It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFOs and Materialism Don't Mix

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   

BlueMule

JadeStar

Perhaps not. But how would you know that? You seem to profess some knowledge beyond what is understood so out with it or you're just dreaming.


Well, I'm a UFO contactee.


That explains everything as well as your fear of science testing your contactee claim.



I've been a contactee all my life and I've had many veridical psychic experiences. I've seen too much to buy the scientistic dogma that such things are impossible. I'm much more familiar with parapsychology than the vast majority of people and I study comparative mythology which makes it very easy to spot the mythic dimension of the ET hypothesis.


Presumably you have been given some information by those who contacted you. May I ask why they chose you?


I have a more imporant question. It is one I've asked other people who claim to be contactees, abductees and human-alien hybrids.

Can you tell us something about the universe which we do not already know but is within range of our current technology to test?

I'm not asking for the cure to cancer or a new form of energy.

I'm asking for some basic information about the universe which we both share and which you presumably know more about having been in contact with aliens.

So, can you tell us any one or more of the following?

What is the nearest star system that has a planet which would be considered habitable for humanity in terms of composition, temperature, atmospheric oxygen, etc?

What is the most common atmospheric composition of terrestrial sized worlds?

What is the true nature of dark energy?

Are Super Earths more like Earth or more like our planet Neptune? Or both? Explain.

Are water worlds such as the two around the star we call Kepler 62 inhabited by any form of life? If so, what is its nature?

You must understand that as rational beings we need to know something beyond our current knowledge base but which we can verify either with current or planned future instruments. There are all sorts of human beings, some of them with different motives to tell stories so providing us with answers to questions like these goes a long way in verifying your EXTRAORDINARY claim of personal alien contact if it all checks out.

edit on 5-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I agree they don't necessarily mix. I'm not materialistic and have had a few legit sightings probably because of that. But that has led me to a little materialism, now I want to purchase some high-cost night vision equipment - relying more on the mod cons than my own eyes
Nice thread food for thought.

PS. The "dead" UFOlogy thing is laughable. It's about to get a whole lot hotter methinks, so much undeniable proof sits in front of me now, it just seems inevitable, that at some point, everyone will have had this much personal proof for themselves, and there just won't be any question about it being real or not. But that's not to say I don't agree with the needed 'purge' the OP mentions...and of course, I frankly have no idea which way ufology will turn


All I know is that what is relevant to me continues to be so. I feel closer to answers right now than ever before. One week ago I felt very far away. It's amazing how things can turn in the space of a week



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Jadestar, if I may... B.M. wouldn't have that info precisely because his claims (as I feebly understand them) are that UFO's and the thingies doing the "contacting" aren't space aliens in the sense you are thinking of, but rather more mental constructs (that could still poke one in the butt, should they be so inclined), thus making your line of questioning moot.

Not that that adds much to the discussion... because it frustratingly does not... well, for us not so mystically blessed with info, that is.

Hmmm... that sounded sarcastic towards B.M. and in fact wasn't... I'm quite comfortable supposing that his experiences are true in some sense. In fact, possibly more "true" than many things I take for granted.

I wouldn't be on this site so much if I hadn't been personally convinced that much of what B.M. writes about has some relative veracity, weird as heck and counter to logic and centuries of scientific knowledge as it seems.
edit on 1/6/2014 by Baddogma because: scientific knowledge vs. mystical experiential knowledge



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Baddogma
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Jadestar, if I may... B.M. wouldn't have that info precisely because his claims (as I feebly understand them) are that UFO's and the thingies doing the "contacting" aren't space aliens in the sense you are thinking of, but rather more mental constructs (that could still poke one in the butt, should they be so inclined), thus making your line of questioning moot.

Not that that adds much to the discussion... because it frustratingly does not... well, for us not so mystically blessed with info, that is.

Hmmm... that sounded sarcastic towards B.M. and in fact wasn't... I'm quite comfortable supposing that his experiences are true in some sense. In fact, possibly more "true" than many things I take for granted.

I wouldn't be on this site so much if I hadn't been personally convinced that much of what B.M. writes about has some relative veracity, weird as heck and counter to logic and centuries of scientific knowledge as it seems.
edit on 1/6/2014 by Baddogma because: scientific knowledge vs. mystical experiential knowledge


I agree. I'm curious as to the 'content' of the experience.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Baddogma
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Jadestar, if I may... B.M. wouldn't have that info precisely because his claims (as I feebly understand them) are that UFO's and the thingies doing the "contacting" aren't space aliens in the sense you are thinking of, but rather more mental constructs (that could still poke one in the butt, should they be so inclined), thus making your line of questioning moot.


Fair enough. But as conscious mental constructs apparently not bound to the laws of our universe shouldn't they be able to go sneak a peek and tell us something we don't already know about the nature of the place we inhabit?

I mean, let's suppose the aliens are not from space but are from our own mind as psychic projects (why psychically projected aliens would want to do the types of things they're often reported doing to people is a valid question in this case)....

Even psychically projected aliens would have better mobility than ourselves right? Unbound by physical laws and all... Or is he saying the whole UFO/Alien phenomena is "interdimensional"?

Fine. If you can hop dimensions you can bend spacetime and jump to anywhere in our universe in theory so those answers wouldn't be hard to provide. And if for whatever reason interdimensional travel does not allow for interstellar journeys then perhaps they can tell us something about physics which we do not know.

There are plenty of opportunities for verification regardless of who are what these "aliens" might be.

edit on 6-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Heh, valid points if their supposed nature are as you propose... I dunno so I'll let B.M. answer when he's around.

I am, btw, quite sympathetic to your worldview and recognize it's solidly set in provable hypothesis.

I have simply had the misfortune of having my carefully constructed material worldview at least partially shattered and mental illness and/or illusion doesn't seem to be the cause.

Knowing, or at least coming as close to knowing as is possible, that our view of physics is incomplete while also being aware that the fairly legitimate work in psi that might help explain certain of these disparities is largely ignored puts me (and a few others) in the uncomfortable position of being seen as a kook by people I nevertheless respect... but it is what it is... maybe.
edit on 1/6/2014 by Baddogma because: added important words



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

JadeStar
Fair enough. But as conscious mental constructs apparently not bound to the laws of our universe shouldn't they be able to go sneak a peek and tell us something we don't already know about the nature of the place we inhabit?


Well, they can gradually tell us some things. They can gradually inspire our cultural/technological advances and guide us through life and gradually shape our evolving belief systems. Heck, they inspired and shaped the comic-book / sci-fi mythos as well as every other religion of every other culture since primordial shamanism. The UFO experience has its ancient roots in shamanism and so do our religions. Without shamanism and the boons it provides for a tribe, we wouldn't even be here.


There are plenty of opportunities for verification regardless of who are what these "aliens" might be.


Perhaps. But I think you're underestimating the archetype of the trickster...

Archetypes are semi-autonomous formless patterns of thought in the collective unconscious. The patterns lead to social tendencies which influence the formation of symbolic representations, such as deities and aliens.

The trickster archetype is, among other things, the pattern of thought that can cross, blur, erase, and redraw boundaries and categories. When an archetype in symbolic form (UFO) crosses the boundary from the collective unconscious to the conscious mind of a person (becomes visible), it has the trickster pattern to thank.

The trickster archetype is also a rebel who refuses to conform to societal expectations. It will challenge your authority and the authority of your science or religion or both. It will defy your categories of thought, blur your concepts, use your expectations and fears against you. It will keep you dangling, as the UFO phenomenon has kept ufology dangling for so very long.

We humans are not really awake and so we go around unconsciously projecting parts of ourselves onto each other, onto the environment, and out into the cosmos. As the frontiers of knowledge advance, for example as they advanced beyond alchemy, we withdraw the projections and then unconsciously use our psychic ability to cast them out again into the new frontier of the unknown where they take on new symbolic forms and come back to us.

That's exactly what we did at the birth of the modern age of UFOs.


edit on 6-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I disagree with many statements and arguments presented by OP, the first of which is the characterization of ufology. To say that ufology is divided into "two camps," the first composed of "people who regard UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft inhabited by aliens from another planet," and the second of people "who entertain a wide variety of theories about the nature of UFOs," is to fundamentally misunderstand ufology, the arguments put forward by people who defend a scientific approach, and even science itself.

Disagreements regarding the terms notwithstanding (and I concede there could be more neutral terms, but that's a discussion for another time), ufology is the scientific study of phenomena commonly referred to as unidentified flying objects or unidentified aerial phenomena.

If you, as BlueMule does, believe these are not physical or aerial objects in the materialistic sense then, by your own definition, your beliefs and approaches are outside the domain of ufology. And that's okay.

People are free, and encouraged, to pursue multiple and different avenues of inquiry. You have the freedom to come up with your own terms, your own methodology, your own interpretations, so why is there a need to co-opt ufology? As others have pointed out, these aren't mutually exclusive opinions and approaches, so there is no need - nor does it make sense - to call or view it as the same thing.

Moreover, I find it intellectual dishonest to characterize those who defend a scientific approach to what we believe is materialistic phenomena as "people who regard UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft inhabited by aliens from another planet." We defend a scientific approach because we believe science, with all it encompasses, after all its processes, will give us the answers whatever they may be. To say that we, because of our defense of a scientific approach, are not people "who entertain a wide variety of theories" or are 'open-minded,' is to fundamentally misunderstand not only our position but science itself.

At the core of the argument that we should abandon a scientific approach is the idea that "since ufology hasn't been able to explain the phenomenon we should abandon it." This is a flawed view and a misunderstanding of science. Using the example of dark matter, for instance: it has been theorized since 1930s, but its understanding and explanation currently eludes us. Should we give up on a scientific approach to this question because science hasn't been able to fully explain it? Of course not.

It's expected and completely normal for intelligent people to have disagreements. We all want answers. We just disagree on the best way to get them. Those of us who defend a scientific approach won't stop you from going on a different path. In fact, we encourage you. And we'll happily evaluate your findings.

But, please, understand that the path you are suggesting is not ufology. And that's okay.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

vbstrvct
Disagreements regarding the terms notwithstanding (and I concede there could be more neutral terms, but that's a discussion for another time), ufology is the scientific study of phenomena commonly referred to as unidentified flying objects or unidentified aerial phenomena.


The term ufology was coined as "the articles, reports, and bureaucratic studies which have been written about this perplexing visitant". Many or most of those reports, including my own, contain elements that are outside the scope of mainstream science because of materialism. For example the psychic element.

Its not the proper place of science to filter out reports that don't fit within the tiny box of mainstream thinking just so people with tiny minds and petty ambitions don't feel threatened. It's the place of science to accommodate the full range of human experience.


At the core of the argument that we should abandon a scientific approach is the idea that "since ufology hasn't been able to explain the phenomenon we should abandon it." This is a flawed view and a misunderstanding of science. Using the example of dark matter, for instance: it has been theorized since 1930s, but its understanding and explanation currently eludes us. Should we give up on a scientific approach to this question because science hasn't been able to fully explain it? Of course not.


I'm not saying we should give up a scientific approach to ufology. I'm saying that we should give up a materialistic approach to science. There is more than enough evidence to warrant it. Change the rules!


Abstract

Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time.

Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved. If science, by its most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates.

The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a ‘‘Science of the Subjective’’ are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.



edit on 6-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

badgerprints

BlueMule

badgerprints
I like some of your ideas but to ignore the physical aspect of the phenomena is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.


I'm not ignoring anything. The physical aspect of UFO phenomena is fully accounted for. Just not in the way that materialists would like.


Ok I'm listening.

Give me a clear explanation of that specific statement if you wouldn't mind.


The archetype of the trickster isn't the only archetype at play in the UFO phenomenon. There is also the archetype of mana. Like all archetypes it is a universal common denominator in world myth and religion. It is a universal because its a part of us... it's our own psychic ability. Including the ability called PK or psychokinesis. Mind-over-matter.

It's a simple matter for the trickster to use our own psychic ability or 'mana', which we are foolishly unconscious of, to control matter and energy and thereby take any form, leave any trace, produce any radar blip, imprint any camera, alter any probability.


edit on 6-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
As I've said before, I don't think that mysticism or spiritualism offers any better theoretical constructs or concepts for explaining UFOs than your basic nuts-and-bolts science does. They're both equally lacking in their ability to take the existing reports and put them in a framework that allows for good, functional research and explanation.

For instance, there is a large subcategory of UFO reports that include what can be called a "distortion" of the perception of time. How can either regular science or mysticism define that in such a way that it can be useful data? Or how about the reports that clearly indicate that the witnesses feel they are somehow "communicating" with the UFO psychically (whatever that means)? To what degree and extent? What are the parameters of these feelings and perceptions, and how do they relate to the overall sighting?

That's why it seems to me that what we're talking about here is a phenomenon that is only partially "real." And we have a hard enough time trying to define reality as it is. Science and mysticism are both attempts to define and functionalize reality. But I'm not sure how the two twains can meet.



edit on 6-1-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Blue Shift
As I've said before, I don't think that mysticism or spiritualism offers any better theoretical constructs or concepts for explaining UFOs than your basic nuts-and-bolts science does. They're both equally lacking in their ability to take the existing reports and put them in a framework that allows for good, functional research and explanation.


People have been using mysticism or spirituality to make contact with them for ages, regardless of the particular explanatory framework used. One can learn quite a bit from contact and from cross-cultural analysis of contact.

Johnny-come-lately decides that only radio telescopes can be used and ends up killing ufology.


edit on 7-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join