Can we deduct what UAP is not by observing the nature of the observer?
UAP is non linear. What do we mean by this? Human thought is linear, time is created by thought and its distinctions and so time is not linear as we “think” it is. we live in a bubble of thought, or so it seems. We go from location to location and cannot grasp the map so to speak. Science acknowledges this.
We cannot acknowledge that time is not linear and has no characteristics we are unfamiliar with because we are creatures of linearity, full of divisions, comparisons, associations, etc by way of thought which is linear. We draw distinctions and create time as we have framed it, whereas the evidence seems to indicate this phenomenon draws no such distinctions as it is not a phenomenon of linear time as we have constructed it by the nature of thought. It is outside of our bubble.
Looking at the evidence I began to realize it creates no distinctions whereas we do toward it’s manifestations and what are the results..they are as varied as there are human beings so to speak.
Also our theories based on linearity have no basis in being measurable by our own standards . What does this evidence tell us about this phenomenon?
It is not human, it does not exist in our field of time by thought nor does it “think” by division.
We cannot imagine being without thought, as we assume we would perish...therefore we assume we need this or that as bargaining chips, religions , etc and we cannot imagine existence without it as we assume we are what we think and so we become what we think as we envision ourselves as a critical and incorrect assumption. The one who analyses is the analysis.
We model everything on the content of thought which is incomplete, therefore analysis is incomplete. we are afraid of this acknowledgement of incompleteness because we identify what we are... with thought…..., our assumption that thought is like an object subject to accident, destruction etc because we think we are in possession of it but it possesses us in a way we are blind to. It is a carrier, nothing more and a maladjusted one at that in orientation. UAP has had projected upon it everything but the kitchen sink. nothing sticks to it. It is a distinction not appended by thought as it is non linear. Or so it seems.
Do you think logic itself is merely another modelling tool and another victim of thinking "the menu is the meal"? I know Robert Anton Wilson thought one of the roots of many of our problems was the "either/or" fallacy. While quantum physics has helped bring the concept of "superposition" to the table, perhaps there are other categories we need to add to our logic.
ReplyDeletePerhaps linear thinking needs to be put back in storage and intuition and the language of dreams brought out. Though not quite the same thing, it reminded me of Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight:
http://youtu.be/UyyjU8fzEYU
Sean
ReplyDeleteThought as accurately expressing logical relationships is a very finite means of assessing any measurement as Godel pointed out a long time ago. Krishnamurti said much the same thing albeit in a very direct manner as opposed to Godel. I think the issue is primary that this be recognized in everyday experience and that for every pragmatic use of it to navigate life there are an equal number of unsuccessful predictions or conclusions we all make using myself as an example. We have this inbred denial of what Wilson called "naive reality". There is a great deal of fear behind this, all based on the incomplete nature of thought and so one hand feeds the other. Ouspensky pointed this out in examples of our species persistent cross purposes that we endlessly demonstrate. I think Dave Mason's tune "World In Changes" expresses this very well. Musicians seem to have this intuitive knack of doing end runs around these boundaries that only exist in thought. I suppose all artists do. Dreams as quantum expressions was well described in the Stuart Hameroff video I posted a while back. These quantum dream states ( perhaps) reveal a great deal about what lurks behind naive reality.