UFOs and Reality

[Magical Realist]

We need some new creative thinking in the ufo field. We need ruminations and conjectures of a metaphysical depth that can make sense of these half-physical and half-psychical messengers to our collective consciousness. Are they what AI from the future looks like---a superartilect gently herding past humans towards some pivotal singularity level event? Is the pilot behind the ufo phenomenon an archetypal homunculus?

https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2017/12/huma...iosis.html

We, all of us, are familiar with that hoary presumptive query, “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no human to hear it, does it make a sound?”

I never followed through with the moot debate but I see the question as applicable to the UFO question: “If a UFO flies overhead but there is no human to see it, does it exist?”

Zoam Chomsky (and maybe Lance Moody) would say UFOs do not exist under any circumstance.

While a few visitors here (Daniel, Dominick, et al.) accept the reality of UFOs whether or not humans see them. (I’m with both of them.)

But the reality of UFOs, in various incarnations, is open to interpretation. Some see UFOs as a projection of one’s inner psyche (Jung) while others see UFOs as a manifestation of “madness” – a temporary insanity. (This is a view that explains some UFO “sightings” and plays a part in Jose Caravaca’s provocative hypothesis that an external agent – a neurological glitch – has caused some scenarios where entities appear, doing odd psychical things borne of the witnesses psychology.)

And many ufologists (or UFO buffs) see UFOs as ethereal phenomena or nuts and bolts craft from outer space.

Yet, again, if UFOs are not witnessed or seen (experienced), do they exist, prima facie?

How can that be proven, just as one can ask how can a falling tree in a forest register sound if no one is around to hear it?

Sure, recordings of a tree falling and making sound make a point but the receptacle (the recording device) mimics the human ear so the proposition that a sound is made is open to question, just as a UFO detected on radar or film, without human interaction, leaves open the question of whether a UFO registering anywhere, via any device, minus human perception, is viable, real?

UFO believers would say yes, while skeptics say no.

UFOs exist, in reality, even when one applies the dicta of Jacques Derrida who insists (and which I accept) that (even) fictive accounts are a truth (a reality) that cannot be dismissed as portraying reality.

Reality is what we humans say it is, even the manic (unmeasured) exclamations of schizophrenics are as real (to them) as the placid observations of you who see and extol a vacation sojourn with photographs to confirm your reality.

Quantum reality comes into play, and while easily dismissed by the slothful among you, it is essential to the question of reality and UFOs.

Thus, accounts of UFOs have their own reality, even when not perceived by humans but registering in the ethereal domain of reports, concocted or actual.

But are UFOs part of Plato’s real reality – the outside of the cave reality – or just a fictional yet important aspect of reality as Derrida and others would have it?

You and I don’t really know.

But those who dismiss multiverses, time travel, parallel unverses, and UFOs have no idea what reality is: it’s something established by humanity, factually of fictively, either way, real in every way."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-...n-ufo.html

[C C]

. . . But the reality of UFOs, in various incarnations, is open to interpretation. Some see UFOs as a projection of one’s inner psyche (Jung) while others see UFOs as a manifestation of “madness” – a temporary insanity. (This is a view that explains some UFO “sightings” and plays a part in Jose Caravaca’s provocative hypothesis that an external agent – a neurological glitch – has caused some scenarios where entities appear, doing odd psychical things borne of the witnesses psychology.)

Surely revolves around or requires the inducing of an intersubjective hallucination, however. If all UFO reports of the most bizarre (and "so far unexplained") grade depended solely upon the accounts of single, isolated nutjobs, then it's difficult to conceive the genre ever acquiring the legs it has.

Strangely enough, we seem more receptive to the possibility of a shared oneirogenic manifestation at a global scale where everyone is involved (collective solipsism). Rather than to the notion of a short-lived, unstable intersubjective spectacle locally entangling only a few individuals. Since the former scenario can still be construed as a sustained, regulated reality (qualifying only as make-believe if there is some other contender for legit existence or if it is an illusory masking of an archetypal world). Whereas the latter would be an incongruous, minority component intruding rebelliously on the otherwise coherent, mainstream dream or mass phantasmal continuum.

But the locally restricted occasions of intersubjective hallucinations would also (apparently) be injecting permanent traces of themselves into the grand, coherent story. In the form of intermittent photographs, video footage, disturbed landscape features, etc (which qualified as non-bogus). One could hardly expect those manifestations to have been perfectly sandboxed malware, anyway, if their psychologically entwined "victims" retain memories afterwards which enable them to flail about like decapitated chickens, blabbering about the observations / happenings.

- - -