When the flying saucer takes a back seat to perhaps a larger, philosophical, even metaphysical question -- what is matter and energy -- then we are ready to tackle this enigma. What is the potential of energy, its force and ability to change shape, to conduct matter into form or substance? How much of the human mind and perception is involved? In whose hands are the reigns of the chariots of the gods? Man has been seeing flying creatures as well as flying craft of various kinds since the dawn of time. From flaming chariots to dragons in the heavens, flying people and animals both with and without means of propulsion or wings, the famed Vimana of Hindu scripture, angels, demons, witches and spectres; The famed flying machines of the pre-flight era seen across Europe and America, sky-boats and strange, wingless arbiters of the skies, some of them even reported as being occupied by visible people.
It may dip a little deep for some, to suggest that what we see, hear, feel, smell, taste and touch is not all that there is. But tell it to the fly, who sees a pane of glass as a solid black mass, or the bumble bee, which wouldn't know the splendor of the colors of a flower at all, it sees only the stark chemically stained signatures in black and white indicating a source of pollen. We both have eyes with which to see, the bee and me, but we do not see the same things in the same universe at all. Is it possible that we could be as oblivious to the presence of pollen as it would be to be blind to ships or beings or creatures beyond our spectral sensitivity? Is it far fetched to suggest that just outside of our limited spectrum of perception, with these weak instruments of detection we call our five senses, exists an entire menagerie, nay, a kingdom, of living beings, organisms and even worlds From Beyond ?
8 comments:
Other than the poor conception and presentation of ideas, I am in full agreement.
The Dr. apparently feels that you need to spend more time in the editing room... I too am in large agreement with this, but I always wonder why people would be inclined to feel that other beings (let alone other humans) perceive things as they themselves do. It seems patently obvious that this is not the case just within our own species - just witness the diversity of cultural and religious practices, for example. And we have always known, even without the benefits of the modern scientific method, that other creatures live in a somewhat different world than we. Perhaps that makes them mysterious, but really it just makes them natural - a product of nature, which is all we are too. There is not only one answer to the question posed by evolution...
I apologize for lack of editing but that's my preffered style. I feel that Dr.Anonymous conceptualizes his ideas too clearly and his presentations are far too cut and dry for my non-logical (creative) brain to understand.
I feel that judgements based on distinctions between stream-of-thought poetry and literary laws taught in school impede the progression of the soul to it's more sublime form.
and yet you declare yourself "creative" rather than "conceptual".
as the buddhists say, comparisons are odious.
and yet they are all we have, for what is language but an endless series of comparisons (this is A rather than B).
I often find that my need for conceptual clarity in my 'scientific' arguments is indeed a hindrance, and that is why I turn to more 'creative' pursuits, such as poetry.
Yet I find both of these terms, 'science' and 'creative,' as generally poorly understood and too confining.
To be sure, are we not proposing a science of creativity with the notion of art reinforcement, or a creative science?
I believe that all thought, whether the miniscule amount thats emanates from a stone, to the complex, magnificent, and maybe even superfluous amount that stems from humans, is creative and scientific.
There are laws, there are hands, there is production.
And to fall to the level of a comparison...
:)
... I believe in you non-logical approach, but as most have recognised here, that itself is a type of logic.
I like these ideas and our discussions.
And I tend to think/believe that we are stardust, meaning that we are indeed infused with dna or essence or however you think it, from other worlds, in that this could be happening in another world, and likely is, giving us no purchase on any status of position.
DNA is a code with switches, I'm as happy to conceive of different switches turning on or off either due to a process of naturally imosed limits, adaptiveness, and selection, inasmuch I am willing to think that someone or something did it.
There all the same to me.
Or should that be there all the same too me.
And as to the benefits of the modern scientific method, indeed; and as intimated, I propose benefit to a method of complete lack of objectivity, subsuming subjectivity, and feeling your way through.
And I can't believe that I am quoting myself circa 20 here, once writing:
I know there is truth in the world, because I can feel it.
The science of no science, or the no science of science, no opposites, reciprocal in its form and mediation.
Blessed be the the Name of All names, that which has no name; have faith in Manisaskarta.
Vive Louis!
As I read my previous comments, I hope they aren't as (and pardon me here) retarded as they may seem.
There lots of thought jammed packed in there, and the great thing about engaging you, is that as I move forward, I find that the ideas are plunking themselves right into place, slowly, but surely, illuminating their very facts.
I hope to one day produce a metaphysics entitled:
The theory of ranges and delimitation.
Which propones to explain the ontology of the world, and its many spinoffs, like that of the ontology of the social world, of which I am particularly interested through the development of an ontology of social inequity. This metaphysics I believe will help explain how language helps us grasp the world, what movement really is, the nature of moral realism, and blahdi bladhi da...
Yikes, I'll leave it there for now.
odwmqdxb - for g-d's sake man!
That's better. i just don't like to be critisized in any shape or form. -actually, correction:
Nobody likes to get critized in any shape or form. They always tend to get bounced back in the same way. I learned that from martial arts training.
Hence the theory of art REINFORCEMENT.
We're all on the same team.
nobody likes to be criticized, but the criticism of one true friend is worth more than the flattery of a thousand strangers.
i just made that up. like it?
as long as we can continue to critique one another's ideas/beliefs/values in a respectful way, without it ever descending into personal attacks and bickering, then let's do it.
constructive, helpful critiques are the most valuable thing we can get both as artists and as human beings.
Post a Comment