Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

Please tell me we haven't come all this way just to start over at page one again?

I worked really hard (I hate writing) to bring a new perspective on the 'control system' itself (see bottom page 128), and if we go all the way back to debating Vallee's character again, several hours of my life (yes, those three measly posts do represent "hours" of writing for me) will have been utterly wasted...

a reply to: lostgirl

That's why it's a loop, dear.

Your posts have been awesome. Nice avatar, LG.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: lostgirl

That's why it's a loop, dear.

Your posts have been awesome. Nice avatar, LG.

Thank you, I'm glad you like the avatar - it was 'custom' made for me by Rainbowresidue over at the BTS Avatar Creations 2014 thread...(and everyone there deserves a kind word for being so kind about helping me figure out how to get it uploaded)

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

As for offense.....well I leave that
with you..... I was just explaining
that after all that lifetime of
research your comment was
not helpful in my view..

It's all good.

Kev

My question was rhetorical, but you replied so I will, belatedly, return the courtesy.

You seem jaded, perhaps an understatement.

My comment vis a vis the ceasing to chase your tail was intended to imply that you had realised that you are your own perceptual nexus. Nothing that you perceive has meaning without you, including the alleged 'control system'. Same goes for Vallee. It doesn't matter how valiantly objectivity is striven for, the closest that can be come to achieving that would be statistical evaluations that would merely establish a curve demonstrating correlations of thought and perception, and a clustering mount that would denote the 'norm'. At the curve fringes would be diametrical opposites in total conflict with both each other and the 'norm'. In short, it is an exercise in futility, but one that can be fun to explore, if you find such things enjoyable. If you are disposed towards absolute truth, less so I should imagine.

In terms of lying, and it's inherence to the human condition, there is a reason that we have evolved with our eyes facing forward, limiting our peripheral vision, we are predators. In all the modern religious traditions, at their basis, we have been taught that right thought, right speech and right action lead to peace of mind and passive acceptance of the world around us. That by setting an example we can be the change that we want to see. And, despite much evidence to the contrary, we have made enormous progress in achieving that. There are of course groups who still prey upon other humans, who wish to take by force, who manipulate others into achieving their goals, but essentially we have made progress towards a tolerance and acceptance of others which over-rides the instinctive tendencies to destroy difference. Laws help to enforce a system of norms and values, that is the firm or 'hard' hand of civilisation. Myths and stories, folklore, legends, represent the 'soft' influence, and are much more effective in instituting long term change, it is these that hold most influence over our inner world, that which we project outwards, that shape our perceptual understanding of the world and the immediate environment that we inhabit. These stories, traded, also influence how we are perceived by others with whom we make contact, which is why, as a form of shorthand, in modernity, which lacks the tribal markings of the past, we tend to wear or display such information either symbolically, a cross, a star of David, or literally, a t-shirt bearing the name of a favourite band, a slogan, a sporting team or even a cute little kitty. We invite both judgement and acceptance at the same time. We challenge authority, and assert both our individuality and tribal identity.

While it is easy to criticise such cultural norms and values, and the laws which are designed to create conformity and sameness, there is a necessity to it. The vast majority of people do need a structure in which to operate. Even if the whole of civilisation fell, we would still need conforming constraints, we would still need leaders, directors of collectivised action because while we may be social animals, dependent upon the group for our survival in a harsh environment, the hard wiring of our brains and physiology is fundamentally selfish, which is why philosophy, since it's inception, has sought to address that most fundamental problem. The secondary problem to that then lies in the application of those laws, and it is this that has been tripping us up for millenia.

A quote I refer to often;

"Good laws left to the interpretation of evil men are no longer good. Therefore it follows that good laws should be framed as clearly and as unequivocally as a written constitution, to obviate any possibility of deliberate misinterpretation and nullification. Such laws should be applicable to all, including politicians, intelligence services (foreign and domestic) and every agent of law enforcement. Exceptions lead to general contempt.

Those who aspire to have immutable rules of conduct, good or evil, are nevertheless plagued by doubt like everyone else. Only the church believes in saints. Absolutists and invariably absolute fools. And not least because they absolutely expect to be absolutely believed. As stated, all the the insane are well aware whenever personal actions conflict with their true beliefs, as opposed to their socially-conditioned responses.

I believe every intelligent individual, whether predominantly good or evil, possesses a mostly idiosyncratic moral gyroscope which reminds him whether he is in conflict with his own moral and ethical convictions or merely those of others. Individuality is the supreme value, in my opinion, not regimentation or servile assimilation."

That was written by Ian Brady, one of the most reviled people in Britain. A vicious and sadistic child murderer. However, he has an excellent point. Those who obey or disobey the laws of their land do not do so because they believe in those laws, they do so based upon an evaluation of the consequences, or a fear of being caught. Almost all of us have a moral relativity, a consideration of whether something is a crime or simply a crime against societal norms. Drug use for example, underage sex and alcohol consumption, trespassing on someone's land because it offers a short cut. The list, when you think about it, can be endless and whether one chooses to 'break' the laws or rules is wholly dependent on our fear of the consequences be them legal or social. So, we might lie to protect our personal freedom and individuality, or in defiance of what we consider to be state nannying.

To cut somewhat jaggedly to the chase, laws are not applied with equity. We have stories that both favour the underdog, and those that celebrate the cut-throat capitalist. Each in their own way reenforces the status quo, providing aspirational models at both extremes and a model of sustained social conflict. We desperately search for some form of objectivity, a just judgement and all we can come up with is a perception of a distant unapproachable God who will get you when you're dead and deliver you to hell or heaven according to the life you led. That is the loop we are stuck in. At one time, the gods were considered as fallible as men, subject to the entire spectrum of passions that afflict us mere mortals but that kind of thinking gives rise to discontent amongst the oppressed and a rising up against tyranny, the promise of an afterlife is a far more effective control mechanism. Repeatedly therefore, as a consequence of those risings and revolutions, the masses have set laws and constraints upon rule and leadership. And it is that that needs to be understood.

There are exploitative people and entities in this world, there are also extraordinarily wonderful ones, gods amongst men (and women). To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, we demand our rights to freedom of speech and expression while failing to protect what is most important, our freedom of thought. Until such a time as it is safe to do otherwise, the right to lie is integral to protecting that.

originally posted by: lostgirl
My point is this:
What if the 'control system' is simply trying to give humanity 'something' to 'believe' in?

There's been a lot of talk (psychological/philosophical) about the "God Shaped Hole" in the human psyche (I recall that title of a particular article, but not where it was published).

The theory being that humans have some sort of basic 'need' for the spiritual (going right back to earliest humankind's shamans). Humans show an 'intrinsic' need, a deep yearning in actuality, to feel that there is something 'greater' than mankind on the scale of 'existance' ...

Well, what if there is? What if that 'something' is Vallee's control system?
And, what if it's manifestations (all the various Gods, Godesses, Fairy folk, etc., and ET's) have merely been it's attempt (thru out mankind's various 'stages', i.e. UFOs for modern times) to give humans what they 'need'...

I love your posts on Jesus, and while I may disagree on some of the dressing, that fades into insignificance with the whole. He teaches me, in every moment of every day, how to 'be'.

That said, what if Jesus was just a man? For me, that is enough. I have no concept of 'God', have no desire for an afterlife, no sense even of 'soul', at least not in the 'flesh prison' sense of the word, but for me, through his actions and the example he sets us, he is still very much divine. Different, above us all, something to strive and aspire to certainly, but on this plain of existence not on the basis of a timorous belief.

If we undress all the books and words written about him, I think we can do away entirely with Luke for starters, are we not simply left with a philosophy of forgiveness, acceptance and humility. Are miracles and visions really necessary at this late stage in the game? Do we really need communicable manifestations in order to be kind to others? Or could it be that our mind conjures up those images, projects them before our eyes in order to remind ourselves that this reality can be and is magical if only we would allow it to be seen? And, that what we see and hear, in terms of manifestations, are messages from ourselves, from deep within the oldest structures of our minds perhaps, but meant for us alone? That only we can understand.

The reading last week in church was from Matthew 5, I am sure you know the one...

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

I would slice off the Father in heaven, and transplant it with a more encompassing 'creation', for me, this creation, all creation, is mysterious, magical, heavenly and divine, it is only how man uses it that renders it less so. Man is only a part of creation, but we have this immense power via the combination of an amazing brain and opposable thumbs to help craft creation, to be co-creators with whatever entity each individual chooses to believe set the whole thing in motion. There is no need for a concensus of belief in terms of what remains unknown, we know enough to know that we have to work together, that this world, Earth, does offer abundance, enough for everyone but that we need to work together to realise that dream and place need over greed.

From an article I read recently, oldish, written in 2000...but still relevent and largely unanswered...

"The basic question arises: can the human species survive in time and space by continuously avoiding natural selection? ...It is high time that the human race makes a long-term assessment of what has been achieved and what needs to be achieved...Are we jeopardising our own future by following paths we have followed so far? In fact the fundamental question is; should humans behave as though they are co-creators and masters of Mother Earth?"

"During the last 50-75 years considerable advances have been made in the area of agriculture, medicine, health, sciences, engineering etc, which have enabled populations growth the take place virtually to explosive limits together with degradation of air, water, land, flora and fauna, and accumulations of hazardous wastes. In our race to develop, we did not foresee the negative aspects of the pattern of our development. We thus have a legacy of outstanding economic successes but at substantial ecological costs which we did not anticipate."
(Current Science, Vol 79, No 10, 25 November 2000)

Now despite the discussion here having recently dismissed the idea of 'oneness' on a metaphysical level, on a physical, molecular level, we are of this earth, no matter how our bodies, once we die, are disposed of, we will be recycled into this biosphere and we will form the basis of new life. If our brains and our bodies are our interface with our environment, with 'Mother Earth' and 'Father Sky', what do you think that they would be saying to us? And how do you think that they would choose to communicate?

Like you...no answers or absolutes here...just musings to add to the mix

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Oh yes, Jesus as a 'man', I'm good either way - even the pastor of my church agrees that it doesn't make any difference whether Jesus was 'literally' the son of God or not...

(The absolute open-mindedness of the church leadership is the only thing that would get me into a pew!)

I agree with the article you posted, except that (shamefully) we did "foresee the negative aspects of our pattern of our development". There have been scientific studies, books and articles on the dangers of over-population combined with exploitation of the environment since the mid-fifties, perhaps even earlier..

As far as what "Mother Earth" and "Father Sky" might be "saying to us"...at this point in time, I rather think it might be something along the lines of, "Abaaanndon shiiip!!!"

Why does everyone assume that people 'need' to believe in God, due to the desire for there to be an 'afterlife'?

I know many, many people who, like myself, have gone thru periods in their lives of such darkness and despair, that they didn't give a fig whether there might be an afterlife, they just wanted this life to be over...

It wasn't until I began to 'address' my spirituality and (over years of research into all varieties of religious 'faiths') gradually developed a relationship with 'who' God is to 'me' (each individual's relationship is unique and, I think, meant to be so) that I was able to endure and 'live' thru the realities of my life...

It is this, on the scale of humankind as a whole, that got me pondering whether the 'purpose' of a Vallee-esque 'control system' might have to do with giving humans 'something' to believe in...
...something that meets 'spiritual' needs by being outside the bounds of 'physical reality' (UFOs/ETs being perceived by society as 'outside' of 'our' reality)..

originally posted by: The GUT

I have two timelines started and between them it has everyone of those on it but Kennedy. Now I'm getting synchro-freaked out! I've been letting them sit for awhile, though. Maybe if we collaborate it will get my lazy butt in gear.

I'm busy reading the thread from the beginning and avoiding posting until I catch up. However, I couldn't help but add to your ONI list. Woodward (of Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate) was ONI.

originally posted by: lostgirl
Why does everyone assume that people 'need' to believe in God, due to the desire for there to be an 'afterlife'?

I feel that humans crave the divine for the same reason they crave vitamin C. Because it is part of the planetary makeup we are created with (I mean biologically and energetically). If it were not, we'd have no reason to think of it let alone obviously need it to such a degree throughout cultures and throughout time.

It wasn't until I began to 'address' my spirituality and (over years of research into all varieties of religious 'faiths') gradually developed a relationship with 'who' God is to 'me' (each individual's relationship is unique and, I think, meant to be so) that I was able to endure and 'live' thru the realities of my life...

I eventually came to understand that I had developed or acquired (maybe a little of both) a certain "capacity" for the perception of the divine that I did not have when younger. Perhaps this is why some of the oldest occult traditions are said to not start certain teachings or levels until a person is at least 40. Maybe in much the same way that most children don't get irony, most humans don't get the subtle-depths of spirituality until a certain amount of experience gradually opens it up in them.

that got me pondering whether the 'purpose' of a Vallee-esque 'control system' might have to do with giving humans 'something' to believe in... ...something that meets 'spiritual' needs by being outside the bounds of 'physical reality' (UFOs/ETs being perceived by society as 'outside' of 'our' reality)..

It's an interesting idea. I am tempted to think that we are vastly more involved with the generation of both consensus and subjectively perceived 'reality' than most folks realize, and that as a result, these control systems even if created and imposed by others, are simply -- on a somewhat subconscious (but powerfully archetypal) level, used as creative building blocks for whatever it is we want and need. Kind of a spiritual version of when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. :-)

RC

Elvis Has Left The Building

originally posted by: Bybyots
Elvis Has Left The Building

By which you mean TheGUT? I'm up to page 44 on the thread and he left a few pages prior to that. He hasn't returned since? Dang.

a reply to: Tangerine

No. I meant Elvis. RedCairo's post inspired me.

originally posted by: lostgirl
Oh yes, Jesus as a 'man', I'm good either way - even the pastor of my church agrees that it doesn't make any difference whether Jesus was 'literally' the son of God or not...

(The absolute open-mindedness of the church leadership is the only thing that would get me into a pew!)

I agree with the article you posted, except that (shamefully) we did "foresee the negative aspects of our pattern of our development". There have been scientific studies, books and articles on the dangers of over-population combined with exploitation of the environment since the mid-fifties, perhaps even earlier..

The awareness goes back much longer than that, Plato wrote about it in The Critias. The meme of the Waste Land can be traced back even further and is carried into Europe in the 9th century. The Tragedy of the Commons, a concept understood since the 18th century but developed by Garrett Hardin as an economic model, was when we started to really understand the nature of the problem though.

originally posted by: lostgirl
As far as what "Mother Earth" and "Father Sky" might be "saying to us"...at this point in time, I rather think it might be something along the lines of, "Abaaanndon shiiip!!!"

Well, I suppose getting us to 'abandon ship' is one way of getting rid of us and destroying the viral phage that we clearly are to this planet. I'd, personally, like to think that they are still giving us the benefit of the doubt, letting us know that 'god helps those that help themselves'. This planet, the biosphere, can survive, even thrive, without us. Without 'it' we're nothing. After all, at this very moment in time, uniquely, we have all the information that we need to save ourselves and much of the remaining life on this planet. We can continue to take until the planet is no longer able to support us, or we can become ecological engineers, shaping our environment, supporting and preserving all life as well as our own.

This thread is still going regularly? You people are awesome.

originally posted by: lostgirl
It is this, on the scale of humankind as a whole, that got me pondering whether the 'purpose' of a Vallee-esque 'control system' might have to do with giving humans 'something' to believe in...
...something that meets 'spiritual' needs by being outside the bounds of 'physical reality' (UFOs/ETs being perceived by society as 'outside' of 'our' reality)..

What you say here, really reminded me of Lacan's 'Das Ding'...

www.lacanianworks.net...

Hmmmm?

Jeez guys, I just came back to throw some nifty tidbits your way.

The Secret Sun has had some Keel/Vallee stuff as of late...and oh hey, its Meade Layne.
secretsun.blogspot.ca...


That being said, I do admit I have no idea how to explain this or even summarize the thread for the readers of the future. I'm honestly curious what brings readers outside our little circle.

Might also be interesting to note that ISIS is full of believers in Djinn. Things seem to be moving unpleasantly fast these days on all fronts. When and where is the next major flap going to hit?

edit: oh jeez, this reading session took a weird turn.

So yeah, this is one weird syncro-night of internet browsing. www.sophiaperennis.com... l-ufos-and-traditional-metaphysics-sophia-perennis-2005/

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Oh yes, Jesus as a 'man', I'm good either way - even the pastor of my church agrees that it doesn't make any difference whether Jesus was 'literally' the son of God or not...

But would it matter if Jesus never existed? There's not an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that he actually lived. That puts him in the realm of the fairies and the greys (ie. no testable evidence that they exist(ed). Does he, therefore, serve the same purpose?

You mentioned that the Jesus message is one of forgiveness, etc.. You're forgetting the threats of Hell that the Jesus character made.

It seems that people take from these stories that which they want or need to take and dismiss the rest. Hmmm.

originally posted by: lostgirl


...i.e. If the 'God' I believe in is a perfect, pure, unconditional Love 'whom' I happen to feel a spiritual 'relationship' with - what is the control system 'getting' out of that?

I think that depends on how the control system defines/uses unconditional love. We've all had experiences in which someone says, "If you loved me you would (fill in the blank)." In other words, unconditional love as an ideal is one thing. In action, it's often another thing entirely.

a reply to: 1ofthe9

I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear Charles Upton discuss this stuff but, hoo!, really? Demons?

He mentions John Mack and the "horrendous experiences" of abductees under his care and then Upton says that one musn't go any further in search of "evidence" for "demonic influence".

What I have learned from discussing this and trying to offer my own ideas is that there are 2 kinds of people: those that have experiences related to temporal lobe lability and sleep paralysis. And those that don't.

The one's that don't are at the mercy of those that do. All they can do is guess at what it must be like and try and digest the stories told to them by those that do.

Like Streiber, but I won't go there yet.

The problem with the folks that do have them is that they won't come clean regarding what's going on with their brains. They insist on being special and are afraid of losing that, so they won't look at the science.

I'll finish watching it 'cause it's like a train wreck, but man.





ETA: I really enjoyed that alot and I'm now a big Upton fan. That was a really enjoyable listen. Poor guy.