Monday, June 23, 2008

Plato, the Cave, and UFOs


From Wikipedia:

“The forms that we see, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms.

In the Allegory of the cave expressed in Republic they are called the shadows of artificial replicas of real things.”

Are UFOs “forms”?

We think they may be.

And if they are. then what are the real Forms, that which the UFO “forms” are mimicking?

Jacques Vallee, and a few others, have been suggesting all along that UFOs represent another reality, a reality behind the apparent reality.

Even as a chair can be a Plato “form” with the real chair Form residing elsewhere – an “elsewhere” that isn’t exactly defined in philosophy or Jungian psychology (where Plato’s archetypes play an important role) – UFOs can be “forms” but where is the UFO elsewhere, where the real UFO Form may be found?

That is the question that Vallee (or Jung in his book on flying saucers) fails to answer.

Without the source or “elsewhere” of UFOs, it becomes difficult, maybe even impossible, to assess what UFOs really are.

But that’s what ufology needs to do: find the “elsewhere” that houses the UFO phenomenon or phenomena.

This means that philosophical disciplines need to be applied to UFO research and investigation.

While we eshew philosophy at another venue of ours, we think the methodologies of philosophy (and maybe quantum mechanics which is more philosophic than scientific) can be worked to attack the UFO enigma.

It will require effort of a serious kind, which we know ufologists are rarely up to, but that is what it will take to get to the core of the UFO reality.

And we know a few pesons who are up to the task, and prepared to make the mental (maybe physical) pursuit.

We’ll keep you apprised of their progress, if any…

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The BIG BANG Insanity


Common sense tells us (and any non-physicist) that the Universe could not be created ex nihilo.

That is, if the Universe is the totality of existence (reality), it could not have sprung from an infinitely small “atom” as conjectured in the Big Bang Theory.

There would have had to be something into which that Big Bang atom could “explode.”

Mentally we can’t envision the supposed void that physicists propose the Big Bang atom was surrounded by when it generated.

Moreover, from whence did the Big Bang atom derive?

Even if we accept the postulations of the Big Bang physicists, we can’t account for the creation of the primordial “atom” that gave birth to the Universe we inhabit.

Of course, if the Steady State Theory of the Universe remained viable, that is acceptable, as is the theological position that God is internal, infinite, and brought the Universe into existence from nothing – into the existence that is God itself, the “body” of God as conjectured by Teilhard de Chardin (and others).

The expansion of the Universe doesn’t presuppose a burst of cataclysmic energy, especially from a pinpoint source.

Expansion of the Universe that we can perceive could be an exhalation of the Universe for the time-frame we’re part of, and the Universe will contract eventually as the Vedic accounts have it.

Expansion is not necessarily intrinsic to the Universe.

And we’ll be exploring the physicists’ mental aberration about the Big Bang even more, upcoming….

Friday, June 06, 2008

The Failure(s) of Philosophy


Philosophy has never provided answers to anything.

The conjectures have always been convoluted, obscurant, and even senseless.

For instance, a Professor (D. Moore) at Indiana-Purdue University (IPFW) in Fort Wayne, Indiana had a lecture recently wherein he provided the usual canard that Plato was a realist and Leibniz was an idealist.


The actuality is that Plato was an idealist, as is obvious from his writings, and Leibniz was a realist, as accounts of his life and studies show.

But philosophy instructors and advocates always turn reality on its head.

Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God – that than which nothing is greater – convolutes the simple question “Is there a God?”

Hume and all other philosophers have beat the dead horse of God’s existence, with no denouement.


From the beginning of philosophical thought – Thales, Anaximander, et al. – the ruminations pertaining to the meaning of life have made the examination complex and confusing.

In an effort to appear wise and/or erudite, philosophers encrusted their arguments with questions that perplex but do not answer anything – have not answered anything.

Three thousand years of philosophical queries have produced not one iota of information or thought that has been helpful or beneficial to mankind.

Theologians, such as Aquinas or, more recently, Barth, haven’t helped either, and both (among others) were brilliant.


Philosophical conundrums posed by Aristotle, Boethius, Descartes, Vico, Nietzsche, and everyone else, have fallen flat when it comes to human destiny.

The Existentialists – Heidegger, Sartre, Jaspers, et al. -- recognize(d) the silliness of the philosophical pursuit but actively engaged in it themselves.


The great literary master, Herman Melville, provided an entertaining look at the nature of God (Moby Dick), good and evil (Billy Budd, Foretopman), and the existential dilemma (Bartleby the Scrivener) that settles (arguably) most of the philosophical questions posited before and after him.


Melville provided, in three works, the whole of philosophical questioning, and offered answers, of a kind, to all of it.

Socrates’ maxim – Know thyself – is pithy and not recondite but it tells us nothing.

Descartes’ offer – I think therefore I am – is also a concise statement of reality but it takes us nowhere.

More recently Gramsci tried to flesh out Marxist thought, but that time has passed.


The meaning of mankind’s purpose is still up for grabs.

Politicians can’t help. Theologians are up against a denial of God’s existence, in light of the absolute absence of God in the lives of humankind.


And philosophers are as defunct as the Roc, which makes us wonder why anyone would take up that educational mantle.


Philosophy is an arcane methodology, no better than alchemy, and more confusing actually.

So, please, let us move on to things more intellectually productive…whatever that might be.