UFOs: The Vanities
Stuart Miller, of Alien Worlds Magazine, on “The Vanities”:
While I have argued here in the past that I think the giggle factor relating to “UFOs†has greatly diminished in recent years, we have not got away from it completely. I remember someone recently complaining that as many questions about UFOs were asked in the presidential debates in the States as there had been about the Green issue. This was said with utter disbelief as if there could be nothing more important than ecology, and UFOs were simply trash talk.
There are others that have opined that all the recent activity in Texas has made Stephenville a laughing stock.
And so on.
The reason I mention this is to get some perspective. To many people, those with an interest in UFOlogy, regardless of how belief driven or reason driven they may be, are all nutters. There is no differential made between those that embrace it as a religion and those that want it taken seriously by science. All are loonies fit for the bin.
With that in mind, quite recently, Rod Brock reactivated his Aliens Ate My Buick blog. It can be found here:
http://strangegrub.blogspot.com/
From the perspective of an ETH’er, Rod is a sceptic and has attracted bucket loads of abuse and criticism over the years. While he has his fans, his views are not the sort that many in UFOlogy want to read or listen to, understandably.
I think he talks a lot of sense and writes in a truly objective manner. But objectivism and UFOlogy do not necessarily make good bedfellows.
Here’s the rest of Stuart’s article.
Â
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm and is filed under Alien Encounters, Beliefs, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Eyewitness Accounts, Guest Column, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
- Related News Stories:
- UFOs: Adam 1 & Adam 2 »
- UFOs & Water »
- Florida UFOs Weekly »
- What Would it Take for You to Believe in UFOs and Aliens? »
- Nick Pope on UFOs »
- WakeUp USA Radio and UFOs »
- Pravda on UFOs… »
- Triangular UFOs »
- Bigfoot & UFOs »
- Ghastly Door & UFOs »
|
Jan 31 2008 
January 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
After reading the complete article (and reading the comments) so many different thoughts fire so many synapses. I always find it amusing that someone would argue that UFOs et al do not exist even though millions of people have interacted with them in various ways all over the world, yet they happily trudge off to church to worship something no one has ever seen, with blind faith. I’m sure this irony has been hashed many times, but I still find it amusing. I don’t believe I’ve had any more than a sighting of something I can’t readily explain, but at less tham 300 feet away from it – it wasn’t a weather balloon. My favorite was a person who argued with me that maybe I worship flying saucers. So far, I haven’t built effigies or a church in celebration (I don’t worship them or anything for that matter). And I can’t recall if anyone recently or ever created a religion around UFOs or ETs unless it was that French guy who formed the Raelian society. I’m sure there are some small deals that escape my sight (Scientology?).
Now, to the comments I read. It seems there are some big names in ufology that have even bigger egos. I’ve read these guys and gals and respect their points of veiws. While I know that ufology has many perspectives, I think the insults and back biting were completely uncalled for (I know that the circumstances were not obvious to me). I can see why the uninitiated would pounce upon even friendly put downs of this sort and equate that to all people who study those darned lights in the sky. I guess we need a “Rodney King” in our midst. We may not like each other, but we need to get along.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Stuart Miller almost sounds convincing though: there are people that act like they want to change others to better the cause when what they are really doing is trying to make themselves look better than the others. He even names names: Rod Brock. They are all obviously “arrogant”…or are they?
If you standby and watch a murder take place, a murder you could have stopped and/or prevented at anytime, then you are just as guilty of murder as the person who actually committed the murder. Likewise, to allow irrational and illogical ideas go by unchallenged makes one guilty of the same immoral exploitation that those irrational and illogical ideas are used for. So go ahead and try to polarize the issue; try to profile and stereotype your opposition. Try and intimidate them into giving up and not speaking out while you proceed unimpeded…or maybe not because someone, somewhere might just call your bluff.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
In lieu of Stuart’s “cosmic dust” panspermia blog entry I post the latest abstract position paper, #b57 from the MN-based Center for Reichian Crypto-Anthropology:
I should clarify that by “associative reasoning” Gurdjieff meant “Kundabuffer” which is a central term in his unreadable opus: “All and Everything: Tales of Beelzebub” or whatever. Gurdjieff states that there was a cosmic accident caused by comets (water-covered amino acids) which created the moon and also Kundabuffer aka kundalini. Kundalini is just the sublimated sex energy manifesting as visions and vanity — delusions of grandeur and even real power of transformation (ufos).
In contrast to Kundabuffer is again “objective reasoning” which has no cause and requires no effort. The best logical presentation of objective reasoning is “Be that which you are.” or similar title — it’s by David Godman on Sri Ramana Maharshi.
When, as Gurdjieff taught, we focus on the I-thought there is no object in this philosophy — as Dan Zahavi describes, the I-thought is the only thought for humans which is “self-transcending.” At first we hold onto the I-thought, repeating I-I-I over and over to see the logical source of all our thoughts. Eventually we logically infer that we retain consciousness even in deep sleep and consciousness is therefore objective — not based on either associative reasoning (sex energy) nor formal reasoning (civilization).
The process whereby the I-thought becomes objective is when it creates will-power which is actually the kidney energy and created through complementary opposite harmonics. So this is why full-lotus is so effective in sublimated and transforming the kundabuffer — the source of delusion in humans — so that kundalini can return to it’s source as objective consciousness.
Gurdjieff takes that psychological and physiological process and relates it to cosmology. He states that as civilization “progresses” humans are increasingly controlled by the Kundabuffer — and therefore the humans are increasingly machines. Freemasonry calls this the “separation of heaven (mind) and earth (body)” through mass ritual sacrifice, as detailed in my blogbook, “when the mothership lands.”
The negative energy of the kundalini — electrochemical, yin energy, and the positive energy of the electromagnetic energy — the source of our thoughts – is resolved by the neutral energy as objective consciousness or what the Buddhists called “essential nature” as the root of the heart. It’s therefore experienced and discovered through a great feeling of love and bliss which is then transmitted through the I-thought now transformed by the yang electromagnetic-light energy. This is why modern studies on OBEs, and say Susan Blackmore’s much tauted book on the subject, are all bunk — a true full-lotus yoga master is a rare find in the West. In contrast qigong master Chunyi Lin just had a chapter published in a Mayo Clinic medical textbook on paranormal healing energy through OBEs — so to speak — coauthored by Mayo Clinic oncologist Dr. Nina Mishek. I think qigong master Chunyi Lin is also doing a new N.I.H. study on pain relief through chi energy transmission.
http://springforestqigong.com for further details