Saturday, September 29, 2007





While I'm lamenting my crippled computer mouse, Greg Bishop wants a few words with you regarding UFOs as a participatory artistic phenomenon.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's it, "the aliens" are trying to communicate with us via participatory performance art displays! We just haven't quite gotten the actual message yet, though, apparently. If any exists.

IMHO, if an "alien intelligence" wanted to communicate with us on a co-equal basis, this idea is most inadequate and inefficient. I suspect "they" could be a lot more direct and overt in communication, if "they" wanted to. But "they" don't--ask yourself why that might be. That is, if there is a "they" or "them" in the first place.

I get Bishop's underlying message, that certain aspects of the UFO phenomenon, in cases involving close encounters particularly, create a multi-phasic, comprehensive psychic challenge and effectively imply that there's much more to reality than we may assume, and thus should "think differently," but I wish he'd said so more directly. Maybe he means it.

But I don't buy it that this speculative idea of "alien art" (phoney crop circles, anyone?) has any real validity.

It's a fun idea, but detracts from the actual evidence, the experience of a close encounter, and its' real potential meanings, which are more important, broad, and deep than seriously considering whether some kinds of ufo phenomena, which indicate a form of advanced intelligence or at least some level of reactive sentience (ala Ivan Sanderson's "space animals" concept) are attempts to communicate via some kind of "artistic presentation."

That's too limited a perspectve, and misleading.

I see it as possibly more a form of covert "programming", self-manipulation, or maybe a very subtle "control system," ala Vallee's speculations, based on my own direct experience of a close encounter.

But, that's just "guessing at straws" or a form of idle speculation itself. At heart, the real phenomena is either unknown or perhaps even unknowable. Or, that there is _no message_ in terms of how we _can_ conceive of a "paranormal display" (in terms of an intent or form of communication)--that is, that we try to _interpret_ the experience in some understandable way, and that the effects of a close encounter, which vary very widely, on a percipient may just be inadvertent, not intentional at all.

But I really do not know. And not knowing is frustrating. The big mistake many ufo experiencers (and researchers) make is to take the experience (or report and testimony thereof) not necessarily at "face value," but to, due to our brain's need to interpret and understand such a radical encounter, in some manner, to make it somehow "comprehensible."

However, its very incomprehensibility, its inherent "plausible deniability," its very "alien" nature, compells us to try to come up with some meaning or reason or interpretation, and that's just human nature. It may have nothing to do with the actual nature of the encountered phenomenon, or whether there is any intent.

Perhaps the human mind reacts to the radiaton or electro-magnetic energies of some extremely rare natural phenomena, and confabulates unconsciously an archtypal scenario, as Persinger and Deveraux have discussed and experimented with.

It's hardest to say, as Vallee has spoken of, that we don't know what ufos are, or what their intentions or presence in our world may be.

It's still a wide open question without proof and direct evidence of some genuine kind. The displays vary, the forms of ufo change and evolve over time, and are random, not coherent. Oddly, there are both patterns, and non-patterns. The noise routinely overwhelms any coherent or truly discernible signal. This is extremely intriguing and should be closely studied in some way. What, if any, information would emerge?

Science alone is not sufficient, but it is a starting point. I agree with Greg, and others who have discussed this, that artists, philosphers, shamans, skeptics, psychologists, and many other disciplines should be brought to bear on the question and problem of what ufos are and what their meaning and intent may be.

Nothing less than a full-scale, well-funded, extremely broad, instrumented approach is likely to ever have even a chance of succeeding, and even then may fail. But I think we should and must, for various reasons, try.

I'm reminded of Skinnerian conditioning processes, which employ variability and randomness of stimuli, as this have been found to be much more effective than standard Pavlovian patterned reinforcement.

Frankly, when I think about it, I don't think we are "meant to get a message," as it were, in any literal or conscious manner.

Something may be operating within our sphere of existence and occassionally interacting with us in a way that cannot and is not _meant_ to be clearly understood.
And yet, it, whatever it is, is operant on multiple human levels.

I find that disturbing, to say the least. But I can live with it. To say, "ah, I know what this means!" is a critical mistake. Anyone who says something akin to having "the answers" is just fooling themselves and others, although this is most common.

That says much more about us, how our brain works, and is primarily anthropocentric. A mistaken notion, IMHO.

Um, I didn't mean to go on at such length like this, but I was inspired to just let my thoughts flow. Judge it for what it's worth, even if that, to you, is nothing.

My appeal is to those who may have had their own experience, and to those who may be interested in the issues my comments raise, and to raise a variety of issues that still remain unresolved, as content for real consideration.

I also realize some of the things I've noted here are contradictory, but perhaps that is more a reflection of a mind not made up than anything else. I certainly do not have an answer, but I do have some important questions.

I would be interested in reading here others' opinions on these matters.

7:51 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)