November 18, 2018 — Jerome Clark

[Randall]

P.S. "The experiences that happen outside our categories." He's talking about non-consenual reality occuring in our normal paradigm of reality. As far as we can tell it is inexplicable and slippery and it is definitely non-logical.

If that's how you prefer to think, that's up to you, and there can be no further discussion on the subject. Personally however, I'm with those who believe that some views are better substantiated than others, and that claiming a view is exempt from analysis by virtue of some sort of transcendent existential and illogical reality that's beyond our grasp, doesn't even count as an explanation. We can and should do better.

 

[Burnt State]

If that's how you prefer to think, that's up to you, and there can be no further discussion on the subject. Personally however, I'm with those who believe that some views are better substantiated than others, and that claiming a view is exempt from analysis by virtue of some sort of transcendent existential and illogical reality that's beyond our grasp, doesn't even count as an explanation. We can and should do better.

We have tried to do better for decades and our approaches have not yielded much. We have good and bad catalogues of data and a collection of theories we argue about. The ETH has been the dominant one across all these decades and only yielded conjecture. I don't think scientific investigation should end but get underway in a much more detailed manner. But given the nuanced nature of what is described it does seem that we need to shift and investigate the non-consensual aspects and try to understand them. I find these to be the most interesting discussions happening right now.

 

[Randall]

We have tried to do better for decades and our approaches have not yielded much. We have good and bad catalogues of data and a collection of theories we argue about. The ETH has been the dominant one across all these decades and only yielded conjecture. I don't think scientific investigation should end but get underway in a much more detailed manner. But given the nuanced nature of what is described it does seem that we need to shift and investigate the non-consensual aspects and try to understand them. I find these to be the most interesting discussions happening right now.

Hey, any genuine and constructive interest or study is better than nothing. Can you clarify what you mean by "... we need to shift and investigate the non-consensual aspects ...". I'm not sure of the context or content there.

 

[Burnt State]

Hey, any genuine and constructive interest or study is better than nothing. Can you clarify what you mean by "... we need to shift and investigate the non-consensual aspects ...". I'm not sure of the context or content there.

I was referencing Clark there...The most curious aspect of UFO close encounters of any kind seem to involve human beings without consent, whether it is a vision or an otherworldly journey, we appear to have no choice in what takes place or unfolds. We are powerless before the experience as well as the follow up events that often take place for individuals who have had significant experiences. Even in some of the guests recently we see how transforming experiences can be - they have been touched by something it seems. Fallout from these non-consensual experiences suggests that for some witnesses the experience is profound enough to be life altering to the point that contactee status starts to unfold in their lives and the next thing you know they are preaching space brothers. Is this simply indicative of the finite nature of the human beast, that we can not help but find ourselves in archetypal states of being when we have the experience of the visit from the stranger?

 

[Randall]

... Fallout from these non-consensual experiences suggests that for some witnesses the experience is profound enough to be life altering to the point that contactee status starts to unfold in their lives and the next thing you know they are preaching space brothers. Is this simply indicative of the finite nature of the human beast, that we can not help but find ourselves in archetypal states of being when we have the experience of the visit from the stranger?

I suppose that "The Stranger" is a sort of archetype in its own right, and therefore from an archetypal perspective we cannot help but find ourselves in an "archetypal state" state when faced with such a visit. But that assumes that we've first integrated the paradigm of archetypes into our worldview. I suspect that many people have no clue what an archetype is and handle novel experiences in their own way, which can vary from person to person.