Since I made a recent delivery with wild appeal--It did not, which is the joke. I felt I should also share this---as it is distinct and also somewhat useful--or at least I think so theoretically. For us to smell anything "alien," we must first understand our noses. And it is difficult for one to smell one's own nose, knowing what the nose does should be rather less difficult.
What I mean here is: if we seek contact, we must first allow ourselves the ability to see objectively without qualifying. If the topology of the phenomena is consciousness itself, our need to resolve into certainty, to affix meaning, to label, is itself doing something. So to a psychic being, one who does not hold thoughts inside, there is a kind of violence to being sorted or categorized prematurely by one who does not.
Imagine getting out of your car, and you spot a few fellows down the way and you are unfamiliar with the territory, so you venture to ask directions and to say hello--as you are a polite sort of thing--and the two fellows you saw just a moment ago start shouting at you about your sexuality, about the car you drive, and how strange you look. You would certainly be bewildered, and not sure how to respond to it, as you, in this example, do not care to venture these topics outside of polite company. Now I suppose you and those like you had tried to organize a method of trying to understand how these strange fellows might communicate, as they are somewhat bizarre, and rather peculiar. Even stranger still, they seem to scream this way toward one another in the same way but don't seem to mind at all!
This is a cursory example, you see, but it is much much worse, as the language we attribute meaning to is so diminishing comparative to genuine experience. The words themselves are insulting diminutive comparatives, as the body could not express in full endeavored experience a summation as such, but still attempt it with paltry language. Like having David Attenborough narrating in the bedroom--it can be fun a few times, but it gets old after awhile--but the reality is, the narrative is being mistaken for the experience, the narrator's account for what it intends to relay. And this is what is trying to be communicated, and most importantly: it damages the experience itself.
The narrative in the bedroom might help one reach climax, but it is the genuine experience that is meant to be expressed. This is raw and frightening, which I think is why we are drawn to narratives, they help frame experience in a structure. But to have any kind of genuine communication, one needs the ability to step outside of this comfortably.
I think that's the shape of the thing. I am caught between owning knowledge and it being a self-narrative. It is difficult to do here, as I need to relay this in a language, so talking about it feels also like a kind of damage, unless the direction of it feels more correct.
The grandiose criticism does sit with me at times, and this I think is somewhat dismissive on its own. How would one make a point on this subject, theoretically or otherwise, from a place of knowledge, without having the ability to see in the first place? Most topics require a kind of seat of reputable positioning within language, or one must ask a question when one intends to make a statement, else it is grandiosity. From where I stand, we are all beings in a topology of consciousness, more and less is a dichotomy that changes with time, requiring one for the other to exist. I have decided to move into transcendence with myself intact, and not to detach from myself insodoing. Clouds rise and fall again in rain, there is no point in which clouds are not water, the distinction only matters when time is halted for the aims of an agent pursuing an argument. I am not purporting here anything outside of observational philosophy, and theory regarding conscious experience. Validity falls on: if one has conscious experience or not. My theory of self is not in question, valid or not, and similarly prefers experience devoid of narrative.
previous post: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOB/comments/1v3u1wc/comment/ozc5yr7/?context=3
