The Subject of Objects

 Preface
Imagine that want to learn about the dynamics of an unknown series of manifestations that also have a material basis without any prior exposure to their existence in any form. Would it require a long term study of probabilities rather than developing a hypothesis beforehand? Let us also imagine a fluid dynamic that is codependent on several levels of parallel processing. Do you stand around and wait for the correct circumstance to arrange itself to examine the specific attributes of an aggregate sum? You might have a very long wait. Do you attempt varying levels of active rather than passive experimentation to determine the potentialities and probabilities of this locus of manifestations by indirectly or directly probing the attributes of this unknown dynamic as a fluid process?  Would it entail more than one level of this probing of behavioral characteristics?
Would it require a stimulus that compares the internal organization of this manifestation in reaction to a variety of markers, designed to test the parameters of this dynamic?

This post is about the possibility that not all interest in the object of a subject from a non human perspective requires any investment whatsoever in an outcome, which is difficult for us to imagine. If we look at various phenomenon we seem to view certain subjects with a vested outcome in mind. At the more extreme level this becomes a belief without any moderating self skepticism. Of course what we require and what we need are often at cross purposes when evaluating the unknown. What is choice upon a predetermined modality? Can that modality be probed behaviorally? What if the experimenter requires nothing of a utility from the subject other than to learn of it's nature? Again we have technological science but a more advanced species may not require vested resources but rather simply knowledge. If you will, knowledge for knowledge's sake. Remember we are linked immersed and operate in a global living system where one fractal influences the other. However, what of other worlds where we have absolutely nothing to gain from a more primitive or highly strange manifestation other than to learn of it's nature, precisely because it is strange to us?

Perhaps in the end, this is not surprisingly, a story of the scrim of egoism, of possession, ownership and tampering, mine to alter as it were.  Yet from another perspective can this experimentation or any be conducted without an end game in mind? Since the arrival of technological science applied to the philosophy of exploration the vast majority of folks (I suspect ) find science and technology in the philosophy of utility as an aim, and cannot imagine a science of philosophy these days. Of course, as in the past, a lot of verbiage could be invested as to the scrim of "I" but for now imagine a creature without this misdirection of being..what would they find, and how would they find "it"?

 The Stimulus and The Effect.
How do we probe the physiological and psychological states that a human subject creates as a reactive posture, in terms of experimenting with non verbal communication directed at them ,to provoke these states so we may study, measure and analyze them in a sociological and individual context? We are all familiar with the old saying, "monkey see, monkey do" but this may be a case of what the monkey does not do, and why. Personalizing the strange has a long history. Most of us who have studied the paranormal know the case of cargo cults appearing in the South Pacific during WW 2. Building images of control towers and faux microphones to induce the Gods of Plenty. At the same time, those exposed to the strange in a generic sense have the same propensity to develop cult like behaviors of beliefs due to the "vested interest" factor.
Waiting for a shock or a banana tablet, when perhaps none of these binary orientations arising from 2, 000 year old ideas of a monarchical universe may apply. The other side of this behaviorism arising from disassociation is to graft control, participation by agenda, seeking attention, creating self comforting conceptual models by projecting a empathy from non human nature, is certainly here among us in spades.

In some sense, we may be living through a covert variation of this regimen in a very long term study, not to measure a state in time, but a progression of orientations through the lens of both critical junctures in our history but also the development of skills. Without comparative relationships between various states, is one never had exposure to our own species, how would this be accomplished?  Verbal dialog to determine the state of a subject or subjects is prone to complex psychological defense mechanisms, however when a non verbal cue is delivered the reaction is..well, more immediate. Can a stimulus be imaginary and yet have a profound effect on the subjects? Of course it can. In the last post I was ruminating on the software that nature has programmed into various human operating systems, one of which is the gimmicks used to reproduce our species. What role does the visual play in this? Our language is based on the empirical scrim of I as a means to digest experience through the personality yet this is a clockwork that can not only program if you think about these sort of things, but also be pre-programmed.

Is that technique applicable to the study of the potential techniques used by the UFO phenomenon? Is the UFO phenomenon a variant of the imaginary monolith in the book by Stanley Clarke as utilized in the film "2001" but with a slight twist. Rather than simply acting as a quasi mechanical trigger to release a beacon by signal communications, what if our imagined monolith was interactive... designed as a sophisticated measuring device as well as monitor that provided a variety of stimulus to provoke a spectrum of reactions that could be studied and analyzed? After, all, then could we turn the tables?

Tampering: Contaminating The Contaminated
To categorize this phenomenon as an experimentation of psychological effects on human subjects when exposed and immersed in a alternate environment is perhaps a broad stroke that infers many possible scenarios, that in of themselves, create suppositions in the face of an agnostic approach, by placing the postulates of various scenarios, as the framework for investigation, that, in effect, work these issues backwards from a conclusion, which pose a dangerous contaminating superimposition of not only creating mythologies, but of creating victims by the objectification of the subject as well as the dynamic of this phenomenon, in anthropomorphic terms.   Contamination and propagandist self referential terminology ensues. When I wrote "Manchurian Abductions" some time ago last year, the various issues that arose much later from this causation, I felt were inevitable by the abdication of the scientific community toward a clear cut case of mass contamination by psychological experimentation, by parties or forces unknown, versus the contamination of human propagandists, which were so reductionist and crude in plying a " extraterrestrial agenda" in human terms to the representation of symbolic, it was as if  we gave lightning a personality.  Interestingly, the play and manipulation of fear,  arose later in other more pervasive institutional platforms , most notably echoed by Stephen Hawking in a more global context, in a act of similar albeit "vested" propaganda, which again is not a exemplification of science but ironically, a fear of the unknown, which hearkens back to our cultural origins, where opinions override the nature of reality and  nature itself.

The Shared Visual Language of Two Vehicles
One is internal and one is external. The vehicle of the atmosphere and the internal vehicle of the mind, both of which address respectively, both cultural and individuated psychology as a two pronged approach to probe by experimentation, the nature and states of our species on a ongoing basis, which requires a non contaminating obscuring, non direct approach. I have come to think with an equal amount of self skepticism, that one cannot be separated from the other.
The visual language that is a perhaps operational platform utilized as a monitoring medium, is borrowed from our non verbal semiotic matrix, that provokes, stimulates and monitors cultural and individuated reactions to a variety of stimulus. There is no direct contact in this interactive monitoring program, if it exists. Potential reasons for this active probing and determining and measuring effects of superimposing a variety of visual metaphors as probes that acts as a feedback process, may be, among several:
1. Problem Solving Skills
2. Intercommunication Skills
3. Psychological Orientation ( Denial, Mythological Conceptual Models, Stereotyping,  Rationalization processes etc

The Subtext of Ethical Treatment.
Perhaps we can call this the empathy factor, a factor that is currently being debated in our own studies of inter-species communication.

Consider that if we are the subject of a interactive probing, the unknown actors in this speculative scenario are not human and may not have a emotional perceptual basis to the valuation of the monitoring program as efficacy may be a priority. Just the facts, or in this case, the effects toward studying the potential of direct communication at some more feasible juncture. As it stands perhaps, it may be that the results as they are and have gathered are a case of the relationship between two potentials in terms of a posed uncertainty from their perspective. Would direct contact pose a greater danger than simply, put, than the danger we pose to ourselves at a critical juncture of several evolutionary trends?
Of course all of this is speculative in the face of weighing probability with a measure of self skepticism but until a more sober observation of the phenomenon in of itself both internal and external in terms of a potential linkage between the two, on a scientific basis is considered, we may be lodged in a cross purposed distinction based on locality. Of mice and men, perhaps is where the twain meet regardless of which neighborhood the experiment passes through.