"The Cosmic Hoax: An Exposé" by Steven Greer

Well, there's an empirically testable claim if ever there was one. Who's going to conduct the study? Has one already been conducted? Are there more than one? Is there a meta-analysis?

In any case, Mike, can I get your clarification: are there any metaphysical agents, whether divine or diabolical, including gods/God(dess), that you would not class as "ET" or differentiate from those beings which pilot UFOs/UAPs? If there are, then how would you make that differentiation? In other words, I'm wondering whether you place all conscious entities other than humans in the same (ET) basket? (Acknowledging that your recent response to Typoz suggests that that "other" might not even itself apply!)

I think there is an essential sense that 'all is one' - and that notion has to be elevated beyond the cliched recitation. Let's  determine that metaphysical and physical ET are, for our purposes, distinct classes. Let us also determine that the two undoubtedly interact to some degree.

As a general rule the metaphysical trumps thr physical. That is to say that metaphysical agents are fundamentally more potent than physical ones. This has been an enduring theme in human history. I see no reason to depart from it. Admittedly a rejection of the metaphysical renders that notion redundant - but we wouldn't be having this conversation with a person so inclined.

In effect distinctions are contextual, rather than actual - in terms of any sense of difference between agents of any nature. 

So, in essence then, all life has a nature that is not reliant on the physical - and hence all is fundamentally ET. But, and this is where context is critical, our ability to discern distinctions between expressions of life may necessitate a terrestrial expression in order for us to be aware of it.

For us, life expressions are comprehensible only because they have a terrestrial manifestation. For example I believe that distinct life expressions in the insect realm are possible only because they express in material form. It precisely the 'resistance' inherent in physical life that creates distinctions in what is fundamentally an economy of energy exchange. I would apply that to all micro-organisms as well.

Probably the best way to explain this is that distinct expression into 'individual' manifest life forms depends on scale. From our perspective a fly is a temporary expression of a general 'fly spirit' - so the spirit of a dead fly would merge with a general fly spirit without any sense of individual existence.

But from a god's perspective the same might be said of us. However we so value individual expression we have a sense of enduring personal expression as spirit. It's a scale and context thing essentially. Our scale and context is perfectly valid.

But further, let's define identity in the same way. We have a notion of humanity as a class - of which we are individually members. Some metaphysical agents belong to a different but equivalent class. Others belong to a different and not equivalent class. I can speculate that something similar applies to ET on the physical domain - merely spatial different with more advanced tech. I'd place physical ET in the 'different but equivalent' class - but that's a guess on my part.  

Non-human metaphysical beings have a relationship with humanity that is [at least in one major respect] responsible for a critical aspect of who we are - and are invested in what we do. The Promethean myth has Prometheus as 'creator' of humanity and then a 'friend' that necessarily led to a 'sacrifice' [a theme repeated in the Jesus myth]. In this regard Prometheus may be said to have a 'parental' responsibility in relation to humanity.

That's the mythic story. But its a constant theme - as is the theme of a tester or adversary. 

I think what we may call ET is a range of agents that must include physical and metaphysical classes - with identities going both ways. Physical agents claiming to be metaphysical and metaphysical agents presenting as physical. It is a blurred range because it must also include physical agents acting as metaphysical representatives.
We need only look a the contention over the origin of the Christian belief system to see how confusing and problematic this can become - is Jesus God, human + God or human blessed by God or human with a destiny?

People have been tortured and killed over the distinction. For me the problem we now have has persisted in Christianity for millennia. Things are not fundamentally different for us - only our context is different and the sense of existential threat is real.

This is a critical distinction that separates us from the mythic past. There is a peril that did not exist until the modern age and, especially the end of WW2.

I have been listening to Ralph Blumenthal's 'The Believer: Alien Encounters, Hard Science and the Passion of John Mack'. It sums up the difficulty very nicely. It's available on Audible. 

My sense is that the distinctions are contingent and contextual only and have no absolute meaning.

[Laird]

Hey Mike,

I wonder whether that which follows is a derailment of the conversation, but I also wonder whether it's quite essential to it.

I wonder the latter because terminology and shared definitions are essential to communication, and I want us all in this conversation to be using shared definitions and the same terminology.

You suggest that "distinctions are contextual, rather than actual", which I think I understand in context (ha), but we should also note that language is based in distinctions. If different words didn't mean different things in the same context, then there would probably only ever be one word, as in the Gary Larson cartoon:



It seems that under your very broad definition of "ET", you encompass, effectively, every conscious being, since, as you contend, "all life has a nature that is not reliant on the physical - and hence all is fundamentally ET".

Doesn't this effectively render the term "ET" unhelpful in terms of distinction, since it then becomes synonymous with "conscious being"?

We are surely trying to have a discussion about those conscious beings which are non-native to our planet and which visit it in order to interact with or observe it and its inhabitants in some way, either via physical craft from some other location in our physical universe, or from some other dimension. What word, then, do you think we can use to describe those beings, since "ET" on your definition seems not to be able to distinguish those beings from any others?

You write that: "I think what we may call ET is a range of agents that must include physical and metaphysical classes - with identities going both ways. Physical agents claiming to be metaphysical and metaphysical agents presenting as physical. It is a blurred range because it must also include physical agents acting as metaphysical representatives."

OK, sure, it's a blurred range, but surely the concept of the beings in question (in the general sphere of UFOs, UAPs, aliens, abductions, and mutilations) can be differentiated as I suggested above?

Maybe we go with "visitors" rather than "ET"? I don't know, but we sure need a differentiating word in this discussion that doesn't reduce to "any conscious being".

(By the way, I think I've simply expressed in more verbose terms that which Typoz was getting at in his earlier post).

One other quibble with your post:

I disagree that all insects (or categories of insect) have only one soul. I think that this idea is as incoherent as the general idea of noetic monism which Titus Rivas very effectively demolishes in his article Is noetic monism tenable?.

(By the way, I think I've simply expressed in more verbose terms that which Typoz was getting at in his earlier post).

Thanks Laird, but you give me too much credit. Your post contains thoughts and ideas which hadn't yet occurred to me, so I think you've not merely increased the verbosity, but provided additional meaning and ideas too.

Hey Mike,

I wonder whether that which follows is a derailment of the conversation, but I also wonder whether it's quite essential to it.

I wonder the latter because terminology and shared definitions are essential to communication, and I want us all in this conversation to be using shared definitions and the same terminology.

You suggest that "distinctions are contextual, rather than actual", which I think I understand in context (ha), but we should also note that language is based in distinctions. If different words didn't mean different things in the same context, then there would probably only ever be one word, as in the Gary Larson cartoon:



It seems that under your very broad definition of "ET", you encompass, effectively, every conscious being, since, as you contend, "all life has a nature that is not reliant on the physical - and hence all is fundamentally ET".

Doesn't this effectively render the term "ET" unhelpful in terms of distinction, since it then becomes synonymous with "conscious being"?

We are surely trying to have a discussion about those conscious beings which are non-native to our planet and which visit it in order to interact with or observe it and its inhabitants in some way, either via physical craft from some other location in our physical universe, or from some other dimension. What word, then, do you think we can use to describe those beings, since "ET" on your definition seems not to be able to distinguish those beings from any others?

You write that: "I think what we may call ET is a range of agents that must include physical and metaphysical classes - with identities going both ways. Physical agents claiming to be metaphysical and metaphysical agents presenting as physical. It is a blurred range because it must also include physical agents acting as metaphysical representatives."

OK, sure, it's a blurred range, but surely the concept of the beings in question (in the general sphere of UFOs, UAPs, aliens, abductions, and mutilations) can be differentiated as I suggested above?

Maybe we go with "visitors" rather than "ET"? I don't know, but we sure need a differentiating word in this discussion that doesn't reduce to "any conscious being".

(By the way, I think I've simply expressed in more verbose terms that which Typoz was getting at in his earlier post).

One other quibble with your post:

I disagree that all insects (or categories of insect) have only one soul. I think that this idea is as incoherent as the general idea of noetic monism which Titus Rivas very effectively demolishes in his article Is noetic monism tenable?.

Bugger! I had written a response but when I clicked on the Rivas link it disappeared.

Ergo, to repeat myself:

I agree with your argument. I used a loose terminology to make a point on the basis of seeking forgiveness was better than seeking permission.

Now we can move to making agreements on terminology. I am cool with that. I am pretty happy if you want to define terms.

On your observation re noetic monism, I am intrigued to read what Rivas has to say. My observation is that individuation is not a necessary condition of all apparent expressions of life on this plane, and that departing 'individuated' instances of consciousness return to a primal type source. This is generally accepted as a law, so I will read Rivas with interest -and probably disagree with him. let's see. 

[Laird]

I had written a response but when I clicked on the Rivas link it disappeared.

Oh, that link should have opened in a new browser tab/window. Sorry you lost your response.

Now we can move to making agreements on terminology. I am cool with that. I am pretty happy if you want to define terms.

I wonder whether we simply stick with "ET" for its simplicity and common use in this context, and stipulate that - in the context of the discussion about UFOs, etc - it means any being who is not incarnate on planet Earth "natively", so to speak, but who visits our planet either from some other place in this physical universe or from some other metaphysical realm. If you prefer, though, we could go with "alien" or "visitor", and leave the definition of "ET" as you have already laid out in this thread (so as to include humans as "ET"). Or... state your preference...

On your observation re noetic monism, I am intrigued to read what Rivas has to say. My observation is that individuation is not a necessary condition of all apparent expressions of life on this plane, and that departing 'individuated' instances of consciousness return to a primal type source.

I think that that's coherent so long as the individuated expressions of the singular soul are sort of "multiplexed" (experienced simultaneously) through that singular soul, and don't have separate, individuated streams of experience - and hence selves - of their own: in other words, that there is truly only one (combined) stream of phenomenal experience and one self. The sort of thing I'm getting at is a kind of simultaneous "remote control" (by the singular soul) of multiple "robots". If the idea, though, is: "No, they aren't like robots; they really do have their own individual experiences", then that's IMO where Titus's argument bites.

Oh, that link should have opened in a new browser tab/window. Sorry you lost your response.


I wonder whether we simply stick with "ET" for its simplicity and common use in this context, and stipulate that - in the context of the discussion about UFOs, etc - it means any being who is not incarnate on planet Earth "natively", so to speak, but who visits our planet either from some other place in this physical universe or from some other metaphysical realm. If you prefer, though, we could go with "alien" or "visitor", and leave the definition of "ET" as you have already laid out in this thread (so as to include humans as "ET"). Or... state your preference...


I think that that's coherent so long as the individuated expressions of the singular soul are sort of "multiplexed" (experienced simultaneously) through that singular soul, and don't have separate, individuated streams of experience - and hence selves - of their own: in other words, that there is truly only one (combined) stream of phenomenal experience and one self. The sort of thing I'm getting at is a kind of simultaneous "remote control" (by the singular soul) of multiple "robots". If the idea, though, is: "No, they aren't like robots; they really do have their own individual experiences", then that's IMO where Titus's argument bites.

Some sources assert that you or I are particularised expressions of an overarching entity that may have any number of expressions [100s or 1,000s] which express simultaneously in time and across locations in maybe multiple dimensions. This is a counter argument to the notion of linear or sequential incarnations. There are more complex arguments to accommodate apparent instances of a person 'returning' to this world with a memory of a past life that is so recent others can verify claims made.

Individuation is probably better called particularisation, because for us the term 'individual' is loaded. Souls are seen as particularised expressions of a larger agency - and may have sequential expressions also [hence the above]. So the idea that a soul can have multiple expressions in which there is an agency 'in charge' is problematic. 

The other concern is that a particularised expression adopts a persona based on context and circumstance - so the notion of control is also problematic - since the 'value' of a particularised expression has to do with response to experience rather than any kind of 'mission'. However there is a lot of argument that we are born with 'purposes' or 'missions' - if we are to live lives of service. 

Theories of control create difficulties generally for humans - though still quite popular. There are good reasons for thinking such control, unless oppressive and coercive, does not work. That's considering humans only. We have other orders of being - from, say, dogs to robots where control can have better affect.

This is where I think the remote control robot idea falls down. Now there may indeed be remotely controlled robots performing a limited function. There also may be ET who operate not as individuals but something closer to a 'hive mind'. There is no reason why ET should conform to our notions of individuality. Experiencers report ET communicating mind to mind, so the prospect of a 'hive mind' model is feasible.

The other thing is that ET appears to be hierarchically organised - so having 'drone' workers and more individuated leaders would be consistent with hierarchical structures. Hierarchies tend to include an 'elite' with high autonomy and maybe individuation, and 'masses' with low autonomy and low individuation.

Hierarchy seems to be a natural state of affairs, so it might also be universal.

From my learning souls are not agents of control, but expressions within a hierarchy of being. And the general rule is particularised expressions have 'individual' agency that is always a balance between deeper awareness and contextual experience. That 'experience' is the logic of being. Control has no purpose. Even those with a life mission are collaborators rather than slaves [a notion that was attractive to some photo-Christians.

Here we have a fusion of myth, fantasy and actual lore to contend with. For instance there are tales of what amount to 'slave' beings operating under a usually evil 'lord'. But if we gather the multiple myths and fantasies together we can only conclude there are multiple forms of organisation possible. That leaves us with thinking about what is likely -and that's a guess influenced by what we know or believe.

So it is perfectly reasonable to use the example of robots on Mars as a basis for asking questions about the nature of ET. But it is not a good idea to settle on that as a model for all ET [not saying anybody is doing this - just making a necessary point]. It would be necessary to survey the other options as well before positing an explanation. And the trouble is that we are guessing - and that's fine if we remember that.

Big Foot and UFO/ET devotees can get pretty touchy about other people positing an explanation that is not in line with their own. The idea that both may be right is intolerable and the notion both may be wrong is unacceptable. However, the latter is more likely. My experience is that once something is asserted it is sometimes better to attend to what it is not, rather than attempt to define what it is.

Perhaps the best illustration is the idea of God - who was held to be unknowable and incomprehensible. But now what he wants and thinks is gushed forth by devotees who now find themselves in endless conflict with those who do not agree.

Strieber struggled, even after all his experiences, to define who or what was engaging with him. It is vital for an experiencer to make sense of what has happened, but cramming that 'sense' into a boundaries rational explanation most likely will turn out to be a fool's errand. Some folk settle on an 'explanation' constructed on wholly insufficient evidence. But their need to explain is stronger than any sense of fidelity to truth. Certainty corrupts.

You need soft hands to catch bubbles.

[Laird]

I think that we again need to define terms in this conversation, which seems to have switched from ETs as in alien visitors to the metaphysical nature and manifestation of the soul.

In particular, how do you define "soul", "entity", "self", and "subject of consciousness", and (how) do you differentiate between these terms?

I ask because, for example, in this quote of yours...

Some sources assert that you or I are particularised expressions of an overarching entity that may have any number of expressions [100s or 1,000s] which express simultaneously in time and across locations in maybe multiple dimensions.

...I want to know whether by "overarching entity" you mean "overarching self, which is the same self for each of those 'number of expressions'".

Also, re this quote...

Souls are seen as particularised expressions of a larger agency

...is that larger agency itself a soul, or would you describe it differently? In other words, are you saying that smaller souls are particularised expressions of larger souls? And, again, what is the relationship between "soul" and "self"? To be clear, I define (equate) the self as (with) the subject of consciousness. Do you? If not, what is your definition? My conception of the "soul" is somewhat broader and fuzzier, perhaps contextual, but generally I might say that it encompasses both the self (the subject of consciousness) and certain core aspects of that self, perhaps even including the full history of the self. How about you?

This is where I think the remote control robot idea falls down. Now there may indeed be remotely controlled robots performing a limited function. There also may be ET who operate not as individuals but something closer to a 'hive mind'.

Ah, there seems to have been some miscommunication. I raised Titus's argument in relation to your idea that all insects had only a single soul, not ETs. I then qualified that there was a potential escape from that argument in that all of the streams of phenomal experiences of individual insects could be "multiplexed" by the singular soul in the context of which each insect was like a "robot" which that singular soul "controlled" - and again, this had nothing to do with ETs, only insects. This was just a rough way of expressing one escape that I conceived of from Titus's argument given your original assertion.

I thought it might be instructive to review an example of one of the actual UFO incidents that have fuelled all this speculation. 

It was one of the most reported UFO sightings in recent history. Local people in the quiet rural town of Ruwa in Zimbabwe reported a 'strange craft' and lights in the sky. Around 60 children said they'd seen a 'space ship' and 'aliens' in bushland near their school playground in September 1994. The children drew pictures of what they'd seen, and despite differences in quality, the details and proportions were very similar.

Excerpts from a 2014 interview with "Sarah", who was one of the Zimbabwean school kids that witnessed the incident, at https://mg.co.za/article/2014-09-04-reme...-invasion/ . This is summarizing an article about the incident written by a local "UFO Expert", Cynthia Hind:

"It happened, OK. Sixty-two kids between the ages of about six and 12 saw the aliens land and get out of their little ships. When the kids returned to class they were completely freaked and couldn’t stop nattering about little men who looked a bit like Michael Jackson. The teachers told them to shut up, as teachers are wont to do, and classes proceeded.
..............................

“Wednesday, 14th September, 1994, was an exciting night for Southern Africa. Round about 20:50 to 21:05 hours, a pyrotechnic display of some magnificence appeared in the almost clear night skies of this part of the continent.” Note: it was probably a meteoric fireball burning up in the atmosphere, or a dense meteor shower.

Hind’s narrative closely mirrors Sarah’s recollection. At 10am, Hind writes, on a hot day, the children were let out for their mid-morning break. They were drawn to an area beyond their playing field of “long grass with thorn and other indigenous bushes, trees growing higgledy-piggledy fashion, and undergrowth thick and heavy enough to hide a child should he venture there”.

The teachers had all entered the staff room for a meeting and the only adult outdoors was the mistress, who was soon swamped by children claiming they had seen “three or four objects coming into the rough bush area … disc-like objects coming in along the power lines and finally landing in the rough, among the trees. The children were a little bit afraid, although they were also curious.”

The UFO investigator goes on to record the testimonies of several of the children, who she says represented “a cross-section of Zimbabweans: black African children from several tribes, coloured children (a cross-breeding of black and white), Asian children (whose grandparents were from India) and white children, mostly Zimbabwean-born, but whose parents were either from South Africa or Britain”.

Although they all came from wealthy families (tuition at Ariel School was expensive), Hind believed their cultural differences gave rise to differing interpretations of the event, and that the differences in interpretation made the details that were common to all accounts very compelling indeed.

One of the white students, for example, “thought at first that the little man in black might have been Mrs Stevens’ gardener, but then he saw that the figure had long, straight black hair, ‘not really like [a] black [person’s] hair’, so he realised he had made a mistake!”

Some of the black children thought the short little beings were zvikwambo, or tokoloshes – the evil goblins of Shona and Ndebele folklore – and burst into tears, fearing they would be eaten.

Guy G said: “[I] could see the little man (about a metre tall) was dressed in a black, shiny suit; that he had long black hair and his eyes, which seemed lower on the cheek than our eyes, were large and elongated. The mouth was just a slit and the ears were hardly discernible.”

How do you interpret this incident? It seems to me the similarities in the details between witnesses' accounts militates against simple "mass hysteria" and hallucinations, and it very much seems that the schoolchildren actually saw "somethings" that were actually physically present and real.

How does this relate to speculations about interdimensional visiting alien beings, spiritual beings from other planes of existence, manifestations of the collective unconscious, etc. etc.? I prefer to have a simple limited working hypothesis that the schoolchildren witnessed an actual physical visitation by aliens from some other place either in our physical universe or some other plane of existence. Do the accounts, many with correlating features, contain enough information to be able to single out one of these potential imagined "explanations"? I don't think so. Where do we go from here (if there is anywhere to productively go)? I don't know.

[Laird]

I prefer to have a simple limited working hypothesis that the schoolchildren witnessed an actual physical visitation by aliens from some other place either in our physical universe or some other plane of existence.

That does seem to be the most straightforward explanation.

As I understand it, Mike is interested in exploring why these beings are here rather than how they got here, and I wanted to help in that exploration (although I probably haven't been of much use so far).

So:

How does this relate to speculations about interdimensional visiting alien beings, spiritual beings from other planes of existence, manifestations of the collective unconscious, etc. etc.?

Perhaps some of those speculations better explain other cases. In any case, we can still ask "Why are they here? What is their intent?" Those do seem like useful questions to explore.

I think there seem to be different types of event. Some seem physical, not because there are multiple witnesses, but because in the aftermath there are traces - of various kinds - of physical evidence. I'd contrast that with occurrences where though there may be more than one witness, and accounts are consistent, there are reasons to suppose it to be non-physical. The latter may compare at least superficially with such things as shared-death experiences where several people saw the same thing, but it was almost like a window into another reality or a temporary overlapping of two realities.

Where we get into problems - at least broadly speaking - is throwing the whole lot into a big bucket and sticking a big all-encompassing label on it. For example as well as the physical/non-physical which is a rather crude measure, there are questions about motivation and possible harmful or helpful or neutral intent.