>From Mr. Lawrence: ...
> I was objecting to a discussion of the *definition* of an alien > artifact, not to the question of whether we've got some. And it is > also quite possible that I totally missed your point. Let's go back to some previous comments in an attempt to pick up our discussions from there. >From Mr. Lawrence >> I don't think there's any disagreement at all over what would >> constitute an "authentic alien artifact" -- it would be a piece of >> litter left by an authentic alien, and an authentic alien is a >> non-earth creature. An *authentic* non-imaginary real-type >> actually existing non-earth creature who can potentially drive >> a flying saucer around and maybe crash it on the White House lawn. I disagree. I think there is considerable disagreement on this point. The point I'm trying to suggest that some of us might want to consider pondering in more depth is the possibility that while we *think* we know what would constitute an "authentic alien aircraft" or associated "alien artifacts", by the simple fact that within the Vort Collective alone we are witness to so many different flavors concerning what constitutes "reality" that attempts to define what constitutes an authentic "alien artifact" is not going to be any easier to come to any consensus. To an alien the discarded object is your simple run-of-the-mill "xx3%%#$ used for #^%()&" - but to us: "can I crack nuts with it?" As Mr. Beene has hinted in a related post concerning alleged UFOs and the nature of "contacts", a comment posted many many months ago, the idea that an advance civilization would even NEED to travel in space ships - and subsequently suffer the slings and arrows of an occasional "flat tire" - is primarily a concept of our own limited perceptions, where we desperately attempt to define the boundaries of a disquieting concept (the archetype "alien") within familiar parameters in our attempts to make it easier for us to handle so many unknown variables. But to be honest. Much of my recent "treatise" deals more with a different angle altogether, one that suggests that the classic UFO Abduction Paradigm has its roots more in a symbolic meta-language of the human psyche. Some might think that because I'm coaching it in such terms I'm attempting to dismiss the abduction scenario as nothing more than a psychological matter best dealt with within the confines of a psychologist/therapists room. Not so. From my perspective the UFO Abduction Paradigm may in fact hint of an ever more interesting aspect concerning the nature of reality, particularly how we perceive reality. The fact that so many individuals have independently reported(experienced) the same classic "abduction" scenario over and over (a scenario that DOES CHANGE depending on one's cultural background) strongly suggests to me that we are witnessing a fundamental aspect of our psyche as expressed in a form of a highly symbolic language of sorts. Not surprising, many of us are absolutely terrified of the prospects of tapping into a portion of ourselves that we have allowed to become so "alienated" from the more acceptable portions of ourselves that some even prefer to label such primal encounters as demonic in nature. Incidentally, I need to thank Mauro Lacy once again for bringing to my attention the fact that the famous doctor, Carl Jung, discussed the Flying Saucer archetype in one of his books. I'm very much a fan of the "collective unconscious". I am in pursuit of Jung's publication through the local library. In the meantime I'm reading "PAULI and JUNG, The Meeting of Two Great Minds" by David Lindorff, PhD. http://www.amazon.com/Pauli-Jung-Meeting-Great-Minds/dp/0835608379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249244788&sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/ly68fq Excerpt: Page 29: Jung wrote, "[For Pauli] the word 'soul' was nothing but an intellectual obscenity, not to be touched with a barge pole." Needless to say, I'm hooked! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
