“We have a task before us which must be speedily performed. We know that it will be ruinous to make delay. The most important crisis of our life calls, trumpet-tongued, for immediate energy and action. ... It must, it shall be undertaken to-day, and yet we put it off until to-morrow, and why? There is no answer, except that we feel perverse, using the word with no comprehension of the principle. ... [Then] The clock strikes, and is the knell of our welfare. At the same time, it is the chanticleer-note to the ghost that has so long overawed us. It flies—disappears—we are free. The old energy returns. We will labor now. Alas, it is too late “
-Edgar Allan Poe- The Imp of The Perverse
“It seemed like a nice neighborhood to have bad habits in.”
― Raymond Chandler, The Big Sleep
― Raymond Chandler, The Big Sleep
Any researcher into para-normal matters, must make the obligatory descent into the proverbial “dark matter” of what constitutes normality as a string of statements as opposed to questions. Sooner rather than later, one discovers that in every truth there is a kernel of fiction and in every fiction there is a kernel of truth. One could say this is a matter of comparative analysis. One could say an unwritten rule is also a stereotype in that hindsight and post editorial revisions are inherent in the nature of transience, or truth as a verb of transit rather than a noun designating a destination. One might consider rules as a pragmatic placeholder of orientation in the larger universe and nothing more ...as we are held in place to it by an evolving umbilicus.
At Richard Reynold’s blog, he recently created three posts simultaneously on Slenderman as a motive for murder, the potential fabrication of a false symbol on the craft witnessed at Socorro NM, as well as the upcoming reveal of Kodachrome slides that purport to be a major revision of what actually occurred at Roswell.
At Richard Reynold’s blog, he recently created three posts simultaneously on Slenderman as a motive for murder, the potential fabrication of a false symbol on the craft witnessed at Socorro NM, as well as the upcoming reveal of Kodachrome slides that purport to be a major revision of what actually occurred at Roswell.
This was my reply:
“The topic of memory as both pliable and, at times, indelible, is linked in my mind to your other post on Slenderman regarding the twelve year old claiming that this fictional character was the impetus to commit murder. Then there is the post on Zamorra that suggests that his memory of the event was an intentional fiction and this possibility is based on a son’s memory of his father.
I suspect Slenderman as a motive is a screen to avoid the recounting of the actual motive of these young girls that posits that such a motive as a memory does not exist.
The son’s memory does not count as evidence with collaboration and it raises more questions than answers. I think any researcher must leaven how they define truth. Yet the opposite is more of a statement than a question as another pitfall.
Then (as you suggest) the USAF has made a policy and strategy of manipulating fabricated scenarios to cover what actually occurred at Roswell. .
It may be all three posts are more about the creation of a false memory or account of an event as a screen, as memory itself may be pliable to some degree there is no litmus test other than material evidence to the contrary to contest the validity of either a lie or the truth in regard to “planted” memories. These memes of truth seem to be nothing more than bootstrapping a relative position in relation to ambivalence. In other words truth may be more of a matter of philosophy than direct verification.
. However, even evidence itself (more often than not) cannot fully reveal the truth as a conclusive statement of facts strung together by causality.
How much do we accept without direct verification on faith alone? I would say an enormous amount. While some have said “truth is a pathless land” we have paths culturally planted all around us as a proverbial labyrinth. What is an acceptable lie versus an unacceptable one?
For this there is no objective, collective arbitration of belief.”
All of this reminds me of film noir, especially the classic film adaptation of Raymond Chandler’s “The Big Sleep” which revolves around a seemingly impossible convoluted and complicated plot line. There are two versions of this film. The first version was lengthy and included scenes of exposition that clarified certain threads of the parallel plot lines and the second was edited for the sake of brevity that yet, created more incoherence and inference. The second version was the one released for exhibition. The point of bringing this up is that the second version is the critic’s preferred version as it creates more of an atmospheric effect of mystery. One could say there was a preference for an aura of mystery versus coherence as a entertainment factor, a means to draw an audience into a alternate reality wherein everything and everyone is under a cloud of suspicion. There is the question of preferences in relation to coherence versus innuendo.
Does this remind you of an issue with paranormal research?
“The topic of memory as both pliable and, at times, indelible, is linked in my mind to your other post on Slenderman regarding the twelve year old claiming that this fictional character was the impetus to commit murder. Then there is the post on Zamorra that suggests that his memory of the event was an intentional fiction and this possibility is based on a son’s memory of his father.
I suspect Slenderman as a motive is a screen to avoid the recounting of the actual motive of these young girls that posits that such a motive as a memory does not exist.
The son’s memory does not count as evidence with collaboration and it raises more questions than answers. I think any researcher must leaven how they define truth. Yet the opposite is more of a statement than a question as another pitfall.
Then (as you suggest) the USAF has made a policy and strategy of manipulating fabricated scenarios to cover what actually occurred at Roswell. .
It may be all three posts are more about the creation of a false memory or account of an event as a screen, as memory itself may be pliable to some degree there is no litmus test other than material evidence to the contrary to contest the validity of either a lie or the truth in regard to “planted” memories. These memes of truth seem to be nothing more than bootstrapping a relative position in relation to ambivalence. In other words truth may be more of a matter of philosophy than direct verification.
. However, even evidence itself (more often than not) cannot fully reveal the truth as a conclusive statement of facts strung together by causality.
How much do we accept without direct verification on faith alone? I would say an enormous amount. While some have said “truth is a pathless land” we have paths culturally planted all around us as a proverbial labyrinth. What is an acceptable lie versus an unacceptable one?
For this there is no objective, collective arbitration of belief.”
All of this reminds me of film noir, especially the classic film adaptation of Raymond Chandler’s “The Big Sleep” which revolves around a seemingly impossible convoluted and complicated plot line. There are two versions of this film. The first version was lengthy and included scenes of exposition that clarified certain threads of the parallel plot lines and the second was edited for the sake of brevity that yet, created more incoherence and inference. The second version was the one released for exhibition. The point of bringing this up is that the second version is the critic’s preferred version as it creates more of an atmospheric effect of mystery. One could say there was a preference for an aura of mystery versus coherence as a entertainment factor, a means to draw an audience into a alternate reality wherein everything and everyone is under a cloud of suspicion. There is the question of preferences in relation to coherence versus innuendo.
Does this remind you of an issue with paranormal research?
Not that long ago I wrote an essay on structure and anti-structure being the two magnetic poles that are always constructing transient conceptual models of what may be. However, on a subliminal basis, we also must recognize that these, in of themselves are architectural artifacts of the intellect having no more sway than a suggestion as a practical matter.
A negative reaction to this state of affairs would posit that achieving any conclusive argument is a fool’s errand and on a more positivist note, we have a open rather than closed system of opportunity to peer behind the curtains of our own fallacies, which is perhaps the most constructive undertaking we may have at our own disposal as both the normal consensus realities we navigate as well as the deconstructive para-normalities we face open up a slight hole in which to traverse other possibilities beyond the known and unknown as false benchmarks of a relative position.
One could reasonably state that all of the parallel realities we inhabit are embryonic in their nature and that any positivist statements of fact are examples of what Robert Anton Wilson termed “ naive reality”.
A negative reaction to this state of affairs would posit that achieving any conclusive argument is a fool’s errand and on a more positivist note, we have a open rather than closed system of opportunity to peer behind the curtains of our own fallacies, which is perhaps the most constructive undertaking we may have at our own disposal as both the normal consensus realities we navigate as well as the deconstructive para-normalities we face open up a slight hole in which to traverse other possibilities beyond the known and unknown as false benchmarks of a relative position.
One could reasonably state that all of the parallel realities we inhabit are embryonic in their nature and that any positivist statements of fact are examples of what Robert Anton Wilson termed “ naive reality”.
Therefore the paranormalist must have in their bag of tools a native instinct that everything should be questioned as the fictive detective Philip Marlowe recognized out of necessity and yet that positioning of relative truths may represent the equally embryonic nature of the universe, which is still in transit attempting to determine what it may be by experiment.
As above, so below.
No comments:
Post a Comment