A Response To The Hawking Warning of Direct Contact
While the silent majority of free floating anxiety concerning an alien invasion or a mercenary mission have largely faded into the cultural signal noise of the times we live in, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to survey why "they" may not share any of our most commonly recognized attributes of behavior. Apparently some still fear a certain loss of control ( read coherence) should direct contact occur, wherein no coherence may exist below the surface of daily conversation, in the larger picture of our systems psychology.
This distinction has always fascinated me,in the relationship between the lines, we ourselves draw as a cognitive behavior based on our environment, which imprints arbitrary definitions upon uncertainty as a means to navigate it. To put it another way, to another species we may be understandable and yet incoherent. If the culture that we are entangled within is fraught with incoherence and we are imprinted as a portion of the whole to reflect a common medium of transmission, with set nearly mathematical values, how in the world can we determine a base line of coherence, when the picture of our behavior does not match the description? We claim to be singular, individuated and autonomous,and yet we are not. These inconsistencies of behavior and stated attributes do not match as if we were being pulled this way and that, daily, in a daze under the influence of a variety of external influences, while claiming autonomous sentience. I should think that this would not escape the observation of a non human sentience.
We know who the fearful are in relation to contact as the representatives of our sciences and technology as the two hands of vested interests because they seem to be the only voices expressing a very bizarre sense of paranoia based on the fragility of our organizational structures, that in the deeper psychological profile of these self appointed policy makers, perhaps they have unintentionally have illustrated the very pervasive psychological barriers that relate to issues of "ownership", that exists in relation to contact between our species and another. We presume an intent similar to our own perhaps as John Locke said because, "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience."
What they fail to recognize is that our behavior could really be characterized as that of a game playing species, which then involves transactional exchanges wherein our rules may not be "their" rules. Our interests may not be theirs. Or you could say, that a non human culture may have none, as we understand the "rules" of such an engagement, at least as viewed through our eyes. Our cultural institutions may be considered from this point of view, only demonstrating a misconception of regulating behaviors by the superimposition of roles within a game ordered by what is at it's essence, a chaotic disconnect as to the nature of their own stated purposes, and thus would be considered "incidental". What I find interesting is that there is not more written about these issues, despite the the wealth of alleged "contact" narratives which seemingly resemble our own species talking to itself.
If this critical assumption from the potential point of observation from non human observers, is that perhaps we are role players within the larger matrix of a game of cognizance prone to being externally influenced, then perhaps the correct assumption would be that contact for that very reason should be avoided.
These roles, in turn may make us appear to be schizophrenic, or acting out realities that in effect, do not exist which can either be observed as a effect of an interim developmental curve wherein we are "playing" at cognition, adhering to a systems psychology,or do not have, by their definition, any sentience whatsoever, but rather, cellular intelligence regulated by the environment.
We are our conceptual models. If our minds can be read as variegated and yet standardized texts so to speak, then our behaviors would perhaps appear both predictable and yet chaotic in terms of purposeful behavior. In other words, perhaps we have a coherence among ourselves that is actually the opposite of what it appears to us, to be... in relation to a truly individuated creature. Here is a good example; combusem.com
Our rules are distinctions that exist only as reflective of the process of cognition and in turn, cognition itself may be influenced by thought and thought by language, which sounds as if sentience is operating in reverse order. Perhaps it is.
In other words, we could say that this faux reality of our language is non existent and yet there it is. This may be what is called a chief feature of our species. Can we arbitrarily separate language, thought and cognition as processes or are they entangled or interdependent? You could call this a game of substitutions in self awareness in relation to both the biology of cognition and the psychology of suggestion within the environment. We, as players, who must adhere to a "regulatory" environment cannot see ourselves accurately in the sense that our evolutionary limitations do not allow us at the present to accurately create a conceptual model that does not include these variegated facets of behaviors in game playing directly linked to our usage of language, as an indirect medium or math of cognition and behavior. A creature who could "read our minds" may not have a language. such as we understand our own to be. Our exchanges on many levels are based on relationships that are predetermined to a great extent, to a greater or lesser degree, on unique abstractions of cognition that may not exist elsewhere.
One of the unrecognized facets of human evolution is the imprinting process, where behavior is linked to the cognition of language that abides by a series of equations or "allowed" terms that exist as measurements, or comparative markers that are entirely referents or tools. The linguistic relativity principle, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. A strong version of the hypothesis holds that language determines thought that linguistic categories limits and determines cognitive categories.
This is the essence of the semi-hypnotic state of cognition we occupy in relation to what is suggested to us as the referents get entangled with reality wherein the referents themselves dictate both cognition and behavior. Yet "it" is and it isn't as in the philosophy of the Tao, which Buddhism takes further into sensory cognition, all of these are advanced beyond what science currently recognizes as a critical factor in homeostasis. All of this may be a process that links the various influences of cognition into a primary model of evolution which is termed The Santiago Theory.
Our world such as it actually is, can be probably best described as more of a modality than a reality. We cannot tell the differences between the two. Consider there may be an advanced species wherein these limitations have been resolved and an entirely unknown form of sentience is the result.
This also extends into our difficulties with comprehending a non human species, which are constrained in regard to our conceptual models of behavior as our own are based upon what language suggests to us. If PSI in another species as a medium of exchange is entangled in our cognitive markers that are entrained to our senses, which, that if this is so, it may reveal a great deal as to quantum effects in regard to what we experimentally come across as a non conforming dynamic, which then perhaps which we have no choice whatsoever, other than to equally participate in creating a hybrid interpretation as a "reality." We may be simply be within a membrane that is incapable of translating in either sensory or cognitive means, a non human creature whose "rules" are not directly transcriptional to how we cognate or process experiential terms. We have no common sentience.
As a consequence when someone says, "well, what you saw does not exist" by way of our shared identifiers, that person is correct in one sense and in another they are not. This takes some discernment, which is difficult and does not fall off a tree to hit us on the head. That is why James Carrion strikes me as someone who has aspirations that will not be quenched by looking into the files of any technocracy, military or otherwise.
This is the psychological thread of games that is the underground spring that feeds perhaps unwarranted fears, unwarranted hopes and above all perhaps serve as a distraction to the paranormality of our own times. The point of the exercise is to examine the issues of contact in ways that are a more realistic a frame of context in regard to the alternative, which is sort of a reductionist Utopian vision or one pick pocketed from the Third Reich. Both are games that have predefined roles in relation to intangible assets, whose ownership in terms of a tool has been reversed in a hierarchy where environmental language predominates behavior through cognition, as they are enfolded into one another without an impartial arbiter.
As of late, my Asperger's has been giving me several bouts of depression which goes hand in hand with this condition which leads to Godel like fixations of logic turned back on itself, which then can become obsessive when focused on a subject. Tonight I needed to get out of the house for this reason, and whilst driving home I came to a stop sign and the car in front of me would not move. I waited and waited and I could see the silhouette of the driver rigidly placed in a position behind the wheel. There were no other cars at the intersection. This went on, the cars headlights were on and then I noticed no brake lights were on. The car was parked. Did this person have a heart attack, was this person dead? After sitting there I reluctantly drove around this car and looked in the driver's side window to see this person , and honestly, I am not sure what I saw because as soon as I passed this car, the electronics in my car, meaning the warning sounds, lights etc, went off in a cacophony of displays until the other vehicle was out of sight in my rear view mirror, as I became too confused as this occurred to stop. Either rightfully or wrongfully, I felt like I had been arranged in a checkmate. My instincts said it all. Don't look back. Two words came to mind this morning. !. Clever 2. Irritating
Reproduced by kind permission of Bruce Duensing
Is Direct Contact An Impossible Presumption? by Bruce Duensing
No replies to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users