The longer I listen to some young alt-journalists, the more secure I feel and grateful to be leaving our poor sorry world in their very capable hands. To Jordan Sather’s posts, “Destroying the Illusions,” here’s the latest —
I now add Theresa Yanaros, “Divine Frequency” — and BTW: thanks to UFO conferences they have both recently attended, it seems as if these two unusual young ones have now joined forces, though they are being somewhat coy about telling their audiences. See these two pics from fb.
Yanonara’s analysis of the rift that has developed in the alt-media re: UFO/ET is very similar to my own — that it’s a battle between those who prefer to remain in 3D (with 3D types of “empirical” proof) and those with access to higher dimensions, where 3D notions of “falsifiability” do not apply. Dark Journalist’s unusually snarky interviews with Bill Ryan and the strictly “scientific” views of Richard Nolan, who also interviewed Bill Ryan, are examples of the first — with Nolan’s attitude towards others who may not agree with him more charitable.
I especially appreciate Yanaros’s alt-epistemological discussion of “proof” in higher dimensions —
— though, frankly, I would rather not even use the word “proof” beyond 3D, but instead call it what it is, a growing, evolving “universe of discourse” utilized by those who name, describe, consider and evaluate agreed upon phenomena within a certain subset of a given language. I would add that filling in any particular “universe of discourse” with more and more conceptual and imaginative (and emotional!) material doesn’t ever constitute “proof” (even in 3D!) but instead just indicates more and more clearly the edges, and the horizon, beyond which one not dare go and still remain connected to others within that conversational and/or dimensional niche.
But maybe she figures she needs to use the word “proof” just to satisfy all those 3D’ers who still need to be persuaded to come along into these more inclusive dimensions?
I am reminded of my doctor father’s conversations with his friend, another doctor father, at family picnics when we were young. I would listen to them nod their heads in agreement, and have absolutely no idea what they were talking about, since the “universe of discourse” they occupied was utterly unfamiliar to me. What I was noticing was the psychic atmosphere within which they both spoke, and which they both took for granted. That’s what fascinated me, and still does. The various atmospheres that we humans concoct to hold ourselves in communion with one another.
Likewise here. There are those who speak of things which others would consider utter nonsense — unless and until they are initiated and/or indoctrinated into the same world-view.
They key point is, as I’m sure the (newly coupled?) Sather and Yanaros would agree, that we learn keep our world-views, our personal “belief systems,” — and, in their case, their most likely evolving interpersonal belief system — open and permeable to the mysterious universe. I.e., let’s not get locked in, not go around the world thinking we-know-it-all, or if not now then soon! — as we swagger about, heads weighed down by “foolproof” conceptual helmets that keep us in and the wider world out.
In other words, let us remain ready, willing, and available, for whatever comes down the pike next! For surely it will, and it’s best to be prepared, by which I mean centered, feet anchored to the ground, head open to the sky, arms wide and welcoming.