PDA

View Full Version : Aliens would find us boring.


Algebra
12-21-2009, 08:39 AM
Lets say hypertheticaly that aliens discover us here on earth and begin watching and annylizing us.

Would'nt they find the fact that we seem unable to forget about the past and move on in our proggresion towards true scintific and spiritual understanding tedius.

Who cares what jesus said thousands of years ago. (whether or not you believe it to be true) What bearing does it have on the problems and challenges we face today. Unless we get out of the habit of discovering something and then back checking it to see if it fits with what the bible says or conforms with our current understanding of the physical. Then there is no scope for the kind of genius that allowed Einsien to come up with the theory of relativity etc. It hit him in an instant and then he spent years proving it was possible. Not by searching what had been before but by poening his mind and allowing the birth of a new system.

We need to be constantly creating new languages and models that describe not what we know already. But whats out there in the universal language, field or matrix, to be discovered when independant of previouse laws and rules.


"Look inside the eye of your mind, dont you know you might find. A better place to play" - Noel gallagher

HagarHorrible
12-31-2009, 07:56 AM
It depends on what you would define as "interesting".

Curiosity on our speed of development of technology and our global population explosion may be a good scientific study. From the last 11,000 years, our development in both technology and population is barely nothing compared to the last 200 years where humankind increased our population 5X and technologically advanced in phenomenal rate.

This still ruled by both concepts of religion and money, which are actually restricting our progress and dooming us towards decline. It shows humankind cannot mature mentally in intellect to match our technological advancement. And we are destroying the earth in the process.

SO, I can conclude that human-kind is not just interesting (because of greed and stupidity) but worthy of SAVING. It will be such a waste if we are doomed because a few leaders wanted global power.:)

jane doe
12-31-2009, 10:33 AM
Maybe Aliens are dissatisfied with their existence and find simplification equating with human. Or perhaps we are the comedy club on the circular zoo.

socrateeze
01-17-2010, 03:22 PM
They are here,always have been, and are soon to make their prescence known.Have a look at this pic from Egypt above a temple gate.

upagainstit
02-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Maybe Aliens are dissatisfied with their existence and find simplification equating with human. Or perhaps we are the comedy club on the circular zoo.

IMO:
They don't appear to be dissatisfied at their end.
Their bad news as far as us humans go.

They are quite hilarious about us.

upagainstit
02-28-2010, 11:11 PM
They are here,always have been, and are soon to make their prescence known.Have a look at this pic from Egypt above a temple gate.

They have no intentions of making themselves known to us.
At least, not the ones, I'm in contact with.

Re: at the bottom of your post quoted here,
the picture must have divided it.(?)

Anyway:
They do want to keep us in the dark.
They don't want us to catch on to anything,
when it comes to - being.

upagainstit
02-28-2010, 11:14 PM
It depends on what you would define as "interesting".

Curiosity on our speed of development of technology and our global population explosion may be a good scientific study. From the last 11,000 years, our development in both technology and population is barely nothing compared to the last 200 years where humankind increased our population 5X and technologically advanced in phenomenal rate.

This still ruled by both concepts of religion and money, which are actually restricting our progress and dooming us towards decline. It shows humankind cannot mature mentally in intellect to match our technological advancement. And we are destroying the earth in the process.

SO, I can conclude that human-kind is not just interesting (because of greed and stupidity) but worthy of SAVING. It will be such a waste if we are doomed because a few leaders wanted global power.:)

It's all in the cards and then some.....

BlueAngel
02-28-2010, 11:17 PM
It's all in the cards and then some.....

Yep.

It's all in those cards and then some...

upagainstit
02-28-2010, 11:27 PM
Lets say hypertheticaly that aliens discover us here on earth and begin watching and annylizing us.

Not hypothetical in my mind.

Would'nt they find the fact that we seem unable to forget about the past and move on in our proggresion towards true scintific and spiritual understanding tedius.

Want us wallowing in the past. Don't want us to advance.

Who cares what jesus said thousands of years ago. (whether or not you believe it to be true) What bearing does it have on the problems and challenges we face today. Unless we get out of the habit of discovering something and then back checking it to see if it fits with what the bible says or conforms with our current understanding of the physical. Then there is no scope for the kind of genius that allowed Einsien to come up with the theory of relativity etc. It hit him in an instant and then he spent years proving it was possible. Not by searching what had been before but by poening his mind and allowing the birth of a new system.

First part of the above paragraph anyway: they'll be diehards.
To impede our progress from in ourselves.
Have us looking - out away from - our selves.

We need to be constantly creating new languages and models that describe not what we know already. But whats out there in the universal language, field or matrix, to be discovered when independant of previouse laws and rules.

For sure we need to discover.
They don't want us to, though.
For now, their calling the shots and we are following.
IMO


"Look inside the eye of your mind, dont you know you might find. A better place to play" - Noel gallagher

Turns out to be, the way things are going with me.
Mostly from being "induced".

upagainstit
02-28-2010, 11:31 PM
This didn't show up when quoting your post previously.

by Algebra -
All the knowledge we have is created by us. Can we be trusted?

Quite unlikely.

BlueAngel
02-28-2010, 11:40 PM
Turns out to be, the way things are going with me.
Mostly from being "induced".

How is it you are being induced?

BlueAngel
02-28-2010, 11:41 PM
This didn't show up when quoting your post previously.

by Algebra -
All the knowledge we have is created by us. Can we be trusted?

Quite unlikely.

Don't you love how some of the members of CC speak as if they speak for all of us.

As in Algebra's post.

Can WE be trusted?

Speak for yourself.

Do away with the WE.

Ask if YOU can be trusted and not if WE can be trusted.

I trust myself inexplicably.

And, upagainst it replies:

Quite unlikely.

upagainstit doesn't trust himself.

upagainstit
02-28-2010, 11:58 PM
Don't you love how some of the members of CC speak as if they speak for all of us.

As in Algebra's post.

Can WE be trusted?

Speak for yourself, pal.

Do away with the WE.

We mix it both ways. Sometimes we say ourselves.
Sometimes we seem to include people with us.

Ask if YOU can be trusted and not if WE can be trusted.

We probably all TRUST ourselves. We probably can't be "trusted" by
others, purely. There WILL be times, when one, cannot be overlooked.

I trust myself inexplicably.

Your trusting yourself so, probably won't do anything for me, from you.
You have lots of post. You show through, however, we see you.

And, upagainst it replies:

Quite unlikely.

upagainstit doesn't trust himself.

Your editing kept getting in the way of my trying to post,
to your comment at first.

I actually trust the "I" of me.
Not too cozy with the rest of me.
Mighty fine lines in here.

Other comments are in bold in quoted above.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 12:03 AM
Your editing kept getting in the way of my trying to post,
to your comment at first.

I actually trust the "I" of me.
Not too cozy with the rest of me.
Mighty fine lines in here.

Other comments are in bold in quoted above.

So sorry my editing interfered with your trying to post to my comment.

Like I said, do away with the WE.

Speak for yourself.

Or, don't speak at all.

I, personally, don't care about your other comments that are in bold.

You trust the "I" of "me."

Do you realize that "I' and "me" are one in the same or, in your case, are they split?

Like in SPLIT personalities?

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 12:07 AM
How is it you are being induced?

Some kind of "automatically" happening - machine workings.

Chances are it's(?) on - involuntary mode - now, anymore.

Trying to crank me out - differnt of - however I will be.

Got my head above the water-line, as far as "I" go.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 12:12 AM
Some kind of "automatically" happening - machine workings.

Chances are it's(?) on - involuntary mode - now, anymore.

Trying to crank me out - differnt of - however I will be.

Got my head above the water-line, as far as "I" go.

Yep.

Chances are.

That involuntary mode, forevermore.

Different as you may be, however it is.

Crank it out, head above that water-line.

As far as you go, we'll see.

Those automatically happening machine workings.

What a b*tch.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it people?

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 12:18 AM
So sorry my editing interfered with your trying to post to my comment.

Like I said, do away with the WE.

Speak for yourself.

Or, don't speak at all.

I, personally, don't care about your other comments that are in bold.

We all decide for ourselves.
You don't care for it, yourself, personally, not our concern.
You - don't decide - for us.

You trust the "I" of "me."

Do you realize that "I' and "me" are one in the same or, in your case, are they split?

Like in SPLIT personalities?

For sure I realize that the - I and me - would be - one and the same.
Do you realize that - I and me - CAN be seperated.

I do not have a "split" personality, directly - as myself.
However, I can "already" be induced - as not outright I -
and for all - intents and purposes - I would see it as me.

Bottom line is - I am more I than I am me.

Sometimes I, include me, BUT we are not "outright" - one and the same.

Feel free to comment for more "clarity" if you need it.

Also other comment in quoted above in this post.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 12:33 AM
For sure I realize that the - I and me - would be - one and the same.
Do you realize that - I and me - CAN be seperated.

I do not have a "split" personality, directly - as myself.
However, I can "already" be induced - as not outright I -
and for all - intents and purposes - I would see it as me.

Bottom line is - I am more I than I am me.

Sometimes I, include me, BUT we are not "outright" - one and the same.

Feel free to comment for more "clarity" if you need it.

Also other comment in quoted above in this post.

Trust me, I don't need you to tell me to feel free to comment about anything and asking you for more clarity is futile.

Sounds to me as if you have an identity crisis going on.

Do you realize that "I" and "Me" are one in the same?

Obviously not.

They can't be separated.

And, if they are, that means you are not one.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 12:41 AM
If you are not the "I" in "me" than who are you?

Three?

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 12:50 AM
Yep.

Chances are.

That involuntary mode, forevermore.

Different as you may be, however it is.

Crank it out, head above that water-line.

As far as you go, we'll see.

Those automatically happening machine workings.

What a b*tch.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it people?


Commenting on your question at the bottom.

People may not be that unaware - they are mostly in different states.
Most people - may not fight it.(?)
Most people - may not have a hard time with it.
IMO

Found this site - that has - maybe all - of Ralph Waldo Emersons' - essays -
Site Map: Emerson Texts (http://www.emersoncentral.com/sitemap.htm)
pretty-well, all of his writings, are - what I see - as like-minded - from within.
Where he writes from.
However: he gives the impression that he is "over-ridden",
more than I am of mind to be.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 12:56 AM
Commenting on your question at the bottom.

People may not be that unaware - they are mostly in different states.
Most people - may not fight it.(?)
Most people - may not have a hard time with it.
IMO

Found this site - that has - maybe all - of Ralph Waldo Emersons' - essays -
Site Map: Emerson Texts (http://www.emersoncentral.com/sitemap.htm)
pretty-well, all of his writings, are - what I see - as like-minded - from within.
Where he writes from.
However: he gives the impression that he is "over-ridden",
more than I am of mind to be.

Yes.

People are in different states of mind all the time.

That's normal.

However, you are stating that the "I" within the "me" of you is not one.

That is a totally different scenario.

That would indicate that you are not of one entity which is not the same as being in a different state of mind.

Tell us about it.

How and why did you separate/split?

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 01:02 AM
My assessment is that you are not of one entity.

Tell us about it.

How many of you are there and why?

I think the WHY is the most important question.

What caused you to separate?

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 01:04 AM
Trust me, I don't need you to tell me to feel free to comment about anything and asking you for more clarity is futile.

Sounds to me as if you have an identity crisis going on.

Do you realize that "I" and "Me" are one in the same?

Obviously not.

They can't be separated, pal.

And, if they are, that means you are not one.

1) No identity crisis going on - directly - as far as I go. Not now, anyway.

2) No secret that - I and me - "would" be - one and the same.

3) You, do not see them, as separatable.

4) Correct, I am not "one".
Meaning: I am not "together" - as "one" - in myself.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 01:08 AM
If you are not the "I" in "me" than who are you?

Three?

I - am - the I - of "me".

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 01:11 AM
1) No identity crisis going on - directly - as far as I go. Not now, anyway.

2) No secret that - I and me - "would" be - one and the same.

3) You, do not see them, as separatable.

4) Correct, I am not "one".
Meaning: I am not "together" - as "one" - in myself.

Correct.

"I" and "me" are one in the same and I would not see them as separate.

You do because you are not one in the same.

Yes.

I am correct.

You are not one; together.

Now.

Let's go from there.

Why are you more than one?

What happened?

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 01:23 AM
Yes.

People are in different states of mind all the time.

That's normal.

Not what I was referring to.

However, you are stating that the "I" within the "me" of you is not one.

That is a totally different scenario.

That would indicate that you are not of one entity which is not the same as being in a different state of mind.

Tell us about it.

How and why did you separate/split?

I would not be - within me.
I would be me.
Me is not I.

That's right - I and me - are not - one and the same - in being.

I don't have anything to do with it - being so - with me - like this.
It's been done to me.
I - not me - is winning out. In the long run.

ps: you (BA) - and I - are not - in the same way. We are different.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 01:33 AM
My assessment is that you are not of one entity.

Tell us about it.

How many of you are there and why?

I think the WHY is the most important question.

What caused you to separate?

Your assessment is correct. I am not "one" in myself.

There is only - one - I. However - I am dubbed over.
More so - in past - than the present.

As far as I know, the reason for it, would be,
above and beyond us in being
wants to be there - instead of "ones self".
Wants to be in control - instead of - oneself.
Doesn't want to be - oneself - instead of our self, though.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 01:35 AM
I would not be - within me.
I would be me.
Me is not I.

That's right - I and me - are not - one and the same - in being.

I don't have anything to do with it - being so - with me - like this.
It's been done to me.
I - not me - is winning out. In the long run.

ps: you (BA) - and I - are not - in the same way. We are different.

Really?

You and I are not in the same way.

We are different.

GOSH.

I never would have thunk it.

Thanks for enlightening me.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 01:37 AM
Your assessment is correct. I am not "one" in myself.

There is only - one - I. However - I am dubbed over.
More so - in past - than the present.

As far as I know, the reason for it, would be,
above and beyond us in being
wants to be there - instead of "ones self".
Wants to be in control - instead of - oneself.
Doesn't want to be - oneself - instead of our self, though.

From what I gather, you have an ENTITY within yourself who wants to be in control of your core.

I suggest you seek psychological help.

Club Conspiracy nor myself are equipped to help you in this regard.

Good luck.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 01:52 AM
Correct.

"I" and "me" are one in the same and I would not see them as separate.

You do because you are not one in the same.

Yes.

I am correct.

You are not one; together.

Now.

Let's go from there.

Why are you more than one?

What happened?

I am not "really" more than one. I - would have to be - one.
I was "dubbed" over - along the lines of - a past life -
that was - already - being me - at times.
There was no - I was different of such past life - prior to, in the 1990's.
I have been - separate of - this past life - throughout this lifetime.
I am no longer - susceptible - to this past life - up front - anymore.

The reason for this - dubbing over - is so that - outside interests -
can over-ride me - in being.

These outside interests - want to - be what's there -
to do with - oneself being - instead of - oneself.
So that "they?" have control - instead of oneself.

Unknown what actually happened - that has led up to this.

I suspect - where ever we are from, historically - got vanquished.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 01:55 AM
Really?

You and I are not in the same way.

We are different.

GOSH.

I never would have thunk it.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Was because of your - going by you - when it comes to me.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 02:00 AM
From what I gather, you have an ENTITY within yourself who wants to be in control of your core.

I suggest you seek psychological help.

Club Conspiracy nor myself are equipped to help you in this regard.

Good luck.

The one thing I don't need - is outside assistance.

I am not seeking any help from anywhere.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 02:02 AM
Was because of your - going by you - when it comes to me.

Sorry to be so blunt, but your coments/posts for the most part don't make any sense.

Maybe to you, but not the rest of us.

I suggeset you leave the forum.

Thank you.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 02:04 AM
The one thing I don't need - is outside assistance.

I am not seeking any help from anywhere.

You need help whether it be inside or outside.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 02:11 AM
Sorry to be so blunt, but your coments/posts for the most part don't make any sense.

Maybe to you, but not the rest of us.

I suggeset you leave the forum.

Thank you.

You (BA), do not "try" suitably enough
to follow any conversation, you get into.

Most posters - try to follow - conversations.

You (BA), go by you. You alone.
You (BA) do not "try" to relate - one to the other.
Your problem not mine.
You are "overly" concerned with - shielding yourself - from another.

I have no reason to think
that there is something amiss,
in my presence, here.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 02:15 AM
You need help whether it be inside or outside.

I am doing fine on my own.

I am well into - handling things - with myself.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 02:24 AM
You (BA), do not "try" suitably enough
to follow any conversation, you get into.

Most posters - try to follow - conversations.

You (BA), go by you. You alone.
You (BA) do not "try" to relate - one to the other.
Your problem not mine.
You are "overly" concerned with - shielding yourself - from another.

I have no reason to think
that there is something amiss,
in my presence, here.

Excuse me, but since you're a newcomer to CC, you are not in the position to make a statement regarding my conversations with other members of this forum and, even if you were, your opinion of me doesn't matter or don't you know that yet?

Yes.

I, BA, go by it alone.

Lone wolf would be the operative word.

Don't like it, too bad.

I don't shield myself from anyone.

Been here since 2005 and still going strong.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 02:25 AM
I am doing fine on my own.

I am well into - handling things - with myself.

I'm quite tired of you reprimanding me, (THE MODERATOR) so I'm going to ban you.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 02:36 AM
Excuse me, but since you're a newcomer to CC, you are not in the position to make a statement regarding my conversations with other members of this forum and, even if you were, your opinion of me doesn't matter or don't you know that yet?

Yes.

I, BA, go by it alone.

Lone wolf would be the operative word.

Don't like it, too bad.

I don't shield myself from anyone.

Been here since 2005 and still going strong.

Is no secret - the way you are.
However: you do not - blatantly - run anyone.
We all run ourselves.

For some reason you may not see yourself that way.
For sure - you are - seen that way.

upagainstit
03-01-2010, 02:40 AM
I'm quite tired of you reprimanding me, (THE MODERATOR) so I'm going to ban you.

Hopefully,
one is not bannable
at your whim.

BlueAngel
03-01-2010, 02:41 AM
Is no secret - the way you are.
However: you do not - blatantly - run anyone.
We all run ourselves.

For some reason you may not see yourself that way.
For sure - you are - seen that way.

Absolutely.

It is no secret the way I am.

I certainly don't run anyone and, for sure, I don't see myself as such and, for sure, neither does anyone else.

Good-bye!

dayof...
03-04-2010, 05:13 PM
BlueAngel cannot converse with anyone but BlueAngel.

BlueAngel cannot think of anything but BlueAngel.

BlueAngel simply BlueAngel or what is.
BlueAngel knows nothing but BlueAngel.

BlueAngel has no short and abrupt stance to take.

BlueAngel speaks and that's that.
To no one, BlueAngel, to no one.

dayof...
03-04-2010, 05:13 PM
BlueAngel obviously sorts things out in BlueAngel
irregardless of anything being discussed.

BlueAngel does not speak for another.
BlueAngel cannot see speaking for BlueAngel and BlueAngel alone.
All that BlueAngel can do.

BlueAngel simply sorts out in BlueAngel.
BlueAngel then takes stance.
BlueAngel cannot deal with anything further.
BlueAngel is a clunckard and clancked out.

dayof...
03-04-2010, 05:14 PM
BlueAngel has seen to the mind of BlueAngel.

BlueAngel has not handled BlueAngels' involvement here.

BlueAngel does not have BlueAngel for other matters.
BlueAngel obviously does not know this in BlueAngel.

There is no BlueAngel to another.
BlueAngel does not have BlueAngel to another.

There is no BlueAngel to another.


BlueAngel is not capable of comprehending anything.

BlueAngel cannot comprehend anything.
No doubt BlueAngel is incapable of comprehending.


Rejoice in yourself BlueAngel.
You are all yours.
Is nothing to another.