Acceptance of Reality - What's Your Number?

[Randall]

I'm new to this place - what is paracasters? and how does one get 'on it'?
Is it a radio show?

I think stonehart was just referring to the forum community. But yes of course, The Paracast is a weekly radio show and you can download past episodes for free here.

 

[Tyger]

Thank you - no interest in being on the radio show, but was wondering, so link is good.

 

[stonehart]

I'm new to this place - what is paracasters? and how does one get 'on it'?

Is it a radio show?

You know I don't really know how to answer that post LOL

Could not resist using that gif... Nice joke there man

 

[exo_doc]

You know I don't really know how to answer that post LOL

Could not resist using that gif... Nice joke there man

STONEY!.....you made me wet my pants......and I'm at work dang it!

 

[stonehart]

STONEY!.....you made me wet my pants......and I'm at work dang it!

My work here is done then

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'm smack dab on the cusp of A/C 4—looking down into the land of B I'm naturally skeptical, but consider myself to be a rather proficient observer, so I cannot argue with my own personal experiences of which there are many. So, I believe in the reality my own experiences but temper my interpretation of these experiences with healthy, open-minded skepticism. Plus, I read ALOT, I do the research, then dig and then dig more and somehow make time to investigate cases within driving distance. Then, I ponder and analyze my findings with the help of brilliant, insightful mentors I fortunately have leaned on and learned from over the years …or something along those lines…
whatever

 

[pixelsmith]

A4

 

[Randall]

I'm smack dab on the cusp of A/C 4—looking down into the land of B I'm naturally skeptical, but consider myself to be a rather proficient observer, so I cannot argue with my own personal experiences of which there are many. So, I believe in the reality my own experiences but temper my interpretation of these experiences with healthy, open-minded skepticism. Plus, I read ALOT, I do the research, then dig and then dig more and somehow make time to investigate cases within driving distance. Then, I ponder and analyze my findings with the help of brilliant, insightful mentors I fortunately have leaned on and learned from over the years …or something along those lines…
whatever

So by including A + C in the chart you're emphasizing the witness/skeptic aspects. It's interesting that there seems to be a bias ( in general, not just with you ) against believing even when one is well informed and has had firsthand experience. So it seems that the portrayals by some skeptics that those who have had an experience automatically leap to the conclusion of "OMG aliens!" are exaggerated ( to say the least ).

 

[Randall]

A4

Solid answer Pixel . Not that we A4s don't value study & research, but the old saying "seeing is believing" goes a long way.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

So by including A + C in the chart you're emphasizing the witness/skeptic aspects. It's interesting that there seems to be a bias ( in general, not just with you ) against believing even when one is well informed and has had firsthand experience. So it seems that the portrayals by some skeptics that those who have had an experience automatically leap to the conclusion of "OMG aliens!" are exaggerated ( to say the least ).

Good point. Some of the events I've witnessed i.e., the "yellow whirlybird," stretched my reality view so far and fast that I reacted intellectually and recoiled back away to try and rationalize the experience. But after 20+ years I am still as stumped today as I was then. As a result of this single event, I've become endlessly fascinated (intellectually) by the synchronistic/trickster aspects of feeling the event on an ever-deepening collective/archetypal level (?) And that is just that one particular event. I have had multiple witness UAAO sightings (even real ones?); seen the apparent inexplicable animal field surgeries; taped in notorious haunted houses, blaa-blah… Do I believe in the paranormal? Uh not yet. But I do believe that the fact that a lot of other people believe in the paranormal has tremendous power. Am a skeptical about so-called paranormal events? Yes, actually many of them—but not all… I sense that there is something undefined/unexplained that is operative in manifestations of some (so-called) paranormal events of so-called paranormal phenomena.

I'm aware when I am jaded and I try not to be too cynical about what the culture seems to "believe." So, I am an experiencer that skeptically questions his own experiences and attempts to ascertain as many facts as possible before diving off into the realm of belief. Or something like that.

 

[Randall]

Good point. Some of the events I've witnessed i.e., the "yellow whirlybird," stretched my reality view so far and fast that I reacted intellectually and recoiled back away to try and rationalize the experience. But after 20+ years I am still as stumped today as I was then. As a result of this single event, I've become endlessly fascinated (intellectually) by the synchronistic/trickster aspects of feeling the event on an ever-deepening collective/archetypal level (?) And that is just that one particular event. I have had multiple witness UAAO sightings (even real ones?); seen the apparent inexplicable animal field surgeries; taped in notorious haunted houses, blaa-blah… Do I believe in the paranormal? Uh not yet. But I do believe that the fact that a lot of other people believe in the paranormal has tremendous power. Am a skeptical about so-called paranormal events? Yes, actually many of them—but not all… I sense that there is something undefined/unexplained that is operative in manifestations of some (so-called) paranormal events of so-called paranormal phenomena.

I'm aware when I am jaded and I try not to be too cynical about what the culture seems to "believe." So, I am an experiencer that skeptically questions his own experiences and attempts to ascertain as many facts as possible before diving off into the realm of belief. Or something like that.

Considering the number of firsthand experiences you've had, you express far less belief that I expected, to the point where I would say that you're almost in a self imposed state of denial. I say almost because the intersection of area 4 on the chart indicates at least some belief. But I suspect there's even more that you're letting on. Let me ask you this: If I were to say that I see you as a believer on a personal level, but that you're answer is the result of tempering your belief with the habits of a responsible investigator, would that be fair? Or would you insist that even your personal views are actually nearly devoid of belief?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

If I were to say that I see you as a believer on a personal level, but that you're answer is the result of tempering your belief with the habits of a responsible investigator, would that be fair? Or would you insist that even your personal views are actually nearly devoid of belief?

Yes, good point. I retain the right to have dominion over my belief and what I say publicly is a distillation of my (idealized) objectively-derived perspective. I am not attached to what others believe and I would hope the same in return. Who should "believe" what either of us think (or believe)?

 

[Randall]

Yes, good point. I retain the right to have dominion over my belief and what I say publicly is a distillation of my (idealized) objectively-derived perspective.

Understandable, even necessary for a responsible journalist.

I am not attached to what others believe and I would hope the same in return. Who should "believe" what either of us think (or believe)?

Well that's an interesting question. If we can't believe anyone else, aren't we arbitrarily cutting ourselves off from one of the most important aspects of interpersonal communication? Are we not hurt when we tell someone the honest truth, and they retort "I don't believe you". Is our outward portrayal of objectivity not sometimes more of a self defense mechanism than a true acceptance of reality? When we are reporting some truth to the authorities or telling our closest friends or lovers, do we not have a need to be believed, and is being believed by them not deeply meaningful? With this in mind, the UFO experience can be of such a profound nature that the need to be believed is so strong, that it hurts a witness not to be believed. They feel real pain when they are ridiculed, and they may become angry or resentful or depressed. It must be equally painful to have to repress the knowledge of this reality from one's fellow human beings out of fear of such pain, and I cannot condone this state of affairs. Admitting our beliefs is healthy and in my view puts us more in touch with reality than the opposite.

Does this mean we should automatically believe every bit of nonsense we hear? Certainly not. But I do believe many people have been completely honest when they told me what they experienced, and therefore I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. So yes I do believe some of the stories some of the time, and overall I believe that there are people out there with real experiences of incredible things. Even if I can't identify with 100% certainty who each individual with a genuine experience is, I believe there are a certain number of us who are connected by our experiences and beliefs to a deeper reality than those who refuse to believe. Most importantly however, it's not our beliefs that are our weakness, it is the inability to change our beliefs based on new evidence that is the real problem.

 

[boomerang]

Hope this is a warmup question and not for credit.

Do circles A, B and C represent factions that have influenced whatever my best hypothesis happens to be? Or do I myself need to fall within the bounds of a given circle(s)?

In the case of the former, AC3 would form the foundation of my belief system, since I care less about what others believe than about what credible witnesses have reported. Skeptical study and investigation is based primarily on such accounts.

By the latter criteria, the somewhat self-contradictory BC2 (with an emphasis on B) is the closest choice, since I have not myself seen a UFO. Just to be a little extra nit-picky--I would make a slight distinction between the implications of "Faith" and "Trust". Faith needs little or no evidence. Trust can be earned (or lost) by some quality of it.

 

[Burnt State]

Also A/C 3. I witnessed something entirely incredible, two structured craft witnessed by multiple people and left trace evidence. Still, I remain entirely skeptical of most cases, photos and after spending probably too much time around this forum, I have even become skeptical of what I saw, which was two ships floating low over houses, moving great distances wth ease and then they left our skies and headed off to the stars with great haste. But now I can't even draw simple conclusions from this personal experience. When I was in my teens I was sure they were alien ships, but thirty years later I acknowledge the possibility that what I saw may have much more complicated origins than just ET visiting a northern outdoor hockey rink to scare the crap out of two kids and a bunch of adults.

 

[Randall]

Hope this is a warmup question and not for credit.

Do circles A, B and C represent factions that have influenced whatever my best hypothesis happens to be? Or do I myself need to fall within the bounds of a given circle(s)?

In the case of the former, AC3 would form the foundation of my belief system, since I care less about what others believe than about what credible witnesses have reported. Skeptical study and investigation is based primarily on such accounts.

By the latter criteria, the somewhat self-contradictory BC2 (with an emphasis on B) is the closest choice, since I have not myself seen a UFO. Just to be a little extra nit-picky--I would make a slight distinction between the implications of "Faith" and "Trust". Faith needs little or no evidence. Trust can be earned (or lost) by some quality of it.

Here's the chart again ...

​

​

The chart was meant to be a sort of compass plot or radar where the possibilities are represented by a two character alphanumeric code, but some participants have been using a three character code to emphasize certain characteristics. The actual degree to which the various characteristics overlap is meant to give a general idea of the possible combinations. There are some natural consequences to the way the characteristics overlap. ​

​

For example a combination of all characteristics is in the center and is the smallest, which tends to correspond to fewer people in general. More people tend to fall into a combination of two characteristics, and everyone will probably be in at least one of the dominant characteristics. The actual degree to which you fall toward one characteristic or another is based on how important that characteristic is to you personally as a reason for accepting the reality of whatever it is you choose. ​

​

Most people will probably have different results for different topics, and what those answers reveal about how we accept the reality of things is sort of interesting to reflect on. For example those who choose two main characteristics are clearly conflicted about the value they place on them, and this makes for some interesting analysis. How can someone have a perfect balance between firsthand experience and skepticism? Either we have sufficient information from our experience to accept the reality of something or we don't. There can't be any "I know what I saw, but I don't really believe it" without some serious psychological conflict going on.​

 

[Tyger]

I haven't read the last few posts - I will - but I was ruminating on some of the ideas being floated, and so ......

So then we come to it - which comes first - the thought, the idea - or the physical world? Does empirical evidence drive ideas? Or does an idea come and the researcher then explores the physical world for the idea manifest? This is significant. It has to do with evidence and thought (put belief aside for now). Which has the greater reality - the thought? or the evidence? Which comes first? This is the fulcrum - the point upon which we turn - the manifest and the unmanifest.

Thought and evidence. Percept and Concept. What we know and what we are told. What we experience and what we believe. Is it possible to arrive at truth by mere thinking? Can we know the truth without evidence? Is there anything greater than thinking? What is Intuition?

 

[kellyiom]

heh, I like that line about skepticism ..not a dirty word. I reckon I'd be a 4 .I'd say it's been a continuum so over time I've drifted from a rather unshakable belief to a more unbelieving position . So even despite witnessing , seeing isn't always believing . Reasons for the change; numerous frauds uncovered , the rise of Internet cgi videos, my own memory being proved faulty on rare occasions ! (which maybe showed me how some experiences emerge) ...hmmmm

 

[stonehart]

heh, I like that line about skepticism ..not a dirty word. I reckon I'd be a 4 .I'd say it's been a continuum so over time I've drifted from a rather unshakable belief to a more unbelieving position . So even despite witnessing , seeing isn't always believing . Reasons for the change; numerous frauds uncovered , the rise of Internet cgi videos, my own memory being proved faulty on rare occasions ! (which maybe showed me how some experiences emerge) ...hmmmm

Off topic but is that a Les Paul standard you are holding in that photo? Hard to tell at that size

 

[dyingsun]

A3 , I guess.