Lightly Touch, And Leave It

I really think it's impossible to discuss anything that is not going to end up becoming friable in the hands of the public - when it comes to 'extraterrestrial aliens.' There are so many expressed opinions already out there, and then there is also a lot of what academics themselves claim is 'scientific' discussion or evaluations of the phenomenon.

You know, here is one of the major problems with so-called 'science' as it is being presented widely today: of course we accept that science is based around the repeatable experiment; but what is too often over-looked, is that all events in the material realm fall somewhere along a standard deviation curve of periodicity.

That is, some things happen a lot and thus may be tested for a lot, and some things happen less frequently, and some things happen very infrequently, and some things don't occur at all.

Alien visits to this planet, should, by reference to the great distances required to be traversed (boundary limitations issue), and the incapacity for normal travel to be the means of traversing the distances, be extremely infrequent. And consequently, it will not be possible to 'test for' particular occurrences or repeat performances with any reasonable order of frequency.

When the assumption is made that therefore, a different means of travel over time and great distance is implied, it is clear the technological advances possessed by whatever 'alien' culture is doing the travelling, will be far ahead of anywhere that we are at right now. Once that assumption is made, it might be more reasonable to think then that the occurrences of alien visits is more common than it possibly would or even could be using anything like 'ordinary' travel methods.

Which leaves us with the question of 'why?'

Do aliens eat ramen noodles?

And here we are greeted with all of the irrational and nonsensical speculations that attend this area: on the one hand they are more technically advanced, on the other hand they are unable to attend to their own DNA 'problems' (as is regularly posited by the folklore).  

Going by the evidence of inherent sociological and psychological 'stuck-ness,' human beings are quite obviously functionally terminally flawed - they cannot use the potential of their brains virtually at all beyond the iterative social/cultural functioning of almost countless ages of the same repeated cycles of birth, conflict, suffering, and death.

It's more logically able to be posited that human beings are incapable of evolution because of something perhaps terminally defective in their brain, rather than the usual Darwinian/Dawkinsian argument that we are part of some 'evolutionary' path at all. We may be capable of survival, against competitor evolutionary species or just on our own, but we cannot represent what is the peak potentiality of sentience in the Universe; not even close.

Now if aliens wanted to help us, then perhaps they might have done so already... Hasn't happened though. So the conclusion is they don't want to help us.

And a further conclusion is the 'human race' itself is not what it is usually taken by science to be - namely some monolithic or amorphous biological phenomenon of its own exactly characteristic (all the same; a species) kind. 

My position is that 'human beings' too, exist upon a continuum of sophistication: some relatively primitive, albeit outwardly 'modern,' others less primitive, and others still - having exceeded the boundary conditions of the structurally-flawed and intellectually limited and primitive median range grouping. It is not logically conceivable that 'repeatable proof' and 'evidence' will be able to be passed backward to the less-sophisticated types of human, from those who possess it since they are specifically and 'only' meant to be its recipient.

No one is ever going to see this and nor will it be promoted widely across the internet or anywhere so you might as well have it:

There certainly are aliens, and they are sometimes present on the planet and they interact with a small handful of people, none of whom have ever been heard from publicly and nor will they ever be. And one thing is absolutely certain about it - these aliens will be more like the most perfect average of what superficially represents the human species; in age, in visual appearance, in every material and physical respect, because qualitatively, this is the peak of the biological category, not some bizarre theorized strange streamlined, sinusoidal 'grey' creature thing. The 'grayness' of aliens represents the mystery to the ordinary human, of what an alien, or advanced being is. It is a visualized metaphor.

The peak is the SD curve peak, not the outlier condition state.

NASA has never encountered aliens or extraterrestrials or any of their technology. There are no aliens from 'Zeta Reticuli (oh, well, there may be, but I'm not aware of any) - what there is are people who have misheard and misunderstood the phrase 'reticular neural system') when tests were being run for standard functioning processes being obtained.  

What Is The Mission Of The Aliens?

The iconic conception of extraterrestrial aliens who manage to get across the distances to come visit us, is that they have somewhat superior technology than we do, but they have gotten it a cost to what we all like to call 'human values,' which is not necessarily meant to be the exact same thing as 'moral values.'

And so the typical basis of trade and interaction in most of the sci-fi or fantasy movies and books that you will encounter - is that we want their technology, and we get it by somehow 'giving back to them' their own lost plangency and inner natural values that they 'evolved' away from over centuries or even thousands of years.

'Human values' in the hands of the myth-makers and film makers, is sentiment, or something along those lines.

And 'moral values' are generally linked to religious ideas and ideologies and are less significant, in the mind set that is encouraged by the popular media - that is to say, less significant than some simpering and childish expression of 'what it means to be human.'

In our typical atavistic way, we seem to simply have to begin with seeing something that someone else has, that we can 'get.'

But is that how 'the aliens' see things? ...A bunch of coldly logical, exquisitely technologically equipped intelligent beings, sitting inside 'cloaked' and invisible space ships just outside of the Moon, watching endless re-runs of 'Lassie Comes Home' and 'Shane' and seeing whether they can re-ignite their lachrymose glands?

The mission of NASA is straightforward: get more funding.

And the 'mission' of humans is also easy to apprehend: get, basically, anything that will be of benefit. Wow, technical superiority, advanced weapons, energy devices, blah blah blah.

And so the factual reality is that the very first thing an intelligent species not from here will be able to ascertain on the whole about humans, is that - hey, these people are childish, desirous of things without due consideration for consequences and how these will be met, and, well, they want things; they are almost permanently desirous.

We shall soon explore what might be the actual mission of 'the aliens.'

Put On Your Skates

What's the point?

No, but seriously; what is the point!

Sure I love the internet to death, and YouTube too for that matter regardless of what its management is fiddling around with right now. 

...So you have the main guy at Duke's Hotel in London explaining pretty well everything there is to know about Fleming's so-called Martinis -, naturally, he doesn't give away every detail but he nonetheless makes enough clear about the why's and wherefore's to do with the unusual cocktails that people are construing that Fleming said were Martinis... He didn't and neither did Bond in the books. Doesn't stop almost everyone from literally slandering both of them.

This is a proper 'Russian Cocktail' (actual name of it)

The whole entire rest of the time right across the internet and YT there are all kinds of 'experts' regaling everyone with fairy-tales about 'the perfect Martini.' And poring over supposed controversy about 'shaken not stirred.'

Now there are about four or five things in the world today that are straight out garbage and yet they all have the status of 'truth:'

Firstly - that there is no contemporaneous (to his supposed - and notorious - lifetime) 'proof' or 'evidence' for the existence of a certain Jesus Christ. There is, it is right slap bang in the middle of Jerusalem, with similar things in Palmyra where the 'Three Wise Men' set out from together. Written documents were a lot rarer than they are nowadays, and mostly, the more common 'written down' things were inscriptions and symbolic designs etched into stone of some kind. And these have been academically dated without conjecture. There are numerous underground places (meant to be hiding places from the Romans) in Jerusalem, still intact today with a wide range of indications of the sect we now call 'Christians,' and academics are well-aware that some of the signs and inscriptions are for the person by name 'Jesus the Christ.' No tourists are sent to these places and few ever go there. I don't know why that is.

Secondly, that the moon is not visually larger at the horizon, and smaller higher in the sky; it is. Period. Yet you will even find 'scientists' claim not.

Thirdly, that aliens and UFO's are seen by various Military personnel and that they even intentionally 'show themselves' to government representatives and/or to various Military people. 'Part B' to this is that there isn't any or any sufficient 'proof' and 'evidence' that is easily accessible to the public and therefore scientists cannot agree or confirm there are such things. A., no aliens or UFO's have ever been seen by any modern Military agency or government specifically ever, and there is no 'extra-terrestrial technology' at Area 51, although people like Jack Parsons suggested they were in receipt of 'inspiration' from outside of the world in order to be able to come up with their ideas. But there is nothing on any official Military Intelligence file confirming the validity of their assertions.

...One fact that can be amply demonstrated is that there is categorical evidence of advanced, extraterrestrial, 'para-human' beings and their presence here on Earth - one of these being the statement in Homer's Iliad about the 'little grey people' and their secret island in what is now the North Dalmatian Sea. That place is still there and yes, so are indications of a culture of advanced people, different to what we know humans generally were, at the given time. Again, tourists are not directed there and no one much ever goes there. The whole existence, though, of the Venetian Republic, owes itself to this race and culture.

No reason why not

And Fourthly, if not finally, but finally for this post, is that Bond made a mistake having his Martini 'shaken and not stirred' because it 'bruises the gin.'

In the first place Bond specifies he wants Vodka in his drink, and Vodka doesn't have the fuselol oils in it that mean any kind of 'bruising' of the flavor elements are relevant. And secondly Fleming has a real point to Bond creating the drink in this way: he means to have the female made inebriated quickly, and yet recover almost at the same time that, presumably, the actual physical events that are the intended objective, are taking place. 

And so you will not find what I am about say here anywhere else. And that is not something I have any very good explanation for; a lot of people would know the facts and why they don't say them against the BS all over the internet I do not know. 

In any case, those who know - and there are a few around - will use the expression, 'put on your skates' or something akin to it, when they are handing over a shaken, Vodka cocktail. The vigorously shaken ice and Vodka once poured into the deep glass cone, with a sprinkling of salt over the top, produce shards of ice crystals almost like a layer of ice on a frozen lake, with the liquid below cloudy from tiny air bubbles. If you break through into the cloudy liquid below you are in trouble! The air bubbles increasing the rapid uptake of alcohol into the bloodstream making the person rapidly come under alcoholic influence - and this means, really, that the person is not going to be able to get very far into the drink before they are already affected. By the time the drink itself clears - all other things are underway.




  

The Nature Of Substance

Okay so the sub-title of this is not "...and why there is so little of it around today."

For a start we don't need the whole world to be awash in 'substance' so much so that we devalue it.

We need it, we need to locate it, to access it, to possess it, and to hell with everyone else, frankly.

Substance, I guess, is whatever specifies a thing - what is the underlying material of a surface nomenclature; so even when discussing 'superficiality' or image and appearance, there must be a complete description of its specificity and that is its substance.

It's in England, on an academic campus, and yes, this is
where the Illuminati comes from today.
A recent pic - advertising this year's Illuminati Party.
For real, my friends. This is a 'for real' pic. It's what it is.

Then we can move to relative substance, and that brings today's world more into view. A twenty-four hour news cycle limits the importance in the mind of today's world, of any particular thing, to a period of twenty-four hours. In terms of the normal life of a human being consisting of the whole year of seasons, and then a few of these consecutively until death - then today's news must be considered relatively insubstantial.

But what do you do with substance, once you have found it?

I recently watched a YouTube video in which a nice voice told us about the mathematical significance of the numbers 3, 6, and 9 - following which down in the commentary section, someone had posted: 'but what do we do with this knowledge?!' And he appeared to have written it in a tone of some sarcasm as if to say, yeah so what of it, this 'amazing' math-a-garbage... Edjakayshun neva dun me noh gud.

Now granted it takes a lot of years deeply immersed in the world of philosophy, and looking at what other thinkers have made of the Earth's history, and how society performs, to be able to link up all of the many dots that will give you the nature of the real substance of mathematics as it affects all of the Cosmos.

Dorchester Hotel's 'Forbidden Fruit' cocktail - one of the earliest
cocktails ever made

Nowhere - not anywhere - in any ancient artifact concerning the earliest times of the Egyptian pharaohs, does it say anything about a path to do with 'work' as a means to either enlightenment or material gain. But if you simply Google Search all the images to do with 'wealth motivation' you will see the whole entire thing replete with nothing but brief fairy-tale messages to do with working harder, longer, with greater focus, and so on, than others until you exceed their material position... and substance.

Nobody knows how the pyramids were made.

The ancient Egyptians themselves say that Thutmose II 'discovered' the Sphinx by accident when he lay down to rest from the hot desert sun once as a young boy - and that it was at the time virtually buried in sand.

The only thing we are able to say today, a priori, with any solid amount of certainty is that these great edifices were not built without mathematics.

Richard Browning, and his jet-suit

Now it's really not wise - nor fair - to suggest to anyone 'oh hey, you can just levitate stuff using maths and your mind...' Nobody has seen any such thing happen. And there is far too much colorful speculation that goes on about all of these mysterious subjects such as 'the Pyramids' or what is on the Moon(!) or Mars, for me to wish to add to the pyre of useless words here.

But maths - that is to say its highest expression - music - is that pathway that the dog Anubis leads the seeker along, to get to the power-room of the material Cosmos; indeed, of all the Cosmos.

Epistemology

"Epistemology." Now this is a word used in some strata of academia and which is another one of these things that no one bothers to ever check. And so of course, naturally, everybody is sure they know what the word means.

Okay...

So if you want to raise the dead though, or walk on water, or heal the terminally sick - then this is the word you need to understand in depth.

"Life's Rich Tapestry" a modern work inspired by Mondrian

Can you - right now - do any of these things? Can you?

How 'bout you, doc? You - Mr Science-Man; can you manage at least some of that list? ...Maybe turn water into wine, at least? Seems simple enough.

Okay so just how do we get though, from 'espisteme' (genuine knowledge) to the word 'faith' in modern religions? Because the word used in all the books is 'pistis.' Which doesn't mean 'faith.' It means sound, factual knowledge.

Oh dear. Jesus did stuff because he had 'sound, underlying factual knowledge...(?)' Actually, he even laughs at some of the disciples who were not able to heal one particular young boy when they tried to mimic what he was doing, and he told them 'ah, but you don't have the underlying basis (about the particular thing being looked at) to have that happen.'

Hmn. 

You see we don't any longer possess such highly discriminated types of words or explicit meanings, and it is only with some difficulty that we may look at what it was more learned people of deeper times were on about:

Epistemology comes about from a branch of rhetoric, concerned with being able to have and to communicate the necessary elements to induce true judgement about something, and hence also to give proof of a statement.

So what is rendered nowadays as the word 'faith' (pistis) is really something quite categorically different, and with more a much more complicated and long-winded 'meaning.' And there is another word that bears some scrutiny in relation to this whole thing too: proseuxomai. In doesn't really mean 'prayer' like we use that word now - it means prosecute, but not prosecute in the way we use that word either (lol), which is that people go to court and make a lot of accusations and so on...

A modern art photo called 'Neon Life'

No. Proseuxomai means persuading by having (possessing) the underlying factual basis in the correct logically connected steps so that there is only one conclusion to any given matter.

Modern human beings then, you have to admit, from your present basis of knowledge now, are pretty stupid, are they not. You can't say they are just ignorant - they all have incredible access to information and historical references; and they should know better.

I think, I suppose, if we continue to look at the religious context and the vast highway of religious tradition - that the most obvious question arises as to whether or not people at the time actually felt that Jesus was literally or actually doing any of these 'wonderous' (Italian/Latin - 'mirare'/'miror') things. Because if he was and people there thought it to be so from what they saw, then he was some kind of 'futuristic, super-scientist' really, who 'understood the correct underlying basis' of things and was able thereby to manipulate elements of those 'things' in order to secure particular outcomes.

Now this then is a bit different to 'The Secret' and this present-era concept about 'manifesting through the law of attraction. There might not be any such thing as a 'law of attraction.' 

The presumption, of the traditional religious texts is that there is a solution to every given problem and somewhere, some day, somebody will discover it. Assuming Jesus is God, then He must know each one of those solutions. I suppose the only unresolved matter is how come He doesn't just give everyone the solutions so that everyone can solve every serious problem that right know we don't know how to.