‘Precisely,” said Griffin. “But consider, visibility depends on the action of the visible bodies on light. Either a body absorbs light, or it reflects or refracts it, or does all these things. If it neither reflects nor refracts nor absorbs light, it cannot of itself be visible. You see an opaque red box, for instance, because the colour absorbs some of the light and reflects the rest, all the red part of the light, to you. If it did not absorb any particular part of the light, but reflected it all, then it would be a shining white box. Silver! A diamond box would neither absorb much of the light nor reflect much from the general surface, but just here and there where the surfaces were favourable the light would be reflected and refracted, so that you would get a brilliant appearance of flashing reflections and translucencies — a sort of skeleton of light. A glass box would not be so brilliant, not so clearly visible, as a diamond box, because there would be less refraction and reflection. See that? From certain points of view you would see quite clearly through it. Some kinds of glass would be more visible than others, a box of flint glass would be brighter than a box of ordinary window glass. A box of very thin common glass would be hard to see in a bad light, because it would absorb hardly any light and refract and reflect very little. And if you put a sheet of common white glass in water, still more if you put it in some denser liquid than water, it would vanish almost altogether, because light passing from water to glass is only slightly refracted or reflected or indeed affected in any way. It is almost as invisible as a jet of coal gas or hydrogen is in air. And for precisely the same reason!”’
-HG Wells The Invisible Man
Wells fictional account of an invisible man, at least invisible in a empirical sense, brings to mind our own, if you will, invisible nature. If viewed in a mirror..upside down, while our fictional man is invisible from without, we could be said, are invisible from within.
"In conversational language and in every-day psychology, even in psychology purporting to be scientific, the word consciousness is often used as a term for the designation of a complex of all psychic functions in general, or for their separate manifestations. ... to the best of my recollection Prof. William James defined thought as “a moment of consciousness.”
From my standpoint ... it is necessary to regard consciousness as distinct from the commonly understood psychic functions: thought, feeling and sensation. Over and above all this, consciousness has several exactly definable forms or phases, in each one of which thoughts, feelings and sensations can function, giving in each different results. Thus consciousness ... is a background upon which thoughts, feelings and sensations reveal themselves. This background can be more or less bright. But as thoughts, feelings and sensations have their own separate life, and can be regarded independently of this background, so can it be regarded and studied independently of them. ... It is important only to establish the fact that thoughts, feelings and sensations, i.e., psychic functions, are not consciousness."
-P D Ouspensky
Is there a form of sentient life invisible to us, or more interestingly, a form of life without form, however possessing an upside down mirror image of our ability to animate our arms, legs in a corporeal and sensate form from a non visible location, in other words an ability to make the unseen seen? If so, could this adaptive use of form utilize a capability to mimic other images since it has no image of it’s own?
chi•me•ra
Pronunciation: kI-'mir-&, k&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin chimaera, from Greek chimaira she-goat, chimera; akin to Old Norse gymbr yearling ewe, Greek cheimOn winter
1 a capitalized : a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail b : an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts
2 : an illusion or fabrication of the mind; especially : an unrealizable dream
-Webster Dictionary
"A fancy, a chimera in my brain, troubles me in my prayer"
-John Donne
Is the UFO situation and it’s occupants, in essence, both a tactical and natural manifestation of an unknown form of sentient life, in reality, a chimera?
Does this explain the many forms of craft, occupants, instantaneous appearances, disappearances, splitting, and reincorporation from several forms of craft back into one?
Why does the mythical creature of the Chimera have the nearly identical appearance as Demiurgic creatures as portrayed in symbolic images ? The lions head, the serpent tail, etc seem to cross reference in more than a few once common visual conceptions. Shape shifting? One recalls in The Book of Enoch, the warning concerning the Demiurge, “Beware the shape shifters”
Coincidental imagery and conceptual framing? Perhaps, as philosopher once commented, “Nothing is true, therefore all things are possible.”
Friday, May 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Whatever it is, should come out and "fight like a man." Stop the nonsense. Let me catch one of these jerks...they'll get a real tour of this place. Almost anytime something hides...it either ain't worth seeing or it ain't good.
Hi Rich,
I have to state that my speculations are just what they appear to be, speculations.
Some speculations are more likely than others in terms of probablity based on observed behavior, past historical accounts, human psychology etc.
Our extraterrestrial vistors and their behavior of hiding in plain sight must have a reason or so I assume it does.
In an earlier post I speculated on why we assume all sentient life must be cellular and what other forms may be experienced and in what form that may take whether its molecular or a highly coherent form of energy.
This post came about frankly from the old Invisible man movie, where the hapless protagonist wraps his head in bandages and wore dark glasses because he was, in our perception, at least in the movie, invisible. That led to a mental association I have as perhaps we all do of what "Greys" look like.
Dark impenetrable eyes or shields, facial and body characteristics that are not too far from appearance to our fictional invisible man in that they could almost be taken as masks, full body suits or perhaps its all just biological in origin. I don't know.
However, considering natures inventiveness and history of experimentation, one must also consider the use of disguise by some creatures as a natural defense against predation...do we or have we exhibited preditory behavior against UFO's?....or microbiology..there are organisms and creatures that exist that we cannot see. All of this is fair game.
Hi Bruce, I knew, as with some other stuff, you were just speculating...speculation based on at least some truth...is a great thought exercise I think...like philosophy! Even when I write about my belief on something (really speculations)...more thought exercise for me than anything of real worth...although who knows??
Although, if we are to trust Jacquees Vallee (no reason not to), he (and his partner at the time) came across UFO's exhibiting predatory behavior against the natives down in South America...Brazil I believe??....what are we to make of this?
Rich: "In Search of the Miraculous" is an excellent book, one of the best out there, but unfortunately Ouspensky didn't really understand Gurdjieff. I actually tore the pages out of the book that were the extended Ouspensky quotes and I rely only on the Gurdjieff material. Even still he was a trickster and his "Achille's heel" is when he states that if you understand the coefficient of the law of octaves then alchemical transmutation will be much more powerful.
In fact "coefficient" relies on the concept of symmety, the basis of all of Western science, while the "shocks" of the Law of Pythagoras are based on asymmetry. The Tetrad, 1:2:3:4, the foundation of cymatics, is based on 2:3 as C to G , the Perfect 5th as YANG and 3:4 as G to C, the Perfect 4th as YIN.
So the problem with Gurdjieff is that he's trying to use Western language. A much more straight forward book is "Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality." You can alsoread my online masters thesis, (U of MN, 2001) for free, linked at http://nonduality.com/hempel.htm as "Epicenters of Justice" or my old blog at http://drewhempel.gnn.tv or various posts on forums.
I studied under qigong master Chunyi Lin, at http://springforestqigong.com who now works with the Mayo Clinic doctors. Master Lin practices telekinesis and long-distance healing all the time and he sits in full-lotus all day, while eating only a small vegetarian meal a day and fasting one day a week.
Anonymous, I have not much idea of what to make of all of that stuff. The elite are trying to build/use technology to get rid of dualism (and probably create havoc) but all we have to do really is do some type of yoga and everything is cool? I need it explained in simpler terms.
Rich (and bruce) -- I totally agree about the attempt to get rid of dualism through high technology creating havoc (and apocalypse).
Kurt Godel states in his interview with Rudy Rucker (his book "Infinity and the Mind") that the power of logic proves time-travel. The elite of science actually are believers in the paranormal but use technology as a type of magic -- Freemasonic power (read professor David F. Noble's "The Religion of Technology", 1996).
As per logic dualism is a superficial construction. As Kurt Godel discovered the source of the I-thought is universal mind, beyond time and space.
Natural resonance is the means to achieve permanent brain transformation so that the 3rd Eye can be flexed and communication with universal mind can be achieved.
We always-already exist WITHIN formless awareness (read professor Nan, Huai-chin for the details by a yoga master).
Here's my latest article publication on the issue:
http://www.mondovista.com/rainbow.html
Bruce, without excluding your own particular angle on chimeras, here's one I consider possible.
Take Einstein's E = mc squared.
Imagine that you wanted to represent this without using modern mathematical symbology.
For 'E', energy, you might choose the image of a wriggling serpent, a sort of living incarnation of the wave form.
In stead of '=', equals, you might depict the serpent biting its own tail.
For 'm', matter, you might insert somewhere along the serpent's length the torso of a bull.
To convey the idea of 'c squared', i.e., the speed of light squared, you might attach to the bull torso the heads and legs of twin cheetahs belching fire.
Now if you were to see the image of such a creature without knowing the reasoning behind it, you might mistake it for a mere phantasm, or even an abomination produced by a sick or perverted mind.
My suspicion is many of the ancient chimera images were intended to be understood, amongst other things, as precisely such formulas as Einstein's.
I would agree that many mythological images have a conceptual basis rather than being purely the products of an overipe imagination produced purely for it's own sake. One has to think of Jung and his sense of Gnostic mission albeit in psychoanalytic setting, that viewed such images as products from a wellspring of universal mind, each with their own "message" in terms of personal integration etc. Joesph Cambell certainly delved deeply into this territory as well although it was in terms of societies coming to terms with their place in the natural world through mythology.
My own view reflects nearly an identification as a heraldic seal.
Yours as conceptual physics reminds me of the dream image of the snake eating its tail which served as a basis for scientific theory from a personal basis. I cannot recall the scientist to whom this particular dream occurred. Perhaps you recall it. Alchemical lore is filled with such images as a refuge from the inquisition as well as covertly withholding their metaphysical quest of the soul behind the misdirection of attention toward a empirical effort toward producing gold. Some efforts on the outer fringes of this movement actually attempted this. Three different purposes from one quest and the manipulation of images. Its a fascinating history full of potential meaning.
Hi Drew,
I apologise for my late response however you were kind enough to send me the links to material and I owed you the time required to read and digest it.
It was a fascinating read. Is this an ongoing blog? If so, I will add it to the Linkage Section of my blog.
Bruce -- I appreciate your response. Patrick Huyghe pointed out that my blog is dated. I've taken the angle that blog-hopping is way better than frog-leaping was as a kid. Too bad the real frogs are next to nothing -- the canaries in the global coal mine.
I'm a pretty interesting google search if I don't say so myself (this could be some paid blogger-bot message).
drew hempel
Post a Comment