access to the same data. To cover all the sources, and discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of them, would take a book or several books. I've made lots of speculative leaps, and I'm sure they will come back to haunt me, but that's ok. This isn't really about me having a perfect theory of everything. It's a theory that is aesthetically appealing to me, it fits or at least is not disproved against the best available data, and it a scaffolding that connects a lot of dots. It is subject to change.

You should see some of the other parts of the theory!

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
reply to post by applebiter

 

Mmmm I'd be cautious of ascribing quantum mechanics to anything other than that realm, because this is where crap like "The Secret" gets born. All is one, therefore we control our own destinies through wish fulfillment via laws of attraction and blah, blah.

Try telling my grandfather that. He's been wanting to die for the better part of a decade now. To date, a piano has not dropped on his head.

I am cautious. There is such thing as too much parsimony, however. We can discuss epistemology, ontology, philosophy, and physics, and we will always run into the same "kinds" of problems.

The intellectual fun and games isn't really the important part for me. It's the experience - the primal and wordless experience - of "we are one" that drives me.

I can agree to the point of the answers are within each individual (but to make connections as you are attempting to with aliens) I'm not quite there with you.

Two seperate issues completely.

reply to post by observe50


More than two. As I said at the top, there are multiple phenomena within the UFO issue. I'm prepared to make room for living, breathing aliens. I'm even prepared to fit that into the same framework.

And don't forget man-made UFOs, made from "alien technology". That's the merging point.

Originally posted by applebiter

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
reply to post by applebiter

 

The intellectual fun and games isn't really the important part for me. It's the experience - the primal and wordless experience - of "we are one" that drives me.

Then why talk about it at all?

"We're all one."

"Right."

The end.

And yet here we are millenniums later talking about it.

reply to post by Sandals24


Not all hybrids are infertile, there are many barriers to hybridization between species. Infertility of offspring is only one and is usually caused by improper matching of chromosomes. Horses have 32 (64) pairs of chromosomes, donkeys have 31 (62) chromosome pairs. Hence infertile offspring with 63 chromsomes. Thats 31 pairs and one extra. Super basic genetics, like gr 11 #.