Thursday, February 6, 2014

Who Throws The Ball?

UAP As State(s) Without Intent

We take our machetes into the swamp of considerations and seek new tea leaves with which to read portents, that in turn would supply us with a context to formulate basic questions....
Several years ago I pushed my way into the dense cosmology of Ibn Al Arabi's equally dense materials whose contextual positioning of essential question were positioned in the relations of his philosophic stance of One and that his exploration of our orientations was based upon "God" and "Not God" which then led into a formulation of a question related to human existence..Who throws the ball?"
One of the chief features of this life has been the disconnection and deconstruction of my personal intent(s) from what events have occurred as a result of them. Then in a dark moment of reviewing my own lapses of judgement I realized there is a connection of self deconstruction between the personal and historical worlds in the mistranslations of intent and effect.  
More specifically the allusions and illusions of steering outcomes that seemingly cancel outcomes from intent, or worse, make situations unmanageable and more complex
I was watching a brilliantly portrayed biography of Henry Ford on the PBS program “American Experience “the other night and was struck by the extent he was repelled in his later years by his creation of the mass produced automobile that became an uncontrollable agent in the destruction of his own universe, anchored in a lost world that he played a major role in burying.
At the end of his life, he was in full retreat, hiding in a 19th Century Disneyland he named Greenfield Village, while the monstrous Ford River Rouge plant pounded out a never ending stream of automobiles bearing his name.
A Soft Machine lyric from decades ago came to mind:
“It begins with a blessing and ends with a curse, making things better by making them worse.”
Perhaps the weaknesses of human psychology (which is also my own) is the deconstruction of intent, and then we must ask what do we intend and to what purpose are our efforts to create the physicality of outcomes is sought?  
All issues, problematic considerations seem to have intent behind them as I noted in a previous post regarding the deconstruction of mathematics as applied the universe being portrayed as a variant of a control system beginning with the desert religions of 2,000 years ago that are now prevalent in physics in the endless search for a “god particle” or as it is reflected in prevailing theories of UAP. The critical assumptions of what is “I” versus “Not  I” on a metaphysical basis lead to questions of purpose and this is reflected in us and without us toward the exteriorised universe of our environment.
Then it comes down to our situation as an isthmus between two sides of a mirror. The very local that we inhabit versus the non local we navigate. The adaptation we note as personality versus the transpersonal, all of which as a matter of baggage has been superimposed on the UAP phenomenon. Call this anthropomorphism or projection bias.
Perhaps crib blindness is apt as we are so embedded in our orientation that it is impossible to determine any comparative basis to analyse any portent or outcome. Again, this is the seldom commented upon theme buried in UAP.
The enormous temptation to simplify our universe is deconstructed with a wave of a seeming magic wand in this and that may be an answer onto itself.
The domestication by familiar terms of the unfamiliar leads to hybridised images, events that defy physics.  Instead of recognising our own intent as a contingency of necessity we deconstruct our own parameters by the placing of markers.
At the crux of this conundrum is the approach, do we approach this or ignore this situation? And if we approach this situation ( which also applies to UAP amongst an endless listing) we see that recognition that we imagine we are conscious in the fullest sense, does not equate or is transferable to any foreseeable outcome in the form of an answer and yet we have an entire menu of extreme reactions in the form of petrified opinions as if  a good offense was a good defense but what is being defended? Our own deconstruction of intent?
Behind every pronouncement we have philosophical issues that most walk away from as if one could have a state of disassociation from their own embedded position between “I” and “Not I “..that suggests very strongly on a subliminal basis that most research into UAP and it’s associated issues  act as a form of denial that there are no control systems in place that are modelled on human prototypes of intent. The very word intent must be forensically examined.
I recall a correspondence with a well known researcher who worked for Robert Bigelow and I asked him “What would you ask a extraterrestrial?”  He surprised me with his sincerity in that he related the question had never occurred to him.
Has this occurred also to NASA?
The formulation not a question always contains postulates. In computing this reality is expressed by garbage in, garbage out. I suspect if there were set and subset, the signifier and the signified it would lead to our own landing on this planet as an adaptation of self awareness however we define self that is running as fast as it’s velocity would carry it, to prelinguistic states long before the formulation of the desert religions, and so when Vallee suggests the markers have been moved by UAP, the answer is far from clear.  
The best suspicion I have is a rebellion not by intent but by state that the UAP expresses and it is our state versus “Not I” that it is communicating and so pushes back at every opportunity to suggest either blatantly or subtly that our own orientation is amiss.
To this writer, this is what is intriguing..Not extraterrestrials, not conspiracies earthbound or otherwise but what is missing, what is so close to us and yet so patently unidentifiable and so I perhaps am best suited to be a companion to our forebears to sit ignorantly in the face of the inexplicable and wonder as I wander.  
In conclusion perhaps pantheism is a batter match for the UAP phenomenon as an approach inasmuch we could apply UAP to the intent of weather.

No comments:

Post a Comment