It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tiger_tts
Well written and interesting post. I appreciate the clean writing and well considered points that you bring up.
I can't help but worry about the lack of evidence on the Neanderthal Cro-magnon statements though. I have "Occam's razor" screaming out to me. This just sounds like theory based on hypothesis, based on "our" underlying belief system, based on conjecture, based on brain case size and shape, inferred from other animal brain size, shape and function. And is it even a necessary prerequisite to the "abduction" hypothesis?
What Neanderthal wrote the treatise on "self" in their culture? I'm joking, but it seems a stretch to make these statements based on conjecture from tools, burials, pictures on caves walls, etc. My observations lead me to believe that my dogs and cats have a keen sense of self and awareness that is beyond the "group self" you attribute to the Neanderthals. Just sounds like too much Clan of the Cave Bear fiction.
Obviously how we interpret and experience our universe is a function that occurs in the brain. But couldn't the self consciousness/higher consciousness (or oneness) conflict you discuss, be just as easily described as the conscious/unconscious mind conflict/unity, regardless of origin?
As applied to abductions, I've never been certain what "abductions" are or if they are really linked to UFOs or just something else (in our brain according to your hypothesis if I understand you). But couldn't the abductions just be abductions?
Thanks for the post.
Originally posted by pieman
if the sense of unity you describe is inherited from neanderthal man, then surely these concepts of universality should be more prevalent in the areas that the other inherited traits from neandrthal man are prevalent. you describe these as
Red or fair hair. Green or blue eyes. White skin.
this should put us squarely in the realm of northern europe, however it doesn't bear out. in reality, there is a long standing tradition of ownership in northern europe, as far back as we can trace, where as, there are well established concepts of universality in populations with few/no inherited physical traits from neanderthal man.
i suggest you scrap this area of your reasoning, it's illogical and if i'm correct in assuming that the picture you use for an avatar is you, it smacks of narcissism .
Originally posted by emsed1
I am not sure if they rise to the level of 'theory' yet but it certainly is a solid hypothesis.
Many people (probably most people) get a glimpse of this 'higher consciousness' and sense of oneness at some point in their lives. Whether your team kicks a game-winning field goal in double overtime at the Super Bowl, a rousing movement of spirit at a tent revival or a near-death experience it seems that there is indeed something 'more' out there beyond what we see, hear and feel.
Originally posted by BloodthirstyCapitalist
Also, just because it irked me: To the poster who likened a "hive mind" analogy to people cheering on a sportsteam, or a spiritual revival, that's beyond ludicrous. This isn't an example of anything other than the social aspect of our species; we are social creatures down to our very minds, in that we need others like ourselves to maintain our sanity. That doesn't mean we share a hive mind, it just means that we experience things in similar ways, and our reactions, which come from our own individual personalities, are similar to others.
Today the ancient Chinese texts which speak of legendary tall people with red hair and green eyes (formerly denigrated as mere "myths") are being reinterpreted. They are not just imaginary tales as has been assumed until recently, but they tell of the very real Tocharian-branch Indo-European people, relatives of the Celts and Scythians, who possibly controlled the Silk Road during Middle and Egyptian New Kingdom times, and down to the Classical Greek era.
Originally posted by rawsom
I don't know about the rest but I think you just look drunk, but I don't mind
How should we seperate inability to cope and understand large structures with the reasoning that language itself is a barrier? Just to simplify things, lets just assume any one language so that we don't have to think how five thousand different languages in a ball could somehow be a barrier..
I do understand that people with same language and cultural location cannot really explain things to eachother when they do not know a word for something, that is hardly understandable with whatever current language. However, they do share what the other means in symbological sense, even if they cannot explain it in words.
So, basically there exists a symbological thought process that is independet of language (from where another part of brain creates language which is then uttered). You however are (perhaps?) implying that this is in fact because of sense of unity. I would think that it is not so, but that sense of unity comes from this symbolic thought process that can understand others without any words whatsoever. It does not neccessarily need those, but it also isn't as capable without any.
Originally posted by mikesingh
Originally posted by applebiter
reply to post by mikesingh
Hehehe. The content of your post tells me you know where Part III is going. Will I be allowed to post it? I'm going to go all the way into the end zone.
Bring it on! Let's see what you've got!