• From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

cosmic_luminessence wrote:

I am skeptical of everything including myself, my feelings, my thoughts, my emotions, my recollections, my experiences.....I don't know whether that is good or bad or psychopathic.

I am skeptical of my skepticism too yikes

As a recovering skeptic, I would just point out that skepticism leads nowhere beneficial in the end, and you don't have to suspend disbelief to see that.

Skepticism first backs you into a tight corner of materialsm where "seeing is believing" and then eventually takes even that away.  It leads you spiraling down a path of doubt and mistrust, all the while pretending that all this doubt and mistrust can somehow lead you to truth.

While some people are driven by a neurotic need to be right, skeptics are driven by a neurotic need to not be wrong.

To a skeptic, the worst thing possible is to have given a strong statement or opinion about something, and then have to modify or retract it later.  Why this is may differ from person to person, but it rarely has little, if anything, to do with the true pursuit of truth.

Truth is not a thing, it is a process, and you have to begin somewhere.  Assuming you don't know the truth already, how can you expect to get anywhere if you are unwilling to accept any new information?

Don't blindly trust your thoughts or feelings or intuitions or anything for that matter.

But taking all of these things together (being in touch with how you feel, researching information, consulting with others, etc.) can lead to some fruitful conclusions.  Yes, most will be incorrect, and some outright false, but so what if you are wrong?  By offering your "best guess" you may provide groundwork for another to come to a more correct conclusion.

People are rarely faulted for making a mistake; it's the unwillingness to admit to a mistake, to "stay the course" when all evidence is pointing in a different direction, that is reprehensible, IMO.

If you truly are skeptical of your skepticism, I would challenge you to take a non-skeptical stance on some issue.  It doesn't have to be this one.  See where you end up.  You can always go back to your skepticism later!

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.
  • morningsun76
  • morningsun76
  • the answer has been with you the whole time
  • Offline
  • From: In two worlds
  • Registered: 2004-09-10

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

(Regarding debates)   The tricky part sometimes is giving new people or strangers the benefit of the doubt before judging their attitudes in this regard.  If we're too quick to judge, we wrongfully cut off a communication with someone which may have proved beneficial for one or both parties (or, in the case of a forum such as this one, the readers as well).  If we do that too often we become dark and heartless.    If we let it go on too long on the other hand, we waste the time and energy engaging in pointless talk, and risk becoming bitter.   Finding the right balance is a continuous task as new people and new situations always are showing up in our lives.

  • From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

montalk wrote:

Debates are not always won through logic...sometimes they are won by default if the opponent can be drained or frustrated into quitting. All it takes is expending less energy to provoke a response than it takes the opponent to compose a response. Because deceptive fallacies are easier to create than unravel, it forms the perfect tactic for engaging and draining those who strive for truth and reason.

I was on my high school debate team one year, and ended up ranking #2 in the state, using precisely these techniques.  I didn't arrive at any insightful solutions to pressing global issues, but I got this really cool ribbon! wink

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

I agree absolutely, morningsun - it is impossible to tell at the beginning of a debate what the dynamics are until you go for a couple rounds. And even after your opponent has stopped listening, the audience might still have some open ears. I guess the balance then is how much your energy and time results in anything constructive, if not between you and the opponent then between you and others who are still receptive. If it descends into bickering and namecalling, then even the audience leaves (except for those wanting solely to be entertained a la Jerry Springer Show) Still, the sheer need to be right can keep one going for way longer than reasonable sometimes, so there is grace in knowing when and how to exit. Reflection...not only upon the concepts discussed, but upon the dynamics and usefulness of the debate itself.

Tenetnosce, one thing I always found funny about debate tournaments is that the same set of issues are debated year after year, meaning nothing is ever resolved beyond argument. Guess it's not about who is right or wrong, but how well the parties have debated. As a verbal sport I can see how this might be fun. But outside the sport, to me it seems irreverant to place truth and logic on an equal level with lies and deceit as convenient devices to achieve victory. Learning about logical fallacies is fascinating though, helps expand your understanding and perception even if you refrain from using them.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

200 Reply by Haven (edited by Haven 2005-10-27 22:17:53)

  • Haven
  • Haven
  • bull in a china shop
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-11-24

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Here's my skepticism regarding the gray reality and agenda, based on experience.  I have experienced misperception.  I have looked straight at a word, read it one way, then realized it was not that word.  That shows me that the mind can be led to believe something based on familiarity, leading me to believe that if one surrounds themselves with a belief, they will interpret their reality around that belief.  I have experienced sleep paralysis, and the feeling that something was coming down the hallway or was already very near.  I have experienced "attacks" while asleep, and, if I believed in aliens wholeheartedly, "knowing" exactly what they were, I would have been inclined to call them that, because I have been exposed to people describing their experience as such, but I know that that is an assumption on my part.  I have experienced thinking I was awake, only to wake up exactly where I had been, in a moment, leading me to believe that one can imagine one's self to be other than where they believe.  I have experienced seeing things that were not there, even though they were seemingly as real as you or I, while drifting off to sleep, but these visions went away when I roused myself from that state of mind.  I have woken up thinking that a dream I had was what had happened, though I know that it didn't.  It didn't involve grays, it involved incidences with people about situations that didn't occur.  I have wondered to myself if that situation had happened, or if it was a dream, and knowing later that it was a dream, because it never really happened, but I was honestly convinced that it may have happened before realizing it hadn't, which leads me to believe that memory is deceptive.  I have experienced having distorted memories of everyday things, only to realize I had been wrong, leading me to believe that this is a common occurance.  I have experienced strange thoughts that seemed to make perfect sense while drifting off to sleep, leading me to conclude that perception is far different than conscious perception.  I have experienced people be adamant about their perception when I knew it was false, because it would involve my motives.  I have experienced placing my perception aside and seeing it from their point of view, knowing full well that what they were perceiving was not the objective truth, regarding these motives, and seeing what they were seeing, and know why they were convinced about their perception, because, in their context, it made sense.  I have experienced interpreting reality through different filters: higher self did it, God did it, it was all chance, etc., and they all made just as much sense in certain contexts.

So, yes, I base my conclusions on experience.  The thing about experience being the end all of arguments is that every individual must seperate himself from every other person who experiences anything, because another's experience is not your own, and we all know that people interpret reality differently based on preconceptions, pro- or anti- anything.

As for skepticism itself, I have experienced agnosticism so great that it cleaned me out and led me to a better, more benevolent truth.  I can't say skepticism is a bad thing, because it leads to a higher truth.  Once one accepts a version of truth, all other versions stop being filtered adequately.  I don't think being neutral is the same as being biased, because I am not arguing for another truth, just not one version of the truth.  Skepticism, which led to my former agnosticism, had freed me from a lot of programmed methods of thinking.

And so on.

Just wanted to add, whether these are logical fallacies or not, they are conclusions based on experiences and familiarity.  We are all doing this sort of concluding in our own way with our own faulty logic.

* When we start identifying wisdom with our ability to comprehend its form, what wisdom is that?
* Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
* People want platitudes, not progress.

201 Reply by Saracen (edited by Saracen 2005-10-27 22:13:11)

  • From: stranded in Iowa
  • Registered: 2004-07-06

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

montalk wrote:

Tenetnosce, one thing I always found funny about debate tournaments is that the same set of issues are debated year after year, meaning nothing is ever resolved beyond argument. Guess it's not about who is right or wrong, but how well the parties have debated. As a verbal sport I can see how this might be fun. But outside the sport, to me it seems irreverant to place truth and logic on an equal level with lies and deceit as convenient devices to achieve victory. Learning about logical fallacies is fascinating though, helps expand your understanding and perception even if you refrain from using them.

Montalk....I agree 100%. Like the term "innovation", "debate" has lost its meaning. At no point does one side concede that the other has proven their point beyond all reasonable doubt. Nothing is ever resolved and nothing is ever settled.

They should just call them "arguments" and be done with it.

Saracen

"We will not go quietly into the night, We will not give up without a fight...."
  • From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

montalk wrote:

Tenetnosce, one thing I always found funny about debate tournaments is that the same set of issues are debated year after year, meaning nothing is ever resolved beyond argument. Guess it's not about who is right or wrong, but how well the parties have debated. As a verbal sport I can see how this might be fun. But outside the sport, to me it seems irreverant to place truth and logic on an equal level with lies and deceit as convenient devices to achieve victory. Learning about logical fallacies is fascinating though, helps expand your understanding and perception even if you refrain from using them.

Plus you can get really cool ribbons! wink

Saracen wrote:

They should just call them "arguments" and be done with it.

You guys are missing the point.  It's about the RIBBONS!!!

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

tenetnosce wrote:

You guys are missing the point.  It's about the RIBBONS!!!

Haha, that's awesome. Come to think of it, only in a debate tournament can a gray win a ribbon for successfully arguing that grays do not exist.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

204 Reply by morningsun76 (edited by morningsun76 2005-10-28 00:22:31)

  • morningsun76
  • morningsun76
  • the answer has been with you the whole time
  • Offline
  • From: In two worlds
  • Registered: 2004-09-10

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Haven wrote:

Skepticism, which led to my former agnosticism, had freed me from a lot of programmed methods of thinking.

I think it's great that your skepticism has served a valuable purpose for you in helping to open your mind.  I wonder if it will be the ultimate way of thinking for you, or if will be just a marker along the road.   I say this because I find skepticism to be pretty much the opposite pole of most religious beliefs, but sometimes delivering us just as far in the other direction from that center point of truth.  Where dogmatic religions say certain things are true regardless of the actual evidence, skepticism says certain things are not true unless shown conclusively to be so according to an often unattainable burden of proof.  Both religion and skepticism can serve to blind their adherents to the truth when that truth does not fit into the particular way of thinking.

Many people of the eighteenth century, including those who had been educated in the finest schools of the time, KNEW that "heavier than air flight is impossible" based on what they had been taught by the science of the day.   With regard to the very possibility of aviation they would be extreme skeptics.  If they were magically transported to the modern day, they might have a hard time accepting the fact that an F-16 was flying over their head, even if an F-16 really DID fly over their head.   They'd probably think they were hallucinating or perhaps witnessing some new kind of comet.  To the rest of us, their error would be obvious and laughable.

Likewise, a modern skeptic might see a flying disc with their own eyes, but because they can't prove it was really a disc, they would very likely dismiss the incident and just assume that it was one of the following: an optical illusion, a mistake of their eyes or perceptive faculties, their mind playing tricks on them after seeing a UFO program on TV, the human being's inability to grasp reality, or any other number of "more rational" explanations -- anything other than their actually having seen a flying saucer.   When the simple fact is they just saw one and either can't wrap their minds around the fact that it's real (a phenomenon in psychology called cognitive dissonance), or just flat out -- as a skeptic -- refuse to do so because they weren't able to capture any "physical evidence" from the experience.   According to this way of thinking, since they don't have a piece of it, they will not believe it's real.  But just like a Christian fundamentalist who says "I don't believe in UFOs because they're not in the Bible," and just like my hypothetical 18th century person who didn't believe he saw an F-16, the modern skeptical UFO witness would be just as much in error.  And the errors of all three would be directly attributable to their CHOSEN way of thinking.

I think that for many people who have attained a certain level of education, intellectual prowess and life experience, it's best to cast off both religious AND skeptical ways of thinking, and replace them with a framework that says "what's the most likely explanation for this based on my direct perceptions, intellectual knowledge, AND inner guidance, all used together in a proper balance?"    Approaching life experiences from that perspective, I think, would help bring us that much closer to correctly perceiving the ultimate reality of things.

205 Reply by Haven (edited by Haven 2005-10-28 08:21:50)

  • Haven
  • Haven
  • bull in a china shop
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-11-24

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

I think I have found a good balance between gnosticism and skepticism, myself.  I suspend disbelief enough that I am open to other ideas, and I consider these ideas whether I personally believe they could happen or not.  Never am I one of those that thinks something just isn't true based on my own experience.  Every time I see a picture or hear an eyewitness UFO, I don't believe or disbelieve, but I look at it with fresh eyes.  I don't dismiss UFOs as optical illusions, or anything else.  If something is unknown, I leave it unknown.  I don't base a conclusion on it unless I am pretty sure what it seems to be.  If an F-16 flew over my head (and anybody else's) while I lived back in history, I wouldn't just assume that it wasn't real.  I would think something strange just happened.  Same with abductions.  I listen to the accounts as if is truth, in order to take in all the information.    However, I do not blindly believe things, either.  I have not formed an opinion on whether the grays are good and bad, because I take into account my experiences with the mind, and have to be critical of ideas gathered from questionable means.

I think what's happened here is that a decision about my skepticism has been made.  I don't know how I went from skeptic of the nature of the grays to debunker in some views.  I have merely not formed an opinion on certain things, and am always open to reinterpretation of anything I know.

And some will note that I have religious/spiritual beliefs.

* When we start identifying wisdom with our ability to comprehend its form, what wisdom is that?
* Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
* People want platitudes, not progress.
  • From: LA
  • Registered: 2005-09-18

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Haven wrote:

I think I have found a good balance between gnosticism and skepticism, myself.  I suspend disbelief enough that I am open to other ideas, and I consider these ideas whether I personally believe they could happen or not.  Never am I one of those that thinks something just isn't true based on my own experience.  Every time I see a picture or hear an eyewitness UFO, I don't believe or disbelieve, but I look at it with fresh eyes.  I don't dismiss UFOs as optical illusions, or anything else.  If something is unknown, I leave it unknown.  I don't base a conclusion on it unless I am pretty sure what it seems to be.  If an F-16 flew over my head (and anybody else's) while I lived back in history, I wouldn't just assume that it wasn't real.  I would think something strange just happened.  Same with abductions.  I listen to the accounts as if is truth, in order to take in all the information.    However, I do not blindly believe things, either.  I have not formed an opinion on whether the grays are good and bad, because I take into account my experiences with the mind, and have to be critical of ideas gathered from questionable means.

I think what's happened here is that a decision about my skepticism has been made.  I don't know how I went from skeptic of the nature of the grays to debunker in some views.  I have merely not formed an opinion on certain things, and am always open to reinterpretation of anything I know.

And some will note that I have religious/spiritual beliefs.

Hi Haven,

I understand your point of view but you may fall in a trap on which you are waiting for the ultimate proof before you make up your mind one way or the other.  It will be like waiting for an alien to come face to face with you and say "for the record I am abducting you today".  Let us hope it does not come to that.  Consider my approach if you would............kind of simplistic but there is logic to it.

1.  We are not alone in the universe.  The universe is immense.  To think otherwise would be foolish.   There must be other beings out there.   Visual/audio and other tangible proofs will further reinforce my initial assesment when they become available.

2. Since aliens exist some are smarter than us.  In fact some are capable of space traveling thru the vast universe. 

3. Since some of these aliens travel all over the universe some have been here on Earth.

4. Some of these aliens are benign some are well let's just say don't have our best interest.

5. Since they are more advanced, logically, they are curious about our race and will consider gathering some data.

6. The ones that decide to engage and gather some data are doing for three reasons (that I can think off at this time):
                           a. Out of intelectual curiosity
                           b. to help our race
                           c. to help themselves by using us

7. To gather this information direct study of the human body is required.  This will require an abduction.

By pure logic you can theorize on what the outcome might be.  You can further expand or contract your theory as new information comes in.  Always keep your mind open even to the point that you may choose to debunk your theory for new evidence is available and it puts a hole on your initial assestment.

207 Reply by Haven

  • Haven
  • Haven
  • bull in a china shop
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-11-24

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Thanks for the input, why.

I am not discounting the possibility of alien life existing.  I am wondering what the nature of these aliens we are experiencing is.  One cannot discount the possibility that it is inner space that these being are originating, or that we interpret these beings according to our reality.  In history, people witnessed demons, and interpreted it that way.  What was once fairies taking you to another world is now alien abductions, in some views.  If you take into account the myriad accounts of alien encounters, you'll find that they have a range of appearance and behavior.  Now that we have been exposed to grays, the number of gray encounters has become mainstream.  One has to wonder why this is so.  Also, the assumption that good beings do not abduct people, along with other preconceptions about what is good and bad, isn't evidence that these beings have a bad agenda.  It is interpretation that is leading some people to believe the evil nature of grays, along with the realization that one is in a questionable state of mind upon abduction and the flawed methods, even if natural, of recall.  It is always after the fact, coming out of an altered state of mind, that this information is obtained.  Take into mind that people can be hypnotized and "experience" anything (during or after, think of performers who hypnotize a person into believing they are a superhero or another personality) a person wants them to.

Like I said, I'm not assuming aliens are good.  I'm just not assuming they are bad.  I assume that aliens are real, but I don't know in what capacity.

* When we start identifying wisdom with our ability to comprehend its form, what wisdom is that?
* Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
* People want platitudes, not progress.

208 Reply by whywhywhy (edited by whywhywhy 2005-10-28 09:49:05)

  • From: LA
  • Registered: 2005-09-18

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Haven wrote:

Thanks for the input, why.

Like I said, I'm not assuming aliens are good.  I'm just not assuming they are bad.  I assume that aliens are real, but I don't know in what capacity.

Both.  They are not Gods or the ultimate being so they have the capacity to be good or bad as far as human beings concept and view of the cosmos is concerned.  I would have to conclude that some level of data gathering is being done by these entities and some of this data is collected via abduction.  Just like we study lab rats and monkeys.  Their purpose being benign or malign does not justify performing tests on an individual without his/her consent.  It is a violation of that individual "free will".  We are doing exactly the same things to lab animals in our quest to find solutions and cures to human problems and diseases.  In a way the perpetrators of these lab test are just as bad as those aliens comitting the abductions.

209 Reply by tenetnosce (edited by tenetnosce 2005-10-28 10:25:36)

  • From: The Singularity
  • Registered: 2005-09-23

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Haven wrote:

Also, the assumption that good beings do not abduct people, along with other preconceptions about what is good and bad, isn't evidence that these beings have a bad agenda.

The word abduction is not really open to interpretation.  It means taking somebody against their will.  Otherwise it would be an encounter.  This thread is talking about abductions, not encounters.

Saying that a tree may not really be a tree because somebody else may define firetruck as a tree is a fine philosophical commentary on the subjectivity of language, but does not provide any useful information about trees.

Our "preconceptions" about what is really good and bad here has everything to do with how we interpret freewill. 

Is restricting or limiting the freewill of another being a positive thing to do?

Some would say not only is it positive, it is necessary.  The Universe definitely provides for this viewpoint.  This viewpoint says that, left to their own devices, humans would destroy themselves.  Hence we need to be controlled for our own greater good. 

Alien abductions may serve a "higher purpose" but is it the only means to the end?

Again, the emphasis is on abduction.

It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.

210 Reply by Haven

  • Haven
  • Haven
  • bull in a china shop
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-11-24

Re: Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk

Okay, if we are to go on the assumption of there being laws of freewill, how can we say what is freewill and what isn't?  Isn't it a common belief that we experience things for our own good, whether for good or for bad?  So everytime the universe or higher self doesn't consult me, am I to say that my freewill has been violated because I have not stipulated exactly what is okay and what is off limits?  (Reminds me of the belief that if we are not aware of it, it is the same as saying yes.)  I see that the assumption is that freewill works on a more subtle level.

* When we start identifying wisdom with our ability to comprehend its form, what wisdom is that?
* Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
* People want platitudes, not progress.