In my first essay in the Axin' the Axioms series I touched on the prevalent axiom used by most humans with regard to foreign species of intelligent life. In this essay I would like to explore this axiom in depth.
This is an opportune time to publish this essay considering three recent takedowns of UFOs in just as many days. There has been much public questioning on whether these UFOs are related to foreign species of intelligent life. While that remains to be seen it is nevertheless an opportune time in society to openly discuss matters related to foreign species of intelligent life.
However these recent takedowns are not the first nor only instances of documented human interactions with UFOs. Indeed recently the government declassified video of fighter pilots' interactions with UFOs. It is important to understand that when the United States government declassifies such videos it means that they've ruled out the possibility that the phenomena were related to other countries, such as China or Russia.
Here is a link to three distinct declassified videos of US military pilots recording UFOs while in flight. These videos were declassified a couple of years ago. That is the United States government acknowledged that these UFOs are beyond human comprehension at this point. We simply don't have an explanation for them.
These videos are profoundly fascinating considering the government does not have an explanation for them. What is flying in these videos?
The greatest concern is that the scientific community is relatively uninterested in attempting to understand these phenomena. Indeed the modern scientific community is more concerned with being the most popular researcher in the room than it is with actual knowledge production.
Here we have objective phenomena acknowledged by the United States government. These objective phenomena defy human comprehension. Normally when we encounter objective phenomena that defy human comprehension there are numerous scientists and researchers interested in understanding the phenomena. This is just how science tends to function. Science does not like unanswered questions.
It is here that we find the Insidious influence of yet another absurd axiom. Why is the global research community disinterested in these phenomena?
Perhaps if we apply the Axin' the Axiom tactic then we can understand this strange lack of interest in these phenomena.
"Are there other species of intelligent life in the universe?"
What is your presumed truth to this question? We have yet to produce knowledge that verifies the existence of foreign species of intelligent life, despite an abundance of verifiable and documented phenomena suggesting such.
Indeed there is no shortage of evidence for foreign species of intelligent life. However this evidence has not been organized in a coherent manner such that we can properly produce knowledge upon it.
We have declassified videos here; eyewitness testimony there; as well as the probability that we are not alone in this universe due only to its massive size.
However despite this disparate evidence there is no broad agreement that there's any species of intelligent life in the universe beyond human.
Perhaps part of the problem is the deductive paradigm in which we live. The institution of science is structured to expect deductive experimentation and reasoning. However certain branches of knowledge are better suited for inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is an epistemological trick that produces large amounts of knowledge from little bits of information. However there are shortcomings to this process. A prudent researcher chooses the right tool to be able to produce knowledge.
In the case of ufos/uaps/foreign species of intelligent life, inductive reasoning is the wiser choice. We already have a large and disparate body of knowledge surrounding ufos. Indeed all the various forms of documentation over the years can be utilized through inductive reasoning. That is, all of these data points can be analyzed for the presence of logical relationships among them. This is inductive reasoning in it's most basic form.
My question is: what is the guiding axiom to answer the aforementioned question? That is when we ask ourselves, "are we the only species of intelligent life in the universe?" how do we arrive at the presumed truth that we are?
This is where we find the utility of the Axin' the Axiom tactic.
Perhaps The guiding axiom can be articulated as such:
"We presume it to be true that humans are the only species of intelligent life in the universe unless and until we can develop the technology to scour the entire universe to falsify our presumption that we are the only species of intelligent life in the universe"
Axioms function much like hypotheses in the sense that they can be falsified. Indeed our presumed truth may turn out to be false.
So we begin by looking at the falsified state. That is, when do we have no choice but to accept that there are foreign species of intelligent life beyond human?
How would we arrive at that falsified state?
Well, we either find them or they find us.
If they find us then they have falsified our hypothesis. Thus, I did not include the possibility that foreign species of intelligent life would falsify our hypothesis in my "guiding axiom."
In other words, as explorers of reality who formulate axioms, we cannot presume that something else will falsify it for us. While that is a possibility, it is outside of our own exploration of reality, and thus control. Furthermore if we presume it to be true that they find us first, then didn't we have as an axiom that there are other species of intelligent life? Let's examine this.
"We presume that humans are the only species of intelligent life in the universe unless and until another species finds us."
The reason that this doesn't work well as an axiom is because it contains another axiom that contradicts it. That is it presumes that there is another species that can find us. Thus, if we presume that the foreign species of intelligent life will falsify our axiom for us, then we simultaneously presume that they exist.
Put in another way, our axioms depend on us alone. We are the ones that must investigate reality. We cannot expect reality to investigate itself on our behalf and "report to us," as the second axiom suggests.
The only way for us to test our own axioms about reality would be to develop the technology to scour the entire universe to see if there are other forms of intelligent life.
This is what guides our behavior. That is we engage in behaviors that are aligned with our axiom, after all we are the ones that have the responsibility to verify or falsify our own axioms. When we presume it to be true that we're the only species of intelligent life in the universe unless and until we develop appropriately advanced technologies, we might find ourselves engaging in isolating behaviors such as shooting down UFO's, or not directing the scientific community to investigate UFO phenomena in declassified government videos, among other evidence.
Our axiom is working against our own best interest. If human civilization can manage to survive the current challenges that it faces, there is no telling how long it would take our species to develop said technologies to scour the entire known universe. This is really an absurd expectation on the part of the human species.
Clearly, a more appropriate axiom is to presume that we are not the only species of intelligent life in the universe and to organize our civilization to meaningfully prepare for interactions with foreign species, even if it does not come within our own lifetimes. In other words a wise axiom would have us organize our own civilization such that subsequent human generations will be prepared to engage with foreign species of intelligent life.
VERIFIED UFO PHENOMENA ON THE ARC OF KNOWLEDGE
What happens when we place these documented and verified instances of contact with UFOs on the Arc of knowledge? Interestingly enough, we don't have to have much knowledge about something to place it on the Arc of knowledge. Indeed using the Arc of knowledge will assist us in seeing how we can meaningfully produce knowledge on these phenomena.
So if we place the UFOs in the three government videos at the top of the Arc of knowledge what do we find to the left? That is what are the constituent components or prerequisite knowledge of the UFOs?
First we can acknowledge that the left side of the arc is not going to extend very far and that's why we consider them unidentified flying objects. However this does not mean that we cannot produce any knowledge upon them.
We recognize that these phenomena are tangible. That is they were able to be recorded with our video technology. This means that light bounced off of an object in a meaningful manner to produce an image on the video (as well as in the human eye).
We recognize these phenomena fly in a manner that is more advanced than our comprehension. That is we recognize that we don't understand how these phenomena engage with reality.
We also recognize that these phenomena have occurred on numerous occasions. Indeed, the government released three distinct videos and that is in addition to decades of disparate evidence including other forms of video evidence of UFOs.
We recognize that the phenomena themselves are properly produced knowledge in that exist on their own arc of knowledge. That is there are constituent components to these phenomena, whether or not we understand them. Furthermore, these phenomena have the potential to be built upon, as indicated by the right side of the Arc of knowledge. That is these phenomena can engage in activity that we probably won't understand because we don't understand its constituent components. However we recognize that there is potential found on the right side of the ark, even if we can't understand it.
So now let's put what we do know about the constituent components of these phenomena together in an attempt to create a useful coherent whole upon which to produce knowledge on the right side of the ark.
We see that these phenomena are tangible, they are more advanced than we can understand, they have occurred on numerous occasions, and they each exist on their own arc of knowledge as forms of properly produced knowledge.
What does all this suggest for the right side of the ark? That is, what is our human capacity to build knowledge upon what scant knowledge we currently have?
This is a worthwhile venture because as we produce knowledge upon these phenomena, we will be able to produce more knowledge upon this original knowledge. This is how knowledge production works.
Indeed we have to start somewhere.
THE IDEAL FIRST STEP FOR PRODUCING KNOWLEDGE ON UFOS: THE BUNNY AND DOG MODEL
We know that we have scant information on these phenomena. The ideal first step at this point in Civilization is to create a global legal structure for interactions with foreign species.
In other words, we need to create a specific set of laws for foreign species.
Why is this the ideal course of action? That is why is this the proper knowledge to produce?
We have already recognized that these phenomena are tangible and more advanced than we can understand. For that reason I'm going to apply a model that I like to call "bunnies and dogs".
I love bunnies as they are incredibly cute creatures. Bunnies also recognize that they are animals of prey. That is pretty much anything that wants to eat a bunny is going to eat a bunny. Bunnies construct their entire lives around this. They live under the ground and are nocturnal so that they can avoid the predators that want to eat them. Indeed dogs are one type of animal that love to eat bunnies.
However domesticated bunnies and domesticated dogs oftentimes get along. There are numerous households across the world in which dogs and bunnies live harmoniously together. These domesticated dogs can eat the bunnies but choose not to. For this reason it is an ideal model to use to approach crafting a legal structure for foreign species.
We acknowledge that these phenomena are more advanced than we can understand. Put simply we are in the role of the bunny and these phenomena are in the role of the dogs. As they are more advanced we have to use as an axiom that they can destroy us, or otherwise adversely affect us, if they want to. Indeed we can never forget that these phenomena found us first. However much like the dogs and bunnies in my example, just because they have capabilities that can overpower us doesn't mean that they intend to. This is a really important point as we cannot approach foreign species in a paranoid state and try to presume that just because they can hurt us that they intend to. When we shoot down UFOs we pretty much send that message.
I don't care how badly a bunny wants to overpower a dog, it's just not going to happen. Indeed as soon as the bunny discards the possibility of friendship with the dog and engages in hostile action against it, the dog is going to defend itself and probably just eat the bunny.
We want to avoid this when dealing with foreign species of intelligent life. This is why I recommend crafting a legal structure.
In our example the bunny avoids the normal Predator-prey relationship with the dog by being friendly and humble. That is the bunny does not present itself as a threat to the dog. Instead it learns to acquiesce to the dog and keep the dog happy.
A legal structure is the ideal way to engage with foreign species of intelligent life. That is, we can use a legal structure to create a fair and balanced coexistence on planet Earth.
It doesn't matter that the dogs came into our "bunny home". The only sensible response in such a scenario is to make friends with the dog. Once again shooting down UFOs is not a good way to make friends with a more advanced species of intelligent life. Indeed it is unclear why the United States military did not attempt to acquire the object prior to destroying it. Indeed this would have provided more useful information than debris.
However we also recognize that we want to preserve our "bunny home" as much as possible. This is why a legal structure makes sense. We can codify how to preserve human civilization and how to respect the unique needs of an animal that we don't have any understanding of.
We cannot expect these intelligent animals to conform to our backward civilization. Indeed we cannot even get along as a single species. A legal structure would protect the interests of the foreign species as well as those of humans.
We could create a set of rules for them to follow while on our planet. In exchange we would alter our behavior to accommodate them. Indeed broad social conversation on a legal structure for foreign species would reduce unnecessary fears of the unknown in humans.
FOUNDATIONAL IDEAS FOR A LEGAL STRUCTURE FOR FOREIGN SPECIES
Let us use the 1980s sitcom ALF as an inspiration. As you may recall Alf loved to eat cats. However cats are domesticated pets in the modern American culture. That is they are considered our friends and part of our family. Any cat owner would not want a foreign species coming by and eating their cat. In the sitcom ALF, the human family refused to validate this part of his diet. We can learn from this.
What happens if visiting foreign species have a unique need or habit that is completely contradictory to our expectations? That is what if the foreign species consume something important to us as a part of their diet?
It is here that we would accommodate them in our legal structure but make specifications for when and how they can acquire what they need. To use the ALF example, we could create a "cat dispensary" and the foreign species could only acquire cats from the cat dispensary.
In other words, for any major difference between the species, we could create specific channels for them to get what they need as animals and still respect our culture. We could present the legal structure to them and indicate that they are expected to follow it while residing on Earth.
Another foundational idea would be to demarcate land specifically for them. Due to the divergent manners in which humans across the world would respond to foreign species of intelligent life, I suggest demarcating Islands or other remote lands, away from human civilization for foreign species.
In other words we could direct them to a specific place in order to live while they reside on Earth.
Another foundational idea would be to have a body of observers from every linguistic culture on Earth to provide their interpretation of the foreign species' behavior.
Indeed different linguistic cultures interpret behavior in different manners. Some of this is due to the conceptual limits of language itself. That is some languages have ideas for certain phenomena, and other languages simply don't. For example in Chinese there is the word chi. This is translatable into Sanskrit as the word prana. That is these two linguistic cultures have words to describe a phenomenon that does not exist in the English speaking world, that of a subtle and invisible universal energy. Indeed we had to borrow these words from Chinese and Sanskrit and incorporate them into English.
Put simply, the conceptual system available in a linguistic culture influences interpretation of objective phenomena.
The purpose of having observers from every linguistic culture on Earth is to counteract the natural bias that might occur when a single linguistic culture is able to govern the linguistic production of knowledge.
Instead my foundational recommendation would be to analyze all these different interpretations for similarities and differences. In other words when an English speaker observes these foreign species behaviors what do they think versus a Chinese speaker? There are thousands of distinct linguistic cultures on Earth. Finding similarities among them may help us to properly interpret the behavior of the foreign species.
Another foundation idea would be providing proper security in the event that the foreign species engage with or near the public. We acknowledge that some members of the public are not capable of handling interactions with phenomena that are outside their personal expectations.
This means that our legal structure for foreign species would have to integrate with the human legal structure. Which jurisdiction would be responsible for protecting the foreign species? And why?
Perhaps one of the most important elements of developing a legal structure for foreign species is to legitimize social conversation on the topic. This can help reduce fears of the unknown in humans across the world.
Indeed as we have yet to engage in overt contact with foreign species, we have the space in order to have a discussion amongst ourselves.
What would you recommend for a legal structure for foreign species and why?
A COROLLARY OF CRAFTING A LEGAL STRUCTURE FOR FOREIGN SPECIES
A broad social conversation on the elements for a legal structure for foreign species could counteract the absurdities of the modern mental hell-th system. It is not crazy to have conversations on foreign species of intelligent life. Indeed at this point it should be considered crazy to not have such discussions.
The axiom has been axed!
However our modern mental hell-th system acts as the gatekeepers for the norms of the dominant class. Indeed when behaviors slip through the cracks of the criminal Justice system, mental hell-th laws are in place to "criminalize" strange behaviors that are otherwise not criminal.
Put simply the modern mental hell-th system is an arm of social control for the dominant class. The first arm is the criminal justice system, and when that can't reach an individual there are mental hell-th laws to coerce them into cultural conformity.
Tragically, some of the behaviors that can be considered evidence of a broken brain and sufficient to steal broad civil liberties from an individual are the following assertions:
Asserting that one is a foreign species of intelligent life
Asserting that one has had communication with foreign species of intelligent life
Neither of these are meaningful evidence of a broken human brain, which itself has not been shown to be properly produced knowledge. They are merely deviations from the expectations of the dominant class, labelled with the lexicon of sickness.
Indeed the dominant class is guided by the absurd axiom that has been addressed in this essay. It is simply more convenient for members of the dominant class to not allow talk of foreign species of intelligent life into the conversation. Mental hell-th laws assist the dominant class in being able to suppress talk of foreign species of intelligent life.
Why would anyone want to be tortured for claiming associations with or status as a foreign species of intelligent life?
Indeed this very element of our legal structure would need to be significantly revised (repealed!) in order to accommodate foreign species. That is we cannot create a legal structure specifically for foreign species of intelligent life and simultaneously maintain mental hell-th laws that justify torture of anyone who engages in discussions of foreign species of intelligent life outside the expectations of the dominant class.
Referring back to the bunny and dog model, we as bunnies need to create a safe space for the dogs who may come into our home, perhaps in a manner that we cannot even anticipate.
We would want to show them that we maintain a civilization that welcomes differences between our species. Torturing those who claim status as a foreign species or who claim to have communication with foreign species is a terrible way to approach this. It is an excellent way to create a hostile environment for the dogs. Indeed there is no wisdom in this approach.
By having a broad social conversation on crafting a legal structure for foreign species of intelligent life we would simultaneously shift the cultural norms to create a social milieu in which these conversations are not just tolerated, but rather encouraged.
Thus, the clear advantage of applying the Arc of knowledge to UFOs is that broad and positive social changes can come of it. These broad social changes would be founded in shifting the norms of what is considered acceptable in our social milieu. In other words, for human civilization the potential on the right side of the arc of knowledge is to change the way 7 billion humans think about foreign species.
This is imperative for the evolution of our species and wise for any potential interactions with foreign species of intelligent life that are obviously more advanced than us, as they found us.
Thank you and have a Content day
Sean