
On the fourth day, we have made our way to The Chinvat Bridge (the Bridge of the Separator, also call Al-Sirat), accompanied by gods of protection. The bridge is "finer than a hair and sharper than a sword" and spans a deep chasm teeming with monsters. On the other side of the bridge is the gateway to paradise.
Perhaps we can say that we, the adherents of the UFO phenomenon have reached such a bridge in our estimations, as the clock exponentially increases it's path toward a demarcation between the perception of monsters chained by desire and the angels of paradise. Perhaps this may be intentional, this positioning on the bridge.
Perhaps this intention is one not entirely of our own design.
We tell ourselves at it's foot, that we have reached our latest challenge solely by our own efforts as if we ourselves were the center of all the phenomenon we have observed so far.

A species defines itself in the many facets of behavior that it exhibits to an observer. We have defined ourselves as a sentient species by a process of comparison with other species. However, we are at a disadvantage in this as we can locate no other species, who appear to exhibit sentient cognition on a par with our own.
We, as a species also make an effort to study ourselves and our behavior.
This is the only means that we have at our disposal to define a consensus as to what constitutes normal behavior. We have no basis of comparison to view ourselves as a species from another species point of observation, let alone one which may be advanced in evolutionary terms beyond that of our own.
This unique state of affairs leads to both conjecture and conceptual modeling based on our own narrow view of what constitutes normal behavior, as we define, based soley on the subjective basis of our own sociological and psychological "insights" as to what a more advanced state and station of another sentient species may constitute.
How likely is it that an advanced species would murder one another,or conduct this as an institutionalized and cultural practice over a span of centuries?
If we move away from our speculations upon this recognition, we have another to consider. Plato in (Book VII of The Republic, discusses Socrates observation of another fallibility in our cognition toward another species as Socrates discusses justice with Glaucon, one of Plato’s brothers.
Here we have a situation that compounds the situation of judging another's species behavior to that of our own.This facet of our equation explores the fallibility of cognition of one's state and position in relation to location as it impacts the sum potential of our speculations upon cartography of our critical assumptions.
"Let’s compare our own education and understanding of the world to people in a cave—to human beings in an underground, cave-like dwelling with a long and wide entrance open toward the light. From childhood on, the people who live in this cave have their legs and necks chained so that they can see only straight ahead in front of them. The chains keep them from turning their heads in any other direction.'
http://www.cco.net/~trufax/paradigm/paradigm/plato.html

John Klein:I think we can assume that these entities are more advanced than us. Why don't they just come right out and tell us what's on their minds?
Alexander Leek: You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them?
So we pause and prepare ourselves before moving forward. We look around us and see the various members of our little group. Some of us have lost our humility along the way as we approached this yawing chasm. We expect answers from others in that we cannot provide for ourselves. Perhaps our answer is an image reflected back to us which we have provided as a rationale without questioning it's source. However some of us see the source as an existential illusion manufactured by necessity. Others,would prefer that it cannot exist because they have chosen that the decision to observe would strip away the clothing that protects their ignorance of an answer. Others have created a self comforting mythology to preserve the sanctity of the intellect. Some provide answers in lieu of questions. Some look to the town constable who wears the costume of protection and justice to explain his assumed knowledge as it is his role to know. However he informs you by his silence that he knows its secret when, in fact he is hiding that he does not know. If you knew he did not know, he believes his job which you finance may be on the line. He has little to fear, as he unwittingly has joined our expeditionary band toward a an immeasurable precipice, unmapped and fraught with the anxiety of a recognition, that all of us are unprepared.
Certainly we all recognize, if anything, that this situation of our little group is a very interesting one from an existential perspective. Perhaps as we assume that we ourselves are an object of interest rather than the larger picture of context, which we cannot grasp by our isolated stance upon an proverbial island, all of our speculations are a moot point. If they were not, then preparations would certainly be well underway for contact. We would be aware and follow a course free of the myriad of cross purposes our that chatter demonstrates. We act upon the stage of our own species isolation as if it were perfectly logical, perfectly insightful like out two freinds who await the arrival of Godot.

In Part Two, now that we have set the staging in proper arrangement at our encampment at the footings of The Chinvat Bridge, we will compare notes on conceptual models of behavior in an advanced species by looking at some potential examples, rare and as obscure as they are, among ourselves. We will also look at something we all would prefer not to admit,at the peril of our own existance, our natural predisposition of addiction.
At dusk, our leader at the rear of our little group faintly calls through the thickening fog for us to move forward onto the bridge as the weather begins a turn for the worse. We must have everything we need now. We frantically rummage through the intangibles we have gathered in preparation for this final summit for which we have gathered to surmount. There is no turning back fron The Chinvat Bridge.
1 comments:
I read the quote from Kurt Godel , and the question is : how does he know that there exist unprovable axioms in every system of mathematics that is sufficiently strong ?
Could there be a disconnect between the narrative he claims about mathematical syntactics , and the syntactics themselves ?
The claim that Godel's proof showed that mathematics could allegedly be never consistent and complete at the same time , is relativist hype .
Gerhard Gentzen , also a mathematician , apparently demonstrated with Gentzen's Proof that mathematical systems COULD indeed be both complete AND consistent , by means of a math process called *transfinite induction* .
Jason
Post a Comment