This 1979 book from my shelves addresses many of the points or, rather, non-points, made here in comments recently.
Contents include:
Reality exists outside of us
Science is objective
Nothing but…
The myth of mind control
The lying truths of psychiatry
The chapter “Reality exists outside of us?” [Page 144 ff. by Sir Alan Cottrell] says this:
“ … it would appear that the concept of an independent reality ‘out there’ has been discredited … The central conclusion is that if reality has any meaning at all, it is in the context of the observer and the observation itself.” [Page 158]
My point, with this book, is that what we’re debating in this place (and elsewhere) have many possibilities. No topic is definitive, to the point of conclusiveness.
If someone thinks they have the answer(s) to things, they don’t.
UFO skeptics don’t have the answers, and UFO believers don’t either.
UFOs, among lots of other things, are wide open to explanation and rumination.
What troubles me is the facile, superficial argumentation that rears its head in comments here.
Gilles Fernandez, Lance Moody, Zoam Chomsky don’t have the answers, but neither do David Rudiak, Tony Bragalia, Dominick, et al.
Further, most named here are ill-read, maybe not about UFOs but about almost everything else.
Their “discussions” here are limited by their liberal arts and general academic illiteracy.
Ufology – sorry Gilles, and Zoam and David – needs an intellectual overhaul.
Paul Kimball and Joel Crook would agree I think.
The rubric “ufology” like the categorical UFO sobriquet is fraught with baggage that dolts have assumed in order to belong to the rampant discussion(s) of UFOs on the internet, not just here but everywhere.
I suggest that those wishing to make points in this arena do so with cited material and footnoted asides that come from material outside the internet swill.
After all, we’re not animals….or are we?
RR
0 comments:
Post a Comment