• Home
  • Benevolent Extraterrestrials

Tag: Benevolent Extraterrestrials

Are UAPs a THREAT? SOME OF THEM A THREAT? NO THREAT AT ALL?

UFO: Friend, Foe or Fantasy "CBS Reports" (1966) - YouTube
Come on, let’s try to think about these issues with greater granularity…or detail about the threat issue because we (all of us) tend to oversimplify and choose sides. I recently saw a video in which the anti threat + consciousness accepting position was stressed in excess, forgetting about the few negative interaction accounts in Ufology.
 
For what we seem to know out of decades of contact research and analyzing behavior, most are not an actual threat (technology + bad intentions or hostility against us). Some …a few are an actual threat, but they possibly are (for the most part) under a certain control or, according to some contactees (under an apparent agreement with a large confluence of several groups) not to exceed in their activities. There’s complexity here.
 
Our need to understand through over-simplification may be our own primary internal “enemy.”
Yes, there are SOME cases (a minority) that seem to be “negative.”
Depiction of a craft throwing a blood-suctioning beam on some individuals as was seen in Colares, Brazil, and thoroughly researched by the Brazilian Army.
 
Perhaps 6-9% according to the anonymous, international, FREE Foundation survey with more than 3,000 contact experiencer anonymous respondents and considering knowledge about a few verified hostile cases like the Colares case in Brazil (and what current cattle mutilations in Argentina and Skinwalker Ranch or other places might mean) relate to the actual threat that -according to some serious contact experiencers – are under control or functioning under some agreed-upon limitations.  
But we also need to find out who among “them” already is or can be our FRIENDS and ALLIES in spite of our current human frailties. And some serious contact experiences that have provided evidence over decades appear to show that specific varieties have respected us integrally during more than 40 years of interactions.
 
But since – among many of the movers and shakers – there is no direct knowledge about who is who among “them,” naturally, for any military, aviation, and national security evaluation team most have to be considered a “POTENTIAL” threat. However, whether we are supposed to depend on external protection forever or evolve in consciousness and – perhaps – not need external protection is an open question.
 
Moreover, as a species, we should be careful not to extend our own bellicose ways into space with nuclear weapons and especially directed against otherworldly civilizations in unfounded ways, without becoming part of a more inclusive exopolitical inter-world/inter reality agreement! At least not until we mature as a unified species worldwide that takes care of its planetary life and of its own members!
 
Thus, I can agree with Dr. Greer in some issues but not in his “all are benevolent,” absolutist stance. And I also agree about some issues with the ‘space brother’ crowd (in which I participate) that – in more recent times – has acquired a more balanced view in general. This means that (in spite of popular misconceptions) the entirety of this “crowd” doesn’t necessarily believe that “all are benevolent.” Again, we need to try to think with greater granularity and to… “CONNECT THE DOTS.”
UAPs: THREAT? SOME THREAT? NO THREAT?
We need to teach ourselves to overcome the habit of dichotomizing and over-simplifying things.  It is the tendency of our unprepared human minds to rely on fractional thinking, choosing the information that confirms our beliefs (cognitive bias), getting us into mutually distrusting identity groups based on our sacred partial beliefs and this doesn’t allow our species to move forward in understanding. But if we ‘grow up’ and enough of us reach a plateau of stable integrative values, thinking, activities (as oftentimes benign extraterrestrial entities tell “experiencers” that we are capable of doing), then we may be able to establish a reasonable degree of public open contact with the kindest types of non-human intelligent beings that we can choose. Through it, we may not just learn who is who among the intelligences behind the UFOs but also learn about the rules and principles governing a cosmic society probably waiting for us to join.  
What if besides the potential threat of an object that approaches our airplanes and some weird cases of cattle mutilation and a few deleterious cases there is some simple people that have been maintaining a close, friendly and mutually respectful relationship over decades of “working” good causes with benevolent extraterrestrials, like in the Amicizia case from Italy and some Mision Rahma groups or participants capable of working in a sincere ad rational way? Should contacteeism remain a taboo or become a possibility for learning about who is who among “them?”
 
To get a better handle on who is who in the non-human exopolitical community we also need to invest time in direct contact experience efforts and studies of the information bequeathed to us by persons that have allegedly experienced such contacts. And this includes remote viewing testimonies of vetted and credible former military viewers like former Sargeant Leonard E. Buchanan who mentions a whole variety of friendly and unfriendly psychic and non-psychic gray-type beings and other types of friendly and unfriendly ETs. This is after being asked to research the cases that project Blue Book had to admit as proven.
 
But is the only reason that the “threat” narrative is so much mentioned because it mobilizes politicians? Because it is sincere and natural to consider a “potential threat?” Because it is convenient either to lay the ground for a fake extraterrestrial invasion that would give more power to the powers that be? All of the above? Some of the above?
 
If we really find these issues important and care to find out, we really need to engage in a really serious COMPREHENSIVE study!

Developmental Psychology and Intelligent Disclosure

In relation to an extraterrestrial presence, we may be dealing with “Hyperobjects” or “Multiple Objects.”  For intelligently influencing an Intelligent Disclosure we would need to study Developmental Psychology and how human consciousness and subjectivity may deal with these objects. 
Image result for hyperobjects
Consciousness can be understood as the capacity to experience meaning, in fact, forms of meaning, including how to interpret them. The meanings of experience are normally related to objects of experience and, ultimately, even consciousness itself can be understood as an object of its own experience. Therefore, epistemology and ontology are not separate. Meanings can be of multiple kinds like sensations (pain, pleasure), sentiments/feelings, concepts, ultimate spiritual meanings…any form of meaning.
 
Leading a ‘sensible’ human adaptation to emergent, culturally and instinctively-challenging global issues requires a global form of integrative perspective-taking. This would be a level of interpretation capable of appreciating the importance of previous forms of interpretation in such a way that its possible to work with individuals interpreting reality under such previous levels. Moreover, it would be a form of interpretation that operates under a more extended experience of “meaningful time” in which for practical purposes the motivation to act in the present experience includes more of the past and of the future. 
 
A creative, adaptive political and cultural acknowledgment of a globally active, advanced, non-human extraterrestrial presence on Earth is akin to intelligently dealing with culturally-challenging, global issues like “climate change.” These are issues which are so widely distributed in space and in time that only fragments of their meaning can be grasped simultaneously by most people. They trump traditional ideas about what a thing is in the first place. These issues are called “hyperobjects” by Timothy Morton, author of “Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World” (2013). They require a completely different way of thinking and being in the world; quite likely post binary, connecting the subjective and objective realms of experience and inclusive of a type of science in which the non-physical consciousness, information and subtler forms of energy are used to modify physical matter. 
 
On the other hand, integrative philosopher Sean Esbjörn-Hargens consider climate change and similar issues as “multiple objects.” This is an object that is objectively real but enacted through different subjective perspectives producing different meanings about it. I think that the “global technologically advanced, non-human, presence related to UFOs” can also be considered as a “multiple object.”
 
In the following article, Gail Hochachka studies the multiple responses to the issue of “climate change” under the aegis of Developmental Psychology. With a greater capacity for taking multiple perspectives, individuals may be able to deal with “hyperobjects” or with “multiple objects” more appropriately. Hochachka also shows how individuals operating under different interpretive levels of development “make meaning” including greater or lesser degrees of the present, past and future considerations accompanying different degree of abstraction and personal identifications.
I recognize the crucial importance that TTSA has played in moving the UFO subject into the mainstream, serving as a bridge between the highest levels of secrecy and the general public. However, it is time for many more serious cultural influencers to join a serious conversation regarding the “global, technologically advanced, non-human presence related to UFOs” beyond the influence of those in the know within military and intelligence circles who may only be able to interpret the situation under particular valid but partial limited perspectives. But we must rise to the challenge surpassing conventional modes of thinking. 
 
If UAP intelligences are able to handle a more extended present, a present that includes more of the future and of the past in a non-linear way as Luis Elizondo suggested (as a personal opinion) during a MUFON interview (see the May 2018 edition of “The MUFON Journal”), their conscious capacity for doing so may be similar or above an integrative perspective-taking capacity. At the very least, they would also be able to adequately understand “hyperobjects” or “multiple objects” and think in global and species-wide terms in constructive and adaptive ways. And this would entail that eventually most of humanity would also need to rise to an integrative perspective-taking capacity. 
“What if there were other species or
even humans, where their understanding of the present,
that optic, that spark, is maybe a little bit bigger? Maybe
that optic is a little bit wider. Rather than being a point,
maybe it’s a range. Maybe the understanding of the present
isn’t a point, but it’s a range, and maybe there’s elements of
the future and the past that are experienced as the present,
and, therefore, what we perceive as linear space-time maybe
others don’t. In fact, maybe these are things that have lived
here forever, before us. Maybe, we share the space with
them.” (Luis Elizondo).
Image result for extraterrestrialdisclosure
Whether UAP or UFO intelligences pose an actual physical threat or not (and I surmise that most don’t), not rising to a capacity for understanding tantamount to dealing with “hyperobjects” may produce a cultural type of threat since we would not be able to adapt. We would need to adapt to cultures that may not want to conquer us as technologically advanced cultures did on Earth against less technologically developed ones. However, their understanding of complexity, consciousness, information, in a post-materialist way capable of transcending our spacetime-limited cultural traditions may be a threat if we are unable to rise to the challenge. It would require the greatest shift for human civilization since the taming of fire and the discovery of stone tools. What if (just like “hyperobjects” or “multiple objects”) “they” (the UAP or UFO intelligences) may be already participating inside of us as we may be participating inside of them? What if we can only understand this if we rise above a rigid, binary distinction between objectivity and subjectivity? Rigid distinctions between “us” and “them” would melt along with rigid distinctions between our “present” linear, interpretive experiences and non-existing pasts and futures.  
 
Gail Hochachka’s study would also be useful to cultural leaders willing to influence the ways society may respond to a “global technologically advanced, non-human presence related to UFOs” inasmuch as its reality is becoming uncontroversial. With the aim of promoting a healthy, adaptive response to the technologically advanced, non-human presence in society, we need to study Developmental Psychology and how a greater number of individuals may intelligently or constructively relate to “Hyperobjects” or “Multiple Objects.” The good news is that human capacity seems to be able to reach an integrative level suitable for an adequate, intelligent cultural adaptation and flourishing under the new circumstances. We just need to implement ways to promote the massive psychological development of individuals up to that level. We need the political will beyond the hyper nationalisms in vogue today. Realistically speaking, only perhaps by being forced to deal with the extraordinary realities at hand will activate that political will.
 
Hochachka’s study can be useful to the intellectually serious disclosure activist, UFO researcher, experiencer or exopolitician since a “global, technologically advanced, non-human presence related to UFOs” can also be considered a “hyperobject” or as a “multiple object.” Again, understanding the human capacity to intelligently relate with such objects would be crucial for politically and culturally influencing or guiding a policy of “intelligent disclosure” in an adaptive, positive, constructive manner.
Global Environmental Change
Sources
Hochachka, Gail (2019). “On matryoshkas and meaning-making: Understanding the plasticity of climate change.” https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0959378018309762?token=D77478FF2E973E616FF618580A7BDC87B07DB7D8FC1B7012979A7BD5F00FD8B1B43CC12B5F15030D6CC5D9FAF61D1D2D
 
Hochachka, Gail (2019). “On Matryoshkas and Meaning-making: Understanding the Plasticity of Climate Change.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378018309762
Kloetzke, Chase (2018). “Luis Elizondo: MUFON’s Exclusive Interview.” https://mufon.z2systems.com/neon/resource/mufon/files/MAY2018MUFONJournalWEB(1).pdf

Human Nature-Based Disclosure

 Unique aerospace vehicles coming out of the ocean in Puerto Rico. Photo by José Fernandez.

How can we as “disclosure activists” and as practitioners of “exopolitics” (and, in many cases, as contact experiencers) really assist society to accept and to adapt to the disclosure of an extraterrestrial, multi-dimensional presence? Should we simply allow a more classic, militaristic interpretive tendency (as within the effort of To the Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences) convince politicians and citizens worldwide and let that extension of our political biases take its course or should we try to find another way of doing things?

I think that we (in fact, eventually, ALL of us and not just ‘experiencers’ who have been awakened to a vaster reality) must try to understand why we are as we are in terms of maintaining our personal identities, sense of meaning and moral politics. I think that our ability to see and our blindness impeding seeing how to “connect the dots” (in a healthy, healing, constructive way) is related to how consciousness itself is capable or not of embracing more aspects of reality in a coherent way. And some of the people speaking about this (although in less spiritual terms) are moral and developmental psychologists.  As boring as these studies might be (in contrast to cover-up revelations, for instance) they can serve as foundations based on empirical research to learn why we create dominance hierarchies and why we fight so much with each other, whether we are in the 0.1% elite group or in any other social strata.

In order to establish contact with healthy, benevolent interstellar beings on a par with their alleged lofty ideals and in a mutually beneficial fashion, with sovereignty as a species that can be sustained, we probably first need to be able to leave our”self-perpetuating wheel of unending conflict.”

What makes ‘sense’ to us is generally related to our intuitions of what is and is not. And this is an expression of the Principle of Identity. And the Principle of Identity (related to how we cognitively intuit what is and is not in our mental schemas and in relation to perception) is probably rooted in the equivalence of consciousness with being itself. It is rooted in the fact that we are (being) because we experience (cogito ergo sum). Thereafter, our interpretive experience is rooted in the self-evident fact that we first know that we are because we experience. It is an automatic part of our conscious awareness and even of our personal identity-based political operations in any “real world” we may be participating.

By extension, constructive “common cause” identity politics, and destructive, “common enemy” identity politics is based on that capacity of recognizing expressions of what is or of existence and being. We could summarize (according to some developmental psychologists like Kegan, Kohlberg, Peck, Cheryl, Gilligan, Fowler, Cook-Greuter, Baldwin, et al) our capacity to embrace and understand varies from person to person.

Levels of Ego Development according to one of the developmental psychologists, Suzanne Cook-Greuter. To face the challenge of DISCLOSURE we probably need a large percentage of the population and/or its cultural-political leaders in a Green (Pluralist), Teal or Turquoise stage of development. How could someone in a predominant “Amber” stage of ego development (the Diplomat- Conformist) act in the name of pluralist, world-centric values for the good of all humankind while willing to admit into his or her circle of care and concern non-human, extraterrestrial (or even intraterrestrial) beings?

It can be summarized as if the personal room for our consciousness and its degrees of possible embrace or identification with reality and interpretations were larger or smaller. It might also operate under a greater or lesser intensity of subjective walls or subdivisions in that inner conscious “space” or “room” and we would have biases possessing our conscious experience without us being aware of it, limiting how much and how we embrace what we disclose to ourselves in our experience.

The more we expand our consciousness as a permanent average trait the more we can embrace a “common emphasis” identity politics versus a “common enemy” identity politics. This issue related to how our CONSCIOUSNESS is freer and more inclusive or instead possessed by inner walls and biases that affect our interpersonal relationships, politics, ufology, disclosure. If we do not nourish a trusting environment we may not be ready for healthy social coordination after major UFO, experiencer revelations.

According to Ken Wilber (working with the information provided by some of those developmental psychologists) a large percentage of the population primarily functions in a premodern, mythic, authority-based level of development coloring their self-identities in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to feel, think, value and include multiple truths multilaterally, fact-based and pluralistically, or in a true modern democratic way, not to speak of the capacity to find a way to harmonize ideological differences via an integrative approach.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt emphasizes (conservative and liberal) moral TENDENCIES (rather than developmental levels) affecting self-identity and identity politics but his work is seriously related to this discourse and to how disclosure activists may effectively work in society beyond participating (even if based on reason) in the blame game.

In a world that needs to come together to process shared human problems: degradation of the oceans, climate change, nuclear warheads, terrorism across borders, artificial intelligence and job loss, information glut, and a long etc, the popularity of ethnic nationalism (now achieving power through democratic elections) is dismantling the international order that (at least in principle) promoted larger swaths of humanity to come together in cooperation with healthy democracies around a world of shared human rights using reason and facts to agree in applications.

How can a “post-truth” world order or a more disunited world made up of more dominating but competing for populist, nationalist polities welcome “the others”? (ETs). How can societies learn to deal in a constructive way and as part of a more unified global humanity if an “us vs them” mentality prevails?

If the classical liberal institutions and classical liberal people’s values in the world are in disarray as we tend to hold on to limited answers, how are we going to add the cultural challenge of verifying an extraterrestrial presence? The “rooms” or “spaces” in our consciousnesses need to expand.

I propose that as “disclosure activists” we also need to understand our own human psychology and what motivates us in order to engage in a more intelligent disclosure discourse and activism. Are most of us liberals (in the liberals vs conservative sense)? How can we value and speak with conservatives (both recognized by Wilber and Haidt as necessary)?

I definitely think that we need to study the work of moral psychologists like Johnathan Haidt and also the works of integrative philosopher Ken Wilber (who emphasizes developmental psychology). One emphasizes tendencies and, the other, capacities. And we need to understand both if we are to become aware of why we are how we are and why we become so invested in our beliefs.

If we are to overcome what may be the greatest challenge of all (probably challenging human nature as we normally experience it) we need to rise beyond opinions about each other. It must even go beyond the genuine and fantastic critiques of what an elite may be doing to us to retain control of us.

In order to be politically and exopolitically responsible we must really focus on understanding our tendencies and that of others (in regular citizens as well as elites and, simply, those in positions of leadership), tendencies naturally bearing on the degree of openness, personal biases and/or various specific interests toward the complex issue of disclosure. Simultaneously, we also need to understand why (sometimes, due to developmental level incapacity) many cannot rise to the challenge of disclosure because they – quite simply – they cannot rise above standard belief systems and cohere explanations discovering what they have in common and – from this platform – inform, share, educate.

The greatest transformative challenge humanity faces would be so deeply transformative that it cannot simply be based on simplistic belief system solutions. Revealing the degree of mischievousness with which an elite controls the cover-up or if a handful of contactees communicating with “space brothers” were – after all – correct in what, otherwise, looked like airy-fairy recommendations and narratives would be probably remain superficial, cosmetic solutions prone to produce more interpersonal conflict unless ‘we’ who care about truth, evolution and disclosure (at least as many of us as possible) come to value understanding why we are as we are, what can we really become and how to go about educating and transforming our current manifestations of “human nature.” This is why we need to expand our sphere of interest into Social Psychology, Behavioral Genetics, Biosociology, and other sources of information that shed light upon our “human nature.”

Thus far, the “UFO community” has made some contributions to society at large (albeit mostly preaching to the choir) but has not been able to provide a basis to come to basic agreements or to integrate the best information. We are also divided by our tendencies, often to the point of not recognizing each others’ contributions. So, we have also shown to the world how we subdivide ourselves as any other social group with a political message.

Do we simply need to become more conscious through more validated or grounded revelations, information, and through spiritual practices or do we need to re-engineer our tendencies and our developmental capacities by re-engineering our genes or simply becoming aware of why we are as we are (and to change our behavior and attitudes accordingly) is the key to become politically and exopolitically successful “citizens” in a complex, multi-dimensional cosmos?

A person to keep in mind to deepen this necessary conversation is Dr. Sean Esbjörn-Hargens who (probably in 2019) will be exploring (from an Integral Meta-Theory perspective) the issue of extraterrestrial contacts, Ufology, society, exopolitics.

 

 

 

 

Sources

Wilber, K. (2007). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

Copyright © 2019 Exopolitics Institute News Service. All Rights Reserved.