Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, American Cosmic’s Breakaway Civilization |417|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
Good point. How many people does it take to make a civilisation? Breakaway we all get - of course. When we look at history we can always see the 'elite' whose wealth and power put them on a different level.
The desire to 'escape from nature' has been a driving ambition of the ruling class who end living a kind of magical life - they do no labour at all - save what is pleasurable. They have the best tech available. In days gone by that means slaves, servant and those who obey (there's a link between human servants, spirts and machines/robots so long as we recall that tech is not the device or means but the intent made manifest).
That 'escape from nature' impulse that has long driven the ruling class may now have an added dimension - the ability to leave the planet in bodily form via flying machines. But when we look at the extreme visions of the materialistic technocrats we see a trend - beyond Earthly nature, beyond the Earth and finally beyond biology. That vision is to transfer human consciousness into some alternative post-physical and incorruptible medium - cloud computing or robot brain. Strangely, not spirit form - because, of course, the materialist denies such a reality - while passionately aspiring to it.
Personally I think 'breakaway civilisation' is lurid sci fi hyperbole. I have no doubt there are those who think we have so screwed things here that they will escape. But where? Mars? I guess if your vision is purely materialistic an elsewhere of any kind seems plausible. That would be a rough life for elites - pioneers on Mars would not be a fun role. The other option of being taken up by ET is pretty crowded by all accounts - and I kinda feel for ET here - rich dudes or religious nutters. But if you are running a cross between an intergalactic Uber and a shuttle rescue service maybe that doesn't matter.
For me the breakaway civilisation; does not fit any decent sci fi test. By that I mean, as true (old time) sci fi fans will attest, if you can't create a plausible realistic scenario you haven't a good story. I suspect that younger pups raised on Star Wars won't get this. Reality doesn't have special effects and editing to serve the needs of 15 year olds.
I think the objections to a breakaway civilisation are too monstrous to overcome. Even a breakaway community has problems. A breakaway fantasy is doable. A breakaway delusion is more likely the reality.
The desire to 'escape from nature' has been a driving ambition of the ruling class who end living a kind of magical life - they do no labour at all - save what is pleasurable. They have the best tech available. In days gone by that means slaves, servant and those who obey (there's a link between human servants, spirts and machines/robots so long as we recall that tech is not the device or means but the intent made manifest).
That 'escape from nature' impulse that has long driven the ruling class may now have an added dimension - the ability to leave the planet in bodily form via flying machines. But when we look at the extreme visions of the materialistic technocrats we see a trend - beyond Earthly nature, beyond the Earth and finally beyond biology. That vision is to transfer human consciousness into some alternative post-physical and incorruptible medium - cloud computing or robot brain. Strangely, not spirit form - because, of course, the materialist denies such a reality - while passionately aspiring to it.
Personally I think 'breakaway civilisation' is lurid sci fi hyperbole. I have no doubt there are those who think we have so screwed things here that they will escape. But where? Mars? I guess if your vision is purely materialistic an elsewhere of any kind seems plausible. That would be a rough life for elites - pioneers on Mars would not be a fun role. The other option of being taken up by ET is pretty crowded by all accounts - and I kinda feel for ET here - rich dudes or religious nutters. But if you are running a cross between an intergalactic Uber and a shuttle rescue service maybe that doesn't matter.
For me the breakaway civilisation; does not fit any decent sci fi test. By that I mean, as true (old time) sci fi fans will attest, if you can't create a plausible realistic scenario you haven't a good story. I suspect that younger pups raised on Star Wars won't get this. Reality doesn't have special effects and editing to serve the needs of 15 year olds.
I think the objections to a breakaway civilisation are too monstrous to overcome. Even a breakaway community has problems. A breakaway fantasy is doable. A breakaway delusion is more likely the reality.
Of course the other plausible theory that I tend to support but need to flesh out a little better is that perhaps civilization itself is the first real "breakaway." I don't want to get into too many details since someone I know is writing a book, in part, about this very fact. But even that alone should be enough to ponder. Perhaps leaving the tribal life created a different kind of "connection" with a different kind of consciousness.
Brilliant question! There is no doubt that the distinction between 'civilised' folk (who live in towns and rely on farming) and hunter gather types - must be looked into in greater depth. But tell your friend to go through Graham Hancock's books before they lock their POV down in print.
The necessity of farming is put down to an evolutionary impulse. But the timeframes espoused by your stock standard anthropologist is not consistent with very sensible research and argument that is graced by offensive label of 'psuedoarchaelogy'. Hancock makes a compelling argument that the conventional timeline for the 'discovery' of agriculture clashes with evidence that it may actually be a recovery.
As a long time reader of 'archaeology' and 'psuedoarqchaeology' my money is firmly on the latter. In fact the history of humanity we have been fed as mothers milk is more and more looking like complete BS.
CS, your friend may be committed to being in print after so much effort, but if they have not covered the emergent alternate POVs, they may be madly wrong.But maybe that does not matter - as is so often the case.
The necessity of farming is put down to an evolutionary impulse. But the timeframes espoused by your stock standard anthropologist is not consistent with very sensible research and argument that is graced by offensive label of 'psuedoarchaelogy'. Hancock makes a compelling argument that the conventional timeline for the 'discovery' of agriculture clashes with evidence that it may actually be a recovery.
As a long time reader of 'archaeology' and 'psuedoarqchaeology' my money is firmly on the latter. In fact the history of humanity we have been fed as mothers milk is more and more looking like complete BS.
CS, your friend may be committed to being in print after so much effort, but if they have not covered the emergent alternate POVs, they may be madly wrong.But maybe that does not matter - as is so often the case.
The UFO phenomena in its modern form began in 1947, 65 years befrore Dr Pasulka began to study the field. Why is it that whenever an academic scholar or scientist learns about a paranormal phenomenon they act like they are the first person to discover it?
Scientist members of the Society for Psychical Research had the same attitude to Spiritualism. They thought it was wrong to make a religion out of mediumistic phenomena. But scientists failed to take the phenomenon anywhere. It is the Spiritualists who have brought the phenomenon to the public, providing demonstrations and classes where the public can find out the truth of the phenomena for themselves.
And while the scientists Dr Pasulka is investigating, who are so against religion are keeping their research to themselves, once again it is the "religious believers" who are educating the public about UFO's
It is true there is a lot of confusion about what information is reliable. It is too bad the scientists are not fulfilling their proper role by providing reliable information.
People should not idolize scientists just as they should not idolize religious leaders.
Are these scientists using tax payer funded equipment and not revealing their results to the public?
In the book she explains that the academic researchers have a different ethic about being transparent about sources than the professional UFO researchers who have to take oaths of secrecy. Which is absurd when he has already explained that the academics are keeping their results from the public. How is that transparency? If that is her attitude, she is part of the breakaway civilization.
Readers may thing she is showing that the scholars at the meeting were objective. They only believe what is proven. But at the same meeting of academics, lack of proof didn't stop them from advocating other unproven hypotheses. Rather than being objective her statement shows the scholars are very, very biased.
In different places in the book, James first says there could be a genetic component to the phenomenon because it runs in families, then later he says the phenomenon sometimes spreads to friends and family of experiencers.
Scientist members of the Society for Psychical Research had the same attitude to Spiritualism. They thought it was wrong to make a religion out of mediumistic phenomena. But scientists failed to take the phenomenon anywhere. It is the Spiritualists who have brought the phenomenon to the public, providing demonstrations and classes where the public can find out the truth of the phenomena for themselves.
And while the scientists Dr Pasulka is investigating, who are so against religion are keeping their research to themselves, once again it is the "religious believers" who are educating the public about UFO's
It is true there is a lot of confusion about what information is reliable. It is too bad the scientists are not fulfilling their proper role by providing reliable information.
People should not idolize scientists just as they should not idolize religious leaders.
Are these scientists using tax payer funded equipment and not revealing their results to the public?
In the book she explains that the academic researchers have a different ethic about being transparent about sources than the professional UFO researchers who have to take oaths of secrecy. Which is absurd when he has already explained that the academics are keeping their results from the public. How is that transparency? If that is her attitude, she is part of the breakaway civilization.
Readers may thing she is showing that the scholars at the meeting were objective. They only believe what is proven. But at the same meeting of academics, lack of proof didn't stop them from advocating other unproven hypotheses. Rather than being objective her statement shows the scholars are very, very biased.
In different places in the book, James first says there could be a genetic component to the phenomenon because it runs in families, then later he says the phenomenon sometimes spreads to friends and family of experiencers.
Last edited: