How to Think about UFO-ET Contacts: Complexity is Here to Stay
By Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera
HELLO EXOPOLITICIANS! I agree with our great colleague Paola L. Harris that, unless more valiant politicians and exopoliticians (like the Honorable Hellyer) with evidence about the UFO/visitors reality are willing to come “out of the closet”, the “silence of the unwilling” will drown once again the valiant voices. I also concur that bringing up contactee experiences tends to make disclosure efforts less credible but, for me, the main issue is that the main blockage appears to arise from limiting human attitudes.Â It is in us and awareness could perhaps liberate us as well. I think that there still are great opportunities through contactees (in spite of uncritical, non-analytical, “true believer” tendencies perhaps in most who also tend not to be in positions of respectable public power).
Contactees are also important, not just because of their candidness which can give us a gentler sense of the reality behind some of the contacts but because they can help us to re-connect with aspects of ourselves based on inherent goodness. Just as we may think that some of the “visitors” have “good reasons” why they are conducting abduction procedures (for our own good) (always?) we can think that they have â€œgood reasonsâ€ why other prefer to contact nonacademic, non-powerful, non-analytical people that will often develop a “true believer,” missionary attitude. Perhaps this is a way to gently reach an average level of awareness in humanity allowing room to accept or not to accept that contacts are taking place.
We must understand that contactee, abductee, integrated contactee-abductee, accidental, channeling, historical and research ufological literature shows ever-increasing evidence there are varieties of ETS (not just Annunakis; not just lizards attempting to control us or greys with a variety of agendas, needs, agreements, timeline degrees of evolution; not just human-like benevolent space brothers and human-like and non-human-like negative Orions; not just future Essasani, art-loving Pleiadians, trans-dimensional Venusians, matter-of-fact scientists, inhabitants of Ganymede, semi-angelic beings and giants from Lyra ). The range is HUGE and we should neither fall in fear and disrepair nor ignore that -during some contacts- warnings about deceiving entities were also received. We are the ones that place limits.
Moreover, to understand how to think of â€œthemâ€ as â€œgood or evilâ€ and, simultaneously, not as â€œgood or evilâ€ we need to complexify our thinking. For instance, itâ€™s not just that â€œif they were violent they would have conquered or wiped us out a long time ago.â€ If there are many groups of ETS with different agendas, needs and levels of development, there may be a control mechanism as to who is allowed to interact with us or not. There might be hierarchies between those that have transcended certain needs and those that have not. These hierarchies might not even be understood as between those ETS that are older or from particular far-flung futures (and thus more evolved) and those newer or closer to our present in terms of experience. We need to complexify our thinking in order to reach beyond the â€œadolescent stageâ€ some of us may be in right now. We need to think in terms of Meta patterns reflecting a cosmic-level culture.
As researchers (and as non-integral humans in general) we tend to choose the aspect of Ufology that resonates more with us. This is a big problem. This is THE problem when facing a complex issue such as learning how to live in todayâ€™s world or learning how to relate with the ET presence. If we cannot handle a radical shift in our sense of reality and self-identity we (humans in general and not just researchers) will debunk even bona fide cases without learning from them or taking our time to carefullyâ€¦research. Col. Corso’s case is a â€œcase in pointâ€ as some researchers that contribute with other findings also invalidate this case…perhaps â€œunfairly.â€ This self-limiting attitude not only applies to government witnesses but to abductees, contactees, free energy researchers, and even amongst members of the UFO/ET research community. In fact, it applies to humanity in general as it stands now. As Iâ€™ll soon explain, we tend to invalidate each other too much, jumping onto the dissimilarities first rather than onto the similarities because our self-identities are limited because our three-vehicle instincts are disconnected.
There’s always someone with a great “piece of the puzzle” whose information we don’t FEEL as complementary but as dangerous to us. It is an irrational but effective attitude that which controls us in everything political we do. I think that we have three main types of instincts giving us a sense of exterior danger or of interior safety and that these instincts originate in our three main spiritual vehicles: The Physical, the Subtle and the Causal.Â Each instinct is an adaptation to a primary cosmic environment reflecting the Body, Mind and Spirit aspects of being. This three-tiered partition of the Cosmos is present in many mystical-experiential disclosures such as in the philosophy of Vedanta. It behooves researchers to discover this.
If the instinct that controls us the most is physical we may always sense that what is most â€œrealâ€ is external stuff and think that the crux of ET interaction is in terms of technology, winning-losing, genetics and object manipulation and control. For this matter, benevolent contactee stories transmitting platitudes instead of technologies, or stories representing philosophical-humane understandings rather than, for instance, no-nonsense, physically manipulative genetic abductions, would also typically (and irrationally) feel to be much more “ludicrous” to most who think of themselves as “serious, objective researchers.” Then again, those that naturally sense a preponderance of instincts associated with the Subtle or the Causal spiritual vehicles may over-value inspiring platitudes. Enslaved by their preferred, non-integrated â€œinstinctâ€ researchers (and people in general attracted to the UFO-ET field) would focus on the mistakes of people whose main message represents other non-personally integrated instincts thus selecting out and dismissing parts of the genuine. Contactee reports and evidence (and along with that the invitations of ET groups willing to communicate more openly) are often summarily dismissed as genuine witnesses (however “credible,” “accredited” or not) they may be. They are simply non-instinctively detected. This happens irrationally if our â€œcore sense of identityâ€ and the “pieces of the puzzle” we hold on to EXCLUSIVISTICALLY (our personal â€œfactsâ€) are challenged. The big problem we may not even be aware of is the non-integration of our three main instincts. When ideas and personal sense-making realizations reflect an imbalance between our three main instincts we violently sustain an incomplete self-sense boundary even to the point of endangering ourselves to sustain that boundary.
If we feel that (simplifying the situation) physically intervening ETS are more â€œrealâ€ that counsel-giving ETS we may ultimately prefer to contact the former than the latter. Still, I’d say that, between having a voluntary contact with more apparently communicative beings after a respectful invitation and exposing ourselves (however open-mindedly influenced by our current, cultural stage of post-modern relativism we may be) to anyone that comes along or to potentially abducting beings who (reasonably speaking, may or may not do it for ‘our own good’) and who may or may not be associated with “evil” controllers (we don’t really know if the word “evil” should be thrown out of our lexicon according to a universal ethics or to our religious ethics/biases normally decried as mistaken, limited and intolerant), it’s for me a ‘hands down’ choice for the first option. I think we can still gain much understanding and growth from ETS who are giving us opportunities to interact in a mutually respectful, friendly and kind way. By God, if there are opportunities to make an appointment for communicative contact with apparently kinder ETS why are we broadly preferring to hold on to a chance for contact through abducting ETS? Why do we hold on to a third person (often mutually undermining) research approach “after the facts” instead of finding out directly for ourselves? Why don’t we see past their pseudo-religious mistakes and attempt direct contact right away?
I think that, just as there was inhumane abusive intolerance in socially organized expressions of religious dogmatism in pre-modern religious and in biased-rational-modern (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, right wing or left wing) absolutistic eras, we can also be blinded by the “relativism” of the current, more culturally advanced, post-modern era and ethos. BOTH the pre post-modern and the post-modern ideological positions are exclusivist and reductionist. The latter one is more difficult to detect but is radically flattening of differences and of a positive sense of hierarchy which, (according to integral and complexity thinkers) are natural facts of all forms of organization, regardless of level of development.
I think that, to start relating more intelligently with cosmic ‘cultures’ (culturally situated at least a couple of ‘notches’ beyond us) we need to develop our identities, ways of thinking, not just past the bigotry of pre-modern and modern but also past the post-modern ethos. Those of us willing to promote or lead toward a form of disclosure or to personally establish direct contact with ETS should conceptually and identitarily grow past post-modern (even if the self-identity of most people in the world seems still attached to pre-modern and modern ethos!): We must perceive more than equally valid, “horizontal” patterns; we must get a sense of the pattern that relates patterns. We must learn to think and to feel not only “systemically” (as in postmodernity) but “trans-systemically” the pattern behind patterned levels of complexity. Moving forward in â€œexopoliticsâ€ is not just about having pre-modern, clear-cut values; about modern-rational, effective pragmatism; about infinite egalitarian tolerance or about holistically including the best of all previous characteristics. It is about acquiring a non-monological initial degree of “cosmic understandingâ€ (cosmic understanding â€œ101â€), the ABC’s of a common cosmic language (of the whole and the part) allowing us to share understandings to communicate with all varieties of â€œcosmic-faringâ€ ETS more intelligently. Perhaps these ETS (regardless of their particular distinctions and inclinations are capable of simultaneously integrating exclusivist, relational and transcendental logics simultaneously.