"The Cosmic Hoax: An Exposé" by Steven Greer

Mike! Good to see you on the forums.

I'm curious to know what you see as the contactee information and take, and what attitudes and values they represent. In The Phenomenon, the Zimbabwe school children who witnessed a UFO seemed to suggest that the beings from that ship were trying to communicate an environmental message: stop messing up your planet. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

On the other hand, we have cattle mutilations and painful procedures without anaesthesia carried out on abductees who are terrified, which perhaps suggest a less compassionate approach. How do we reconcile these sort of acts with a more positive view of the abductors?

Generally the theme is related to being more responsive to our biosphere - less exploiter, more partner. But that theme includes being a better human as well. You might call it a 'secular spirituality'. Whitley Stieber partnered with Jeff Kripal in The Super Natural in a way I think gives a more complex sense of what 'the message' is.

I read an account of a kid who encountered ET and the clear impression is that ET had absolutely no understanding of fear, or, I suspect, physicality.

I am reminded that when we lovingly 'abduct' wild animals for their own good we terrify them, and cause them pain.

The cattle that are 'mutilated' are often destined to be 'mutilated' by us in an abattoir. ET [if that's who is doing this] takes what they want and leaves the rest. It's not pretty, because we see what's left over but we don't see the aftermath of a butchering. True, the farmers are not paid. But, depending on your perspective, the cattle weren't either. I am not so sure ET understands the economic relationship between a beast born to be butchered and the farmer who raises it - or it matters much at all.

I am not defending the business. There are 3 sides to the story - cattle, farmer and ET. If you are a vegan [and who is say ET is not?] a life sacrificed for science might be thought more noble.

I did once speculate that maybe ET had an intergalactic deli business and they were just wild foraging from their perspective.

Mike! Good to see you on the forums.

I'm curious to know what you see as the contactee information and take, and what attitudes and values they represent. In The Phenomenon, the Zimbabwe school children who witnessed a UFO seemed to suggest that the beings from that ship were trying to communicate an environmental message: stop messing up your planet. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

On the other hand, we have cattle mutilations and painful procedures without anaesthesia carried out on abductees who are terrified, which perhaps suggest a less compassionate approach. How do we reconcile these sort of acts with a more positive view of the abductors?

Generally the theme is related to being more responsive to our biosphere - less exploiter, more partner. But that theme includes being a better human as well. You might call it a 'secular spirituality'. Whitley Stieber partnered with Jeff Kripal in The Super Natural in a way I think gives a more complex sense of what 'the message' is.

I read an account of a kid who encountered ET and the clear impression is that ET had absolutely no understanding of fear, or, I suspect, physicality.

I am reminded that when we lovingly 'abduct' wild animals for their own good we terrify them, and cause them pain.

The cattle that are 'mutilated' are often destined to be 'mutilated' by us in an abattoir. ET [if that's who is doing this] takes what they want and leaves the rest. It's not pretty, because we see what's left over but we don't see the aftermath of a butchering. True, the farmers are not paid. But, depending on your perspective, the cattle weren't either. I am not so sure ET understands the economic relationship between a beast born to be butchered and the farmer who raises it - or it matters much at all.

I am not defending the business. There are 3 sides to the story - cattle, farmer and ET. If you are a vegan [and who is say ET is not?] a life sacrificed for science might be thought more noble.

I did once speculate that maybe ET had an intergalactic deli business and they were just wild foraging from their perspective.

[Laird]

less exploiter, more partner.

This could be a catch-phrase applicable to all sorts of relationships. It is fitting given your aspirations to animism, and I appreciate it as an advocate for indigenous sovereignty, given that it matches the indigenous approach to country.

The main two issues I otherwise take with your response are (1) to note that we vegans are no more in favour of the exploitation of animals in the name of scientific experimentation than we are in favour of the exploitation of animals for food, and (2) to wonder just how qualified ET are as teachers when (if) they are so deficient in their understanding of the human experience (or the experience of living beings on this planet in general) that, as you suggest, they understand neither fear nor physicality.

In my reading so far of the book Seth Speaks which you recommended to me, the speaker (Seth) makes it plain that although he inhabits a different reality, as a teacher he is diligent in studying the reality of his students so as best to be able to communicate with them. It seems that the ETs we are discussing do not undertake (have not undertaken) a similar due diligence. Does that seem fair to you?

Edit: Oh, and I should add that while it looks compelling, I haven't yet read The Super Natural.

This could be a catch-phrase applicable to all sorts of relationships. It is fitting given your aspirations to animism, and I appreciate it as an advocate for indigenous sovereignty, given that it matches the indigenous approach to country.

The main two issues I otherwise take with your response are (1) to note that we vegans are no more in favour of the exploitation of animals in the name of scientific experimentation than we are in favour of the exploitation of animals for food, and (2) to wonder just how qualified ET are as teachers when (if) they are so deficient in their understanding of the human experience (or the experience of living beings on this planet in general) that, as you suggest, they understand neither fear nor physicality.

In my reading so far of the book Seth Speaks which you recommended to me, the speaker (Seth) makes it plain that although he inhabits a different reality, as a teacher he is diligent in studying the reality of his students so as best to be able to communicate with them. It seems that the ETs we are discussing do not undertake (have not undertaken) a similar due diligence. Does that seem fair to you?

Edit: Oh, and I should add that while it looks compelling, I haven't yet read The Super Natural.

Okay. I wasn't holding vegans up in any way other than making a point about how we interpret information. I will be more diplomatic in future :-).

I think it depends on what they are teaching. Even if they can see the consequences of our conduct, and have a clearer idea of how to behave better, their efforts to communicate that may not be ideal. That is why I think there is so much 'contactee' experience. It's at a deeper level than going via eyes and ears because its not language based.

Communicating with non-physical agents isn't easy because its hard to get a context and you can end up asking dumb questions because you can't formulate a fluid conversation with somebody who doesn't get your context. There's also a difference between those who have been human and those who never have been. There's no 'rapport' with the never beens.

As to whether ET is physical or not I have never been able to form a firm opinion. That they can appear in the physical world with a tangible form is not the same thing. There are lots of indications their reality is very different - much more fluid than ours. I think Strieber's experience is instructive here - in terms of the complexity.

I do have a sense that ET expresses in the manner of the predilection of the observer/experiencer. The original account of UFOs as saucers referenced them skipping like saucers skipping on water [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Ar...O_sighting]. There really wasn't a description of the objects being saucers - but they obliging took on that form subsequently when the public misconstrued the original description.

I think we are stuck with the problem of 'origin and nature unknown' - at least at a public level - for some time. Part of the problem is that we can't think in non-material terms yet. That's an evolutionary step on a cultural level we are yet to make. I still struggle with White's 'Unobstructed Universe', and DeMarco's work because learning to think in proper 'metaphysical' terms takes not only intellectual effort but profound emotional/psychological adjustments too. We are understandably intensely self-referential in terms of our biological presence in this material world. It is our primary mode of being - but not our only - and being able to function consciously between the physical and metaphysical dimensions is something few manage to do. Mostly we access the latter when we are asleep - and forget about the details when we wake. I have had lucid dreams in which I was perfectly conscious of participating in a group discussion of some interest, but when I awoke any memory submerged.

That separation is, I believe, intentional - a kind of rule we live by whether we like it or not.

The other thing is that a wiling teacher must be met by a willing student. While these 'ET' teachers strive to come down to our level, we must strive to rise up to theirs. I sometimes think in terms of us being dogs and ET being humans to remind myself that while we are smart in our own pond we are not so great in the bigger one. My dog and I struggle to understand each other. There is love and patience and mutual positive regard that bonds us [and a degree mutual dependency]. I keep that disparity in mind because I think it can be an equivalence in relation to humans and ET.

I made a note today while reading Siedentop's 'Inventing the Individual' quoting Abelard - "It is by doubting that we come to investigate, and by investigating that we recognise truth.' I felt compelled to follow with "But Abelard didn't know about FaceBook and YouTube". Abelard is a scholar of the highest calibre. For him investigating is a scholarly pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

In contrast our ability to distinguish shite from gold in the avalanche of information that laps at our fingertips all day every day adds a new and problematic dimension to investigating - developing the capacity for discernment motivated by genuine truth seeking. That requires the courage and integrity to confront propositions that challenge our egos and conceit. There's not enough of that in our public discourse -and what little there is can be obscured and debased by arrogant conceit and predatory deception.

I do not believe ET is going to deliver the 'truth' to us. As one of my mysterious teachers said "I am not here to tell you things. I am here to teach you how to learn." I do think that if we put the effort into figuring WTF is going on we will make some progress. If we make no or little effort, we won't.

I think one think is clear. ET does not care much for the hierarchies of our culture. Governments are not the only or the primary point of contact because on the metaphysical level they have no meaning to a hierarchy based on capacity and merit. In any case leaving things to the governments of the world to ensure good things happen and there is peace and plenty and equity is not exactly a shining example of humanity's capacity to govern itself.

BTW I retain the term 'ET' to cover all prospects of who they may turn out to be - regardless of where they come from. I don't believe there is only on type/nature/source - or that they are all 'nice'. By that I don't think we will be invaded in the manner of Independence Day [oddly conveniently shown in Australia not long after the US report came out] - but there are plenty of alternative ills to be visited upon us.

[Laird]

I don't believe there is only on type/nature/source - or that they are all 'nice'.

OK, so, not all of them are teachers anyhow. And some may have a darker side. Some may be from different metaphysical "places" - perhaps including some even from our physical universe, flying physical craft, with others being from "other dimensions", imagining their craft into our physical reality; perhaps some being "natively" physical, with others being natively non-physical.

Yes?

OK, so, not all of them are teachers anyhow. And some may have a darker side. Some may be from different metaphysical "places" - perhaps including some even from our physical universe, flying physical craft, with others being from "other dimensions", imagining their craft into our physical reality; perhaps some being "natively" physical, with others being natively non-physical.

Yes?

Yeah - more or less. Decades ago one of my teachers mentioned ET as 'traders' and suggested it would be smart to stay away from them. He did not elaborate. He tended to do that. My 'joke' about the cattle mutilations being a case of ET foraging for an intergalactic deli might be closer to the truth than I know. It does seem that for advanced folk they to need a lot of material to 'study'. You'd think a couple of cows would yield enough material.

I don't have a problem with imagining ET from our physical universe using tech not unlike the 'warp drive' of Star Trek - as well as others who come from 'inner dimensions' and who create vehicles of manifestation - which, from a soul perspective is kinda what the body is. You could say that using hominids as vehicle of manifestation for a metaphysical being is pretty clever.

We can also imagine that the 'inner dimensions' denizens also interact with some physical ET in a kind of moral alliance in interacting with humans. We are so used to imagining the materialist model in which we are just biological beings operating solely on our own account - and projecting that onto ET as well - as is the foundation of so much sci fi in which ET invades Earth. But step back and consider the ancient and more common sense that humans interact with spirit - with varying degrees of conscious awareness.

My experiences have long convinced me there is an active intelligent and purposeful agency available to humanity - well, at least some. White and DeMarco both engage with no longer physical humans who are intermediators with others. These others are clearly more sophisticated in their understanding of reality. Who they are is not examined - and, I think, they want it that way. [We have a passion for 'knowing' stuff and imagine we are mentally able to cop any information - and that's just not true.]

Combine those with Strieber and it seems pretty clear to me that there are multiple sources of interaction. Add in 'abductions' and that multiplicity seems to generate a fairly consistent message theme. It's pretty much what has been the foundation of human religion from the beginning. It would help if we understood what religion properly is - the individual and collective response to the existential awareness of reality as conscious being. That response is manifested in multiple ways - some of which offend our reason [usually because we have formed silly ideas and are too conceited to know that].

The notion that the foundation of reality is 'consciousness' is crudely developed at the moment. It's not a novel notion by any means, but for us to be considering it as a 'rational' reality is novel within our modern culture. Quantum science is just opening up a sense of what might be possible for us - and what already be possible for ET. My point is that we simply do not have a serviceable intellectual foundation from which to critique ET in any way that has any real value.

I have no doubt that there are some that do - and it is instructive that they are not saying a lot.

To better appreciate why, it is worthwhile reflecting on how possessing advanced tech is not just about intellectual prowess. There is also a disparity in emotional and spiritual awareness as well. As a culture we have been in transition from premodern  religiosity to post modern self-awareness travelling via ballsy intellectualism [which outright denied any validity to emotions]. We are slowly emerging into an age when self-awareness is valued as a partner to intellectual prowess. Indeed it is a critical partner. By self-awareness I don't just mean being in touch with our emotions as a valid component of our being, but also expressing that awareness as compassion and empathy - and an openness to spirit in aider sense. That's a kind of post modern secular spirituality in the sense that it not predicated dogma and belief systems, but awareness itself. Part of that development is the growth of holistic awareness - no longer human-centred.

Part of our transition from religiosity to where we are now includes the abandonment of religion by thinkers who could not justify the need for a God in the scheme of things as conceived. The idea of soul was replaced by the idea of mind, and this allowed the human to be seen as the apex of our reality. As a transitional notion that was fair enough. It broke free of dogma and theology - more like a rebellious teenager than a mature position. Now materialists are struggling to become more mature - more self-aware and open to spirit. This does not entail an abandonment of reason - just growing up emotionally and spiritually.

I do believe that how ET manifests to us is dependent on that process of maturation into our next phase of development. There is a lot of new age blather on this theme. It is generally off-putting, and that's a pity, because there is something to it.

I am going to plug Larry Siedentop's Inventing the Individual again because that book provides a remarkable account of how developments in religion and politics are part of the mechanisms for driving powerful evolutionary change in our sense of who we are. Siedentop is a master historian, so the book has no taint of partisanship.

Much has been written and considered here recently, and I can't do it justice, this isn't my area of expertise. Just a brief comment on the idea of ET as traders. To my mind, that is too close to remaking ET in our own image, much as some old religions remake their gods in the image of humans. I'd think it more appropriate to not attempt anthropomorphic or anthropocentric concepts and descriptions of ET. After all there are many and varied lifeforms on this planet, we already put it at risk by presuming humans to be the highest form of existence on this planet. Perhaps conceptualisations of ET might involve a reevaluation of ourselves and where we fit in, not in the context of the vastness of the universe, but reevaluating ourselves and where we fit in on this little planet we share with others.

Somewhere above someone mentioned an ET unable to comprehend the human concept of fear. Would that perhaps signify something like the alien creatures currently exploring the planet Mars? Those are alien beings roaming about, drilling, digging, firing lasers, unable to comprehend fear.

Much has been written and considered here recently, and I can't do it justice, this isn't my area of expertise. Just a brief comment on the idea of ET as traders. To my mind, that is too close to remaking ET in our own image, much as some old religions remake their gods in the image of humans. I'd think it more appropriate to not attempt anthropomorphic or anthropocentric concepts and descriptions of ET. After all there are many and varied lifeforms on this planet, we already put it at risk by presuming humans to be the highest form of existence on this planet. Perhaps conceptualisations of ET might involve a reevaluation of ourselves and where we fit in, not in the context of the vastness of the universe, but reevaluating ourselves and where we fit in on this little planet we share with others.

I think your point has merit. The remark about traders came to me from a non material source. It was in response to my question about whether UFOs are real. Unfortunately I have not transcribed that portion of my diaries yet, so I can't quote the entry. But I am motivated to dig it out and transcribe it. Just scheduled that in my diary for tomorrow am. 

Yes, I agree with you that we should not try to make ET in 'our image' - or turn them into monsters - as sci fi movies are apt to do. However I also think that we need to retain a distinction between a representation and the reality behind it. It could that ET or spirit will adopt a human form to facilitate acceptance sufficient to enable communication.

The porto-christian scriptures frequently depict God in what we can only see as a very human-like 'person'. For some people any kind of abstraction registers nothing they can deal with. This leads to the 'error' of literalism that, in our times, causes a misreading of texts belonging to an age where abstraction was not the norm. Graphic imagery was needed to convey meaning.

In many cultures, too, the gods have been portrayed in human form - mostly. There are hybrid human-animal and just animal forms also. I don't think the human forms are literal so much as signal of relatability. Nevertheless your point must remain constant - even if ET is seen in human form that does not mean the spirit behind the form is in any respect human.

But back to the term 'trader'. At the time I struggled to make sense of what the implications of that term might be. Now I do not think it meant they traded with humans any more that North American fur traders traded with beavers. The warning could have meant they traded in humans or in things of our world. I think the remark could have simply indicated that the range of ET could include those who had no noble motive and saw engaging with humans as an entirely utilitarian matter - as harvest or curiosity or merely something that could be collateral damage in some venture.

This draws a necessary distinction between predation and invasion. Here I agree with Greer that ET isn't an invasion threat, but that does not mean all ET are the same. We are predators upon our world, and we are preyed upon in turn by other worldly creatures. Our myths are replete with other-worldly predators too.

Somewhere above someone mentioned an ET unable to comprehend the human concept of fear. Would that perhaps signify something like the alien creatures currently exploring the planet Mars? Those are alien beings roaming about, drilling, digging, firing lasers, unable to comprehend fear.

I am not familiar with stories about Mars, so I won't attempt any comment re that in particular.

I think there are several possible explanation for an inability to comprehend the fear expressed by humans:

• ET is non-physical in essence and thus has no grasp of any reaction generated by a biological entity.
  
• ET has evolved beyond a reliance on biological reflexes in the same way we in 'advanced' western societies have moved beyond reliance on physical attributes like strength and endurance to the point where we have to take time out to exercise. Imagine a few thousand years of that in a safe environment. Physical fear may have become a distant residual instinct that is incomprehensible now.
  
• ET accepts what is is. So fear is irrelevant. This more so if there is there is a clear sense of life beyond the material form [actual or appearance]. Fearing death or injury was not okay among our ancestors. Ditto Christian martyrs and other heroes.
  

Any or all of this might apply to ET on Mars.