UFO Contemplation

Sunday, November 06, 2016

A Daniel Yang-Clark comment

"Wouldn't it be more shrewd, to enhance the positive things of life, rather than to negate the negative. Your blog has gone quiet!"

Daniel's observation is interesting. 

I do engender a negative patina here. But adding inquiry or positive postings, such as the recent request for any feedback about an obscure Kenneth Arnold film of "saucers" and a notation about memory metal indicated in a controversial Adamski 8mm film, doesn't bring commentary and I'll tell you why....

UFO buffs still engaged in the phenomenon are, generally, those who believe in the ETH, the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

There are readers/visitors to this blog...
But they aren't the once former, intelligent group that used to exchange views here and elsewhere (at Kevin Randle's blog for instance).

The skeptical few, except for Zoam Chomsky, have departed UFO circles, mostly for Facebook visibility.

What's left are the fantasizers, those who think or want UFOs to be alien spaceships.

I could try and cater to that delusional group but that would be like selling my soul to the devil.

So, here we are, with visitors maybe even readers, looking over my sputum, without any kind of response.

As I replied to Daniel. I have other blogs that keep me vital, and there's always Facebook, where interaction, admittedly of a dopey kind, is available for a witty twit or two.

I often get feedback from authors or reviewers of items discussed here, although they would never make a public comment in a UFO blog. That would be so degrading, for them.

UFOs, as a vital or intellectual topic, and ufology are dying, as I, and others, take the time to note.

That's the truth of things, and if I get little or no commentary here, so be it.

One can't dance for the great unwashed and hope for a few coins of thanks.

RR

The great “intelligence” has a fixation that UFO ETs do not have, it seems…


The idea that a super intelligence is operating a matrix, a computer simulation we are all encapsulated in is a topic rife with science right now and one I find fascinating, as you know.

But I’d make the term “super intelligence” concise and call it God.

And I’m keenly aware that God (or the supposed super intelligence) has had and has an addiction to procreation, for all the life-forms on Earth.

Watching nature shows, such as some of David Attenborough’s various BBC series or the often PBS output that centers on insect and sea-life along with the varietal existences of mammalian life or even plant life, I’m forever shocked, shocked I tell you, at the emphasis on the massive, time-consuming efforts for species to procreate.

Sure, it’s an aspect of “survival of the fittest” co-joined with the need(s) for food and water.

But the overwhelming desire is for species to mate.

Freud’s psychoanalytic etiology was and is based in the sexual proclivities of humankind.

(We all know that sex sells and is rampant in entertainment venues.)

But how is it that, when it comes to UFOs and their alleged extraterrestrial controllers, there is and has been no blatant outbursts of that procreative urge?

(I won’t dignify the idea that UFO abduction/experiencer reports are examples of this sexual urge. Aductees/experiencers are suffering from “abreaction” as noted in a post preceding this one, and for me that’s the end of the matter when it comes to alleged UFO kidnappings or abductions.)

My point here is that if God (the super entity) hosted a computer simulation, why hasn’t that entity suffused UFO ETs with the same urges (instincts?) that It has impregnated (no pun) in all the living species on Earth?

It doesn’t make computational sense.

RR

Postmodernism and Ufology

A commentary in the Times Literary Supplement [TLS] issue of October 21st, 2016 about Postmodernism [Page 17 ff.] is relevant to the “history” of flying saucers and UFOs, under the rubric, ufology.

I won’t bore you with a lengthy post about postmodernism; no one I know is interested in the topic, but it’s pertinent to what ufology was and is.

Wikipedia on postmodernism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

The term postmodernism came to prominence with Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, published twenty-five years ago but still one of Duke University Press’s best-selling title. [TLS, Page 17]
(I insert that “best-selling” note to show some UFO quidnuncs that older-dated books are not to be dismissed as irrelevant, as they often imply here.)

“The term ‘postmodernism’ was first used by Jameson to identify an ironic playfulness expressed in different media … when the divide between high and low culture dissolved.” [ibid, Page 17]

Commentator Eric Bulson, in an interview with Jameson, was told that Jameson “would … substitute the term ‘postmodernity’ for ‘the postmodern', precisely to reinforce … that it was ‘not a style but a historical period, one in which all kinds of things, from economics to politics, from the arts to technology, from daily life to international relations, had changed for good.” [ibid, Page 17]

My point, at the moment, is that ufology – the interest and study of UFOs – has remained static and marmorean since the late 1940s up to now, 2016, accenting that old saw “the more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Ufology is just as creepy, loopy, and fixated now as was way back when.

Nothing has changed. The “voices” are the same. The research is the same. The skepticism is the same. The ET fixation is the same.

This is why ufology, UFOs, and their addicts are shunned by the general public, media, and everything else that is postmodern.

Ufology is “old news.” It reeks of mold and has an antique odor about it.

Few newbies (millennials) are interested. Even the current self-serving effort(s) by former Blink-182 guitarist Tom DeLonge hasn’t raised UFOs or ufology to a spot in mainstream conversation, despite some items in wayward media outlets.

Ufology is “old-hat” – a topic for geezers and seekers of antiquated subject matter.

UFOs will not make a come-back in current societies as it is not postmodernity but a period of stasis from an era long past and no longer relevant in a postmodern world.

RR