The Philosophical Underpinnings of Some UFO Buffs?

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

I am intrigued by how some visitors here think, those that do think, (Not all do.)

I favor Plato, as do most of the RRRGroup fellows who work on blogs with disciplines that are far from the UFO topic; most are neo-Platonists.

There is a heavy reliance, by us, on the thought processes of the 13^th Century Scholastics, who were Aristotelian, as even the great Thomas Aquinas agreeing with the admired Aristotle in his Summa Theologiae on the matter of God and Evil: Aristotle arguing, in a metaphor that God as the Captain of the Ship was responsible for its destination and crew; that is, God is the Captain of humanity’s destination and if humanity is Evil then God, as the Captain is responsible for Evil.

Aquinas tried to work Aristotle out of that view but ends up, by ratiocination, supporting it.

Also, we like that Scholastic argumentation included the question of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” – silly arguments, like those we pose here, but essential to thought processes that might arrive at certitude.

I get the impression that Paul Kimball is Cartesian, his thought processes filtered by and supported by the mental processes of Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.”  (He’ll correct me I’m sure, but that’s my impression.)

Nick Redfern is Socratic: “What do I know,” he asks?

Bruce Duensing is Hegelian. Yep!

Zoam Chomsky is a Nietzsche acolyte I believe.

Gilles Fernandez is influenced by Auguste Comte. (He just doesn’t know it.)

PurrlGurrl reminds me of Madame de Staël or, better, Mary Wollstonecraft.

Tim Hebert is Baruch Spinoza kinda.

Dominick is Augustinian surely.

Ross Evans likens his observations to that of Roger Bacon, doesn’t he?

Lance Moody adheres to the views of David Hume., but even more so.

CDA could be George Berkely reborn….indeed.

Brownie/Susan is Hypatia also reborn, isn’t she?

Anthony Bragalia would like to be identified with Jacques Derrida I believe.

Jose Antonio Caravaca has the tint of Francis Bacon about him.

Larry adheres to the ideas of Gottlob Frege….maybe.

Jerry Clark reminds me of Martin Heidegger.

Kurt Peters follows the dictates of Johann Gottleib Fichte.

Chuck Finley thinks he’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s long lost cousin.

But who is like Emmanuel Kant? Or the remarkable Jean-Paul Sartre?

And who follows The Zarkon Principle? (But that for another time.)

Let me know what you think.

RR 

Tall Tales

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

Chris Aubeck provided an 1858 airship sighting in his book with Jacques Vallee, Wonders in the Sky [Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, New York, 2009, Page 325 ff.].

A Mr. Henry Wallace saw “a large and curiously constructed vessel…[with] A number of very tall people [aboard it],” which the recorder [Mr. Wallace] of the event believes was “a vessel from Venus, Mercury, or the planet Mars, on a visit of pleasure or exploration, or some other cause.” [Page 326]

Wallace elaborated: “The vessel was evidently worked by wheels and other mechanical appendages, all of which worked with a precision and a degree of beauty never yet attained by any mechanical skill upon this planet.” [ibid]

“This was no phantom that disappeared in a twinkling [Wallace continued] … but this aerial ship was guided, propelled and steered through the atmosphere with the most scientific system and regularity, about sic miles per hour, though, doubtless, from the appearance of her machinery, she was capable of going thousands of miles an hour.” [ibid]

Mr. Aubeck indicates that the source of this story was Dr. William Earl, in The Illustrated Silent Friend, embracing subjects never before scientifically discussed (New York, 1858).

Mr. Aubeck also noted that he couldn’t verify the story, “the claim rest[ing] on the veracity of names that cannot be verified today.” [ibid]

This story would be (will be) dismissed by those who need more evidentiary proof.

Imaginative types will find it intriguing, not as a true account perhaps, but as an imaginative fiction or fantasy on the part of Mr. Wallace or Mr. Earl.

What is interesting, no matter what stance one takes about the account, is how the portrayer “reported” it: from a planet in our Solar System, with tall beings on board, and an advanced machine (although it is primitive by our flying craft configurations today).

Why tall beings?

Did Mr. Wallace actually see such beings? Or was his fantasy impregnated by what persons thought outer space beings would be like….tall and imposing, not short or weak looking, as the “grays” are depicted by fictive accounts today?

What changed in the human mind-set, from 1858 to 1961 (the Hill account)? Aside from the dwarf-like entities of the 1950s (mostly in countries outside the United States), most beings were either normal size (pretty much) – the Villas Boas case – or less than tall, with exceptions, such as Voronezh [1989].

Such reported details, as that of Wallace et al., could be used to determine what stories have a kind of veracity or indicate a made-up account, either duplicitously or because of a mental malfunction.

Is there any practical value in making such an effort?

An account of “tall beings” in 1858 can’t be proven as true, at this late stage of the game.

And reports of “grays” are besotted by the “little gray meme” now ubiquitous in the cultural consciousness so that pursuit can’t bear fruit, really.

What one ends up dealing with is the psychopathology of the cultural milieu in which being-reports accrue.

That is an anthropological query or pursuit, one which has little value, academically and no value practically.

Mr. Aubeck’s rendition titillates somewhat, that’s all.

It tells us what one person from the mid-Nineteenth Century thought about life beyond the Earth; it’s the Jules Verne approach to extraterrestrial life, which is for imaginations, not journalism or reality.

Today’s UFO reports have to be seen in the same way, as part of the collective meme, nothing more.

Beings from outer space, whether real or not (actually not), have no impact on human life, then or now.

Paying too much attention (or any attention) to such fantastic tales is not mentally healthy or imbued with human value.

Why we do it is a matter for the sociologist, not the recorder of what is meaningful for life, here and now….”meaningful” being the operative word here.

RR