Monday, November 10, 2014

The Metalogistics Of A Provocation

Jacques Vallee has suggested that UAP could be a control system of reinforcement and while this may be so, why is it anti-structural? Is it's control system a form of the opposite nature of ordering as we define it? Does it have a metalogical basis in superimposing a paradoxical metamorphosis of our markers? Is this the abstraction of what already is considered control logic in order to form a basis of comparison by establishing relationships? Is the end game a reformulation of consensus reality whose purpose is to reorient the basis of a hidden illogical equation that has become a totem? That is to say, the nature of thought in of itself?

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg

This is a fulcrum for the forensics of a possibility that Vallee has conjectured in his analysis of UAP, which is, it's manifestations are representations of a non human intelligence.

An Interstatial Between A and B
Materialization is a word fraught with difficulties. Material compared to what? Is atmosphere in of itself, not material? Is a wooden table actually a solid? According to Einstein, a wooden table is not a solid. Is thought a form of materialization? We can see it through the activity of neurons by specialized instruments. And so UAP could be considered a form of materialization.

"There is no reason why an extraphysical general principle is necessarily to be avoided, since such principles could conceivably serve as useful working hypotheses. For the history of scientific research is full of examples in which it was very fruitful indeed to assume that certain objects or elements might be real, long before any procedures were known which would permit them to be observed directly." -David Bohmn

What can we compare these UAP materialization to, as in the previous examples? The difficulties of an ontology. They appear to be solid and yet are not according to their behavior by way of our senses. Unlike quantum entanglement that seeks to predict interaction, they , as manifestations are unpredictable at this point.. Can we trust our senses to determine whether they are solids or not? Is a prediction of their manifestation possible that causes their effects on our senses?

In all of these examples that concern prediction, how do we discern between a causation and effect? Are they equals from a certain perspective as in the image seen in a mirror appearing alike but decidedly very different ? Does causation move in a linear fashion? Maybe not. All of these are interstatial issues. What is between A and B? This space between seems to be a beehive of activity that remains elusive. Some like to call it dark energy which supposedly has a greater energy that in what we are able to measure by direct detection, according to these theories. And so is UAP relevant to these issues? Is UAP a signet similar to a living codex?
I think thats very likely in terms of what is between A and B.

In a recent post I conjectured that they are an energy exchange as an example of what is between A and B. Possibly one from another dimensional space which may illustrate an exchange that is formulated by the archetypes it creates when it encounters the finite nature of thought which, is always incomplete, must have an association, a reason, a purpose . Those who go deeper and deeper into one question that leads to another, soon realises thought cannot become what it is not when faced with the incommensurable. Thought cannot reform thought to become something other than thought. Its as if this phenomenon is teaching us a lesson we have yet to grasp that is both charismatic and liminal to rationality. The alphabets of human beings has a very finite set of relationships in counting based on a calculus of references that are full of holes that are what is between A and B.
All of this concerns epistemology, which is the discernment between the justification of a belief based on knowledge from simple opinion. Yet we observe many many opinions concerning UAP, which to most of us is a given.
They occur in the atmosphere where energy is transformed from solar to atmospheric to water to earth to minerals to rocks to metals….then of course there are living creatures which also exchange energy, men exchange all of this there is no one thing, as a Buddhist said, that we can point to and say, thats it, that the nexus….everything is an extension of everything else and what is not a thing and the hopelessness of thought to encompass what cannot be compared is called crazy wisdom, a journey through every archetype of human being, the expert, the skeptic, the believer in this or that which is the journey of the Holy Fool in it’s esoteric metaphor. 

“A book is more than a verbal structure or series of verbal structures; it is the dialogue it establishes with its reader and the intonation it imposes upon his voice and the changing and durable images it leaves in his memory. A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships.”
― Jorge Luis Borges

A riddance of the delusions of thought as rational calculations that are infallible and we look around us at that same fallibility hidden behind every cruelty, the suffering, the hunger..What have we here are totems of the sacred, which is human rationality as the tool maker. Yet, there are less than a handful of scientific skeptics toward the veracity of our knowledge base, who question the calculus of logic as it's currently formulated. Here is one;

The Sacred and The Taboo
When I first began blogging on this subject a friend suggested I was describing what he called God’s game. Which God is a totem, a subject that becomes an object of the human being as a tool maker who mimics and borrows by the observation of a nature he cannot fully understand as thought is presently constituted? 

In his book "Crazy Wisdom", the Tibetan Chögyam Trungpa describes the phenomenon as a process of spiritual or charismatic discovery where the architecture of logic becomes exposed as lacking as a coherent explanation for experiential reality:

"Instead we explore further and further and further without looking for an answer. [...] We don't make a big point or an answer out of any one thing. For example, we might think that because we have discovered one particular thing that is wrong with us, that must be it, that must be the problem, that must be the answer. No. We don't fixate on that, we go further. "Why is that the case?" We look further and further. We ask: "Why is this so?" Why is there spirituality? Why is there awakening? Why is there this moment of relief? Why is there such a thing as discovering the pleasure of spirituality? Why, why, why?" We go on deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper, until we reach the point where there is no answer. [...] At that point we tend to give up hope of an answer, or of anything whatsoever, for that matter. [...] This hopelessness is the essence of crazy wisdom. It is hopeless, utterly hopeless."

Here is another perspective within this issue of the non logical nature of what appears to be the anti-structural elements of the phenomenon.
Ibn Al Arabi one of the fundamental metaphysical influences on Sufism referred to what Jacques Vallee has termed the incommensurable nature of this exchange, in his theological examination of relationships, which could be construed from an agnostic point of view , an accurate representation of the effects these manifestations of a phenomenon portray...projections of an imaginal realm which encompasses robots, spacemen, blond Venusians, reptilian humanoids, gnomes, moths, on and on..
One could say what has been encountered is a superimpositioning of semiotics through archetypes taken out of their context, rearranged as in the quantum information seemingly randomized in a state of dreaming. For those of us with a modicum of discernment realize that if we substitute the loaded term God with a non human intelligence, and rid ourselves of these imprinted associations, Arabi's observations become a potential illustration of the transactional nature of these encounters.....His term for the fulcrum of what is observed is "Active Imagination."

"By the fact that He is the coincidentia oppositorum. Corbin's commentary: . . . the entire universe of worlds is at once He and not-He (huwa la huwa). The God manifested in forms is at once Himself and other than Himself, for since He is manifested, He is the limited which has no limit, the visible which cannot be seen. This manifestation is neither perceptible nor verifiable by the sensory faculties; discursive reason rejects it. It is perceptible only by the Active Imagination (Hadrat al-Khayal...) at times when it dominates man's sense perceptions, in dreams or better still in the waking state (in the state characteristic of the gnostic when he departs from the consciousness of sensuous things). In short, a mystic perception (dhawq) is required. To perceive all forms as epiphanic forms (mazahir), that is, to perceive through the figures which they manifest and which are the eternal hexeities, that they are other than the Creator and nevertheless that they are He, is precisely to effect the encounter, the coincidence, between God's descent toward the creature and the creature's ascent toward the Creator. The "place" of this encounter is not outside the Creator-Creature totality, but is the area within it which corresponds specifically to the Active Imagination, in the manner of a bridge joining the two banks of a river. The crossing itself is essentially a hermeneutics of symbols, a method of understanding which transmutes sensory data and rational concepts into symbols (mazahir) by making them effect this crossing."

What is taboo and what is sacred? Human rationality and its illusionary almost dreamlike quality becomes crystal clear. Thought as a totem at the behest of the logic and rationality that eludes completeness and practiced by cross purposes in the behavior of it’s sciences. What UAP may be perhaps beside the point of a game for which there are only the markers we can observe, not knowing the squares upon which our pieces are placed in a checkmate. The message may be through a mirror of our mediumship where a strange inversion takes place in thought, as if to say thought as a medium is incomplete and not surprisingly to our sciences, the very possibility that this is so is taboo. Yes, all of this is upside down, presented as illogic in a purposeful way and yet we have not even the faintest clue as to the inverse of our own maths by which we determine epistemology What does that say to us? 
What is this message lost in translation? It is a purposeful chaos that as tool makers we have yet to utilize let alone recognize as its metalogic speaks to us.

"What we mean by information — the elementary unit of information — is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continually transformed are themselves provided with energy. The pathways are ready to be triggered. We may even say that the question is already implicit in them."
-Gregory Bateson

The Game Theory of Upside Down Ordering
It may be both an effect and a causation at once that reverses the roles of dissonance and chaos. That what is seen as order is chaos and what is chaos is of another order yet to be realised and human thought requires a challenge, a provocation, a clear evidence that this game we have rigged requires some tinkering, some adjustment, some reorientation.
Do we need more evidence that this is so? Can we self verify the veracity of this relationship by observing the human environment?
Game theory is competitive yet requires cooperation and would we cooperate to compete against this challenge if not provoked by a manifestation outside of our own? I think not.
Thought is being challenged without the zero sum of either absolution or judgement. This is difficult for many to grasp. Perhaps we could best call UAP an influence that is more complex and advanced by running rings around us to demonstrate that we have a great deal to learn despite our own opinions or as they say the epistemology of our architectures as both a cause and effect that is literally killing us.
Maybe so….maybe not. I leave that up to you as always as I continue to wonder as I wander.




  1. Bruce, regarding your UAP theory, if I come out of left field with an off the wall question, couldn't these now common balls of light be someone playing with a magnifying glass effect? I know it sounds conspirical, if that's even a word, but with all the talk about chemtrails and the different metals.being sprayed, and the Navy recently admitting they no longer needed the haarp facility, then throw in Linda Moulton Howes' comment about what Von Braun said about the ET threat, how hard would it be to project a ball of light here and there? Or, for that matter, image projection, as a means of testing public reaction? I'm no rocket scientist, seen my fair share of unidentifieds', ghosts, and what not, and pretty much lived in haunted houses in some form or another all my life, but how hard would it be to be a 'trickster', if you had that capability? I mean, since when do meteors casualy cruise at airplane speeds, yada yada yaa,? I know this sin' a conspiracy website, and I'm not trying to go there, but there just seems to be suum fishy about the whole thing.? Unless we are headed to the great 'awakening', maybe this is all a grand illusion? Just wondering...

  2. This is a complex situation that most want a simple answer for...this or that. That in of itself, is telling.
    If this is a trick played on humanity, can we consider who is tricking whom? In other words, are we tricking ourselves or is a trick being created from without? Or is the observer is what he or she is observing? Put differently, what are we looking for? We have some concept of what we are looking for in order to have the motivation to seek it. The assumption is we need something that we don’t have. The short answer is control which is divisional. When something is divisional, then chaos ensues. This is in thought in us internally, or more accurately, it is the nature of our approach. A great deal of conspiracy theory is based on the denial of our own capability to deceive ourselves by this thinking we are lacking this illusionary concept of control by projecting onto impossibly coherent vast manipulations from government agencies, aliens etc that have gained nothing other than more divisional results. All of this internal and external chaos generating paranoia, fear and a sense of helplessness is the relationship of the observer and the observed as the same thing. It is a difficult concept for me to express. As I said in the post, this is simply an opinion based on incomplete knowledge…. the acknowledgement of which I prefer to avoid as much as anyone. In terms of the phenomenon itself, I don’t know what it represents.
    Pretending to know, or imagining we know based on what others say or inferences is again this seeking of gaining something, whereas I dont suspect either judgement or absolution from this phenomenon as an intent. It seems to be a mirror we project into, an inversion and a reflection of what we anticipate as well as placing what we anticipate out of context.. I suspect the architecture of thought itself is the trickster. There is no need to be redundant in needing outside assistance in this. Yet it ( the phenomenon ) does make a difference that makes a difference, or if you prefer, it makes distinctions. ( as in the quote from Bateson) Why doesnt it appear to everyone at once? Be consistent if it is reinforcing some elusive concept of control? It more resembles the individual initiation strategies that say in effect..think for yourself. Do we? The answer in the majority is no.

  3. Bruce, top men are wondering why the universe is expanding at the edges.
    Now, they are thinking that Time is leaving.
    That is an old story. Flirting, dating, alchemical weddings, maybe children.
    What is mostly missing from the narrative is how the spatial defaults to some kind of mechanical story. And how the other keeps trying to fix it.

    Temporal mechanics is just the rules that curve. Now, everyone wants to straighten that out. Some things are just messy by nature, probably the other end of that. Of course, even trying to show that would be intrusive.

    Instincts, and such.

    1. Neal
      We seem to be lodged between fallibility and a desire that all phenomenon are controlled as physicists used to think the universe was like a Swiss watch, predictable.Accidents, intervals, etc do open up a space where transforming influences can enter, and temporal mechanics as a default seem to be indications of contingent relationships subject to change, not ordering....unpredictable seems like a good description that is necessary for the whole shebang not to freeze in place, whether it is spacial or energy or what have you. I think most of us see things upside down, not wanting to "own" any of this..such as the unpredictable nature of human seems that in the whole sum, we have denial and instead of owning this, we want to control it rather than accept dealing with it by observation. here are so many end runs around this, Ive lost count of them. This is in me as well.

    2. Another thought enters as an example of what I did not express very well. Our natural environment is unpredictable in terms of what we require from it. Rather than observing and accommodating this unpredictable situation, we want to "overcome" it, control it etc make divisions out of it and as a consequence, these divisions or desire for control create chaos, which results in one error leading to another, each compounding the previous one. This might be a better illustration for my comment on yours. Maybe not.