outside the square

David · 26th January 2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I didn't post this to try to start a discussion on whether aliens and UFO's exist or not, nor to explore the philosophy of the concept that seeing is believing.
I posted it because I thought that perhaps some of us may like to give some thought to the way in which the human mind works, especially the communal human mind.

Alan, i think you misunderstood my response. I realize your purpose in your posting, but how the established mind-set views the phenomenon of UFO reports and their seeming need to come up with any other answer then the one where the aliens actually exist is just as telling and applicable to the discussion of how we look at the keris.

A. G. Maisey · 26th January 2008, 11:08 PM

Possibly.

As I said:- consideration of the workings of the human mind. That encompasses not only communal consciousness, but belief systems and the substitution of perceived logic for faith.

tunggulametung · 27th January 2008, 07:15 AM

As for myself, I favour the wise Tat Twam Asi teaching to (try to) understand the concept of the universe, including in keris believe; but I'm sorry I know nothing about human mind and how it works in communal field, for my simple life its too abstract to be understood

But thank you Alan, for sharing the story and thoughts

fearn · 27th January 2008, 03:47 PM

Hi Alan,

I appreciate the article. I've seen UFOs: it's very simple, really. They were distant moving lights in the sky. Almost certainly they were planes or satellites, possibly a meteor or two. Since I didn't have binoculars at the time, I lacked any way of determining what they were. Hence they remain UFOs (unidentified flying objects). I've also had the experience of looking up and seeing odd white birds flying high up in the sky, then looking up a few seconds later and having trouble finding them. Angels? The souls of the recently departed? Or simply seagulls or other white birds, flying high up in air that's just hazy enough to hide them? I favor the last, but since I didn't have any binoculars with me when I've seen them, so I can't say.

Thing is, I'm a working scientist, and I used to work on some very, very common microscopic soil organisms that are difficult to identify. When I was learning to work with these things, my teacher told me that one sign of a good researcher was to be honest about what could and could not be identified. In his opinion, the sign of mediocre research was that every single organism was given a scientific name. He'd rarely seen a sample where every thing could be identified, and that had made him suspicious about people who claimed otherwise, unless he knew them and their skill levels.

That said, I'd be very surprised if UFOs were aliens from another star. There are two reasons why:

1. Distance. Star Trek has really messed up our idea of how far apart stars are. Basically, if the distance from the earth to the sun was a centimeter, the nearest known star (proxima centaurii) is roughly 2.67 kilometers away. For comparison, Voyager 1 has taken 30 years to travel roughly a bit over two meters of that distance. Most of that distance is deep space, which is not empty, but full of really dangerous radiation (cosmic rays) that we can't easily shield against.

In other words, it's a long way to go, and it's a really hostile environment to live in. Doesn't mean that they didn't come here, said hypothetical aliens would have to have a very cheap form of totally unknown technology to do it. Why really cheap? Look at the things UFOs do. They cruise over areas. They mutilate cattle. They kidnap people on isolated roads in rural areas and probe them. Even if they were conducting scientific experiments, their experimental design is stupid, by our standards. Considering how little they'd learn from what they're reported to do, all I have to say is that UFO travel has to be really cheap for them to do such foolish things.

2. Biology. Life has been on Earth for over two billion years, and the Earth has had something approaching a breathable atmosphere for over 400 million years (although oxygen levels have fluctuated substantially over that time). That's a *long* time, and if aliens can travel here and live here (without getting eaten alive by our microbes), it's amazing that we have no fossils of alien cities, no alien life-forms that don't follow known DNA forms, etc. Admittedly, scientists are only starting to look for alien microorganisms in the soil, but the telling point is that, if aliens came here, they've had hundreds of millions of years to explore, settle, and take over, and yet, they've left no known trace of themselves. Considering what we'd do if we got to an alien planet (i.e. settle it, name it New Earth, build cities, raise crops, and transform the place), this is a really, really odd record.

Based on these two points, the simplest explanations for UFOs are earthbound: planes, hallucinations, mystical experiences, hoaxes, and the like.

As for spirits in a keris? We definitely haven't established that we're all talking the same thing when we use the word "spirit," or "soul," or whatever. Since we are probably discussing a mishmash of experiences and beliefs using a common and imperfect set of terms, it's amazing that we can have a reasonable discussion about it at all. It's a testament to the people on this list that we can.

F

David · 27th January 2008, 06:15 PM

Fearn, as Alan previously stated, i do not want to see this thread turn into a debate about the existence or origin of UFOs. I could very easily create a valid point-by-point argument to yours but i think that it would take us off the track of the purpose for this forum. Contact me via PM if you want to go there.

fearn · 27th January 2008, 07:49 PM

Hi David,

I agree about UFOs, and the only point I really care about in the previous post is people's willingness to say "I don't know" when confronted with something they don't understand, whether it's UFOs, spiritually endowed keris, or whatever.

The trap to avoid is becoming what Nassim Talib calls an "empty suit," an "expert" who sound wonderfully convincing in explaining things, but who actually doesn't know what he (or she) is talking about in any demonstrable way.

With regard to UFOs, none of us particularly knows what we're talking about, so the debate would go over better at a pub than over the internet (and David, if you're ever in the LA area, PM me and we can have that debate in an appropriate locale). With regard to keris, I know very little about them, so mostly I read the posts. I'm not certainly not an expert.

What I do hope is that the people who post here continue to fill their suits well.

F

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2008, 08:21 PM

I'm beginning to feel really sorry that I started this thread.

When I read the article I saw so much in it, put in such a clear and simple and straightforward way, that was directly able to be related to keris belief that I thought other people with a keris interest would immediately grasp the implications of the way in which the human mind and the human experience can create images and experiences that are totally real in a particular time and place, but removed from that time and place and put into either a cultural vacuum , or into a negatively charged culture, will yield either no image or experience, or a different image or experience.

My thought was that we would all benefit from a little bit of quite consideration of the workings of the human mind against the background of our own particular culture and society, and this consideration could lead to a better, or perhaps only different, understanding of much that is associated with keris culture.

Looks like I was wrong. I apologise for wasting everybody's time.

However, I too have seen UFO's, and I am prepared to agree with anybody that UFO's and aliens really do exist, or alternatively that they really do not exist, and I can mount a convincing argument either way. But its just not a subject that interests me very much.

David · 27th January 2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

With regard to UFOs, none of us particularly knows what we're talking about, so the debate would go over better at a pub than over the internet (and David, if you're ever in the LA area, PM me and we can have that debate in an appropriate locale).

BTW Fearn, who's picking up the first round...

26th January 2008, 11:08 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Possibly. As I said:- consideration of the workings of the human mind. That encompasses not only communal consciousness, but belief systems and the substitution of perceived logic for faith.

27th January 2008, 07:15 AM	#3
tunggulametung Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 238	As for myself, I favour the wise Tat Twam Asi teaching to (try to) understand the concept of the universe, including in keris believe; but I'm sorry I know nothing about human mind and how it works in communal field, for my simple life its too abstract to be understood But thank you Alan, for sharing the story and thoughts

27th January 2008, 03:47 PM	#4
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Alan, I appreciate the article. I've seen UFOs: it's very simple, really. They were distant moving lights in the sky. Almost certainly they were planes or satellites, possibly a meteor or two. Since I didn't have binoculars at the time, I lacked any way of determining what they were. Hence they remain UFOs (unidentified flying objects). I've also had the experience of looking up and seeing odd white birds flying high up in the sky, then looking up a few seconds later and having trouble finding them. Angels? The souls of the recently departed? Or simply seagulls or other white birds, flying high up in air that's just hazy enough to hide them? I favor the last, but since I didn't have any binoculars with me when I've seen them, so I can't say. Thing is, I'm a working scientist, and I used to work on some very, very common microscopic soil organisms that are difficult to identify. When I was learning to work with these things, my teacher told me that one sign of a good researcher was to be honest about what could and could not be identified. In his opinion, the sign of mediocre research was that every single organism was given a scientific name. He'd rarely seen a sample where every thing could be identified, and that had made him suspicious about people who claimed otherwise, unless he knew them and their skill levels. That said, I'd be very surprised if UFOs were aliens from another star. There are two reasons why: 1. Distance. Star Trek has really messed up our idea of how far apart stars are. Basically, if the distance from the earth to the sun was a centimeter, the nearest known star (proxima centaurii) is roughly 2.67 kilometers away. For comparison, Voyager 1 has taken 30 years to travel roughly a bit over two meters of that distance. Most of that distance is deep space, which is not empty, but full of really dangerous radiation (cosmic rays) that we can't easily shield against. In other words, it's a long way to go, and it's a really hostile environment to live in. Doesn't mean that they didn't come here, said hypothetical aliens would have to have a very cheap form of totally unknown technology to do it. Why really cheap? Look at the things UFOs do. They cruise over areas. They mutilate cattle. They kidnap people on isolated roads in rural areas and probe them. Even if they were conducting scientific experiments, their experimental design is stupid, by our standards. Considering how little they'd learn from what they're reported to do, all I have to say is that UFO travel has to be really cheap for them to do such foolish things. 2. Biology. Life has been on Earth for over two billion years, and the Earth has had something approaching a breathable atmosphere for over 400 million years (although oxygen levels have fluctuated substantially over that time). That's a long time, and if aliens can travel here and live here (without getting eaten alive by our microbes), it's amazing that we have no fossils of alien cities, no alien life-forms that don't follow known DNA forms, etc. Admittedly, scientists are only starting to look for alien microorganisms in the soil, but the telling point is that, if aliens came here, they've had hundreds of millions of years to explore, settle, and take over, and yet, they've left no known trace of themselves. Considering what we'd do if we got to an alien planet (i.e. settle it, name it New Earth, build cities, raise crops, and transform the place), this is a really, really odd record. Based on these two points, the simplest explanations for UFOs are earthbound: planes, hallucinations, mystical experiences, hoaxes, and the like. As for spirits in a keris? We definitely haven't established that we're all talking the same thing when we use the word "spirit," or "soul," or whatever. Since we are probably discussing a mishmash of experiences and beliefs using a common and imperfect set of terms, it's amazing that we can have a reasonable discussion about it at all. It's a testament to the people on this list that we can. F

27th January 2008, 06:15 PM	#5
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,218	Fearn, as Alan previously stated, i do not want to see this thread turn into a debate about the existence or origin of UFOs. I could very easily create a valid point-by-point argument to yours but i think that it would take us off the track of the purpose for this forum. Contact me via PM if you want to go there.

27th January 2008, 07:49 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi David, I agree about UFOs, and the only point I really care about in the previous post is people's willingness to say "I don't know" when confronted with something they don't understand, whether it's UFOs, spiritually endowed keris, or whatever. The trap to avoid is becoming what Nassim Talib calls an "empty suit," an "expert" who sound wonderfully convincing in explaining things, but who actually doesn't know what he (or she) is talking about in any demonstrable way. With regard to UFOs, none of us particularly knows what we're talking about, so the debate would go over better at a pub than over the internet (and David, if you're ever in the LA area, PM me and we can have that debate in an appropriate locale). With regard to keris, I know very little about them, so mostly I read the posts. I'm not certainly not an expert. What I do hope is that the people who post here continue to fill their suits well. F

27th January 2008, 08:21 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	I'm beginning to feel really sorry that I started this thread. When I read the article I saw so much in it, put in such a clear and simple and straightforward way, that was directly able to be related to keris belief that I thought other people with a keris interest would immediately grasp the implications of the way in which the human mind and the human experience can create images and experiences that are totally real in a particular time and place, but removed from that time and place and put into either a cultural vacuum , or into a negatively charged culture, will yield either no image or experience, or a different image or experience. My thought was that we would all benefit from a little bit of quite consideration of the workings of the human mind against the background of our own particular culture and society, and this consideration could lead to a better, or perhaps only different, understanding of much that is associated with keris culture. Looks like I was wrong. I apologise for wasting everybody's time. However, I too have seen UFO's, and I am prepared to agree with anybody that UFO's and aliens really do exist, or alternatively that they really do not exist, and I can mount a convincing argument either way. But its just not a subject that interests me very much.