Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Ouroboros And Fermi's Hubris

Ouroboros And Fermi's Hubris
by Alfred Lehmberg

I offer that the Fermi objections qualifying the conjectured dearth of ET are as bowdlerized as a misquoted and overstretched Occam. Indeed, these bowdlerizers are the foggy bubbles and opaque fans of klasskurtxian exotic dancers... truly anyone in the camp of even comely reflex denialists. Reductionists, rewarded, will oversimplify.

Remains few of these are comely, internally or externally... one listens to them allaying personal concerns that all is chaos turning on nine cent's change, all we have is each other for the remotest salvation, and we are nowhere being kind enough to each other to secure that salvation. One turns to invented Gods securing, as designed, only one's bidding.

Has everyone heard of Fermi's Paradox? In essence, it's treated as a "we're (essentially!) alone in the universe" justification. It was invented by Dr. Enrico Fermi based on his observation, and I heavily paraphrase, that if *alien beings* were "there," at all, we would "know" it... they'd make themselves known. They couldn't hide from us... humans are too smart. We'll forget hubris trumps smart, eh?

...And pause for squirty giggles. The only lift here is to accommodate an irreverent cheek's unfettered flatulence. Anyway, Fermi pontificates that we don't "know" it. Ergo... 

They're not "there"... simply ...so certainly not "here."

What a cleverly close-looped and wholly fallacious way—or excuse—to not think, I offer. We would "know it," indeed! Voluminous and arcing trajectories of Squirty giggles show an abundant appropriateness. See, that restricted thinking of reductionists may not clarify as much as restrict that same thinking, even degrade the efficaciousness of it. 

Verily, arrogance like this would be laughable... were it not so tragic! No. Their's is only a soothing unguent of unsupported presumption, and it is (along with its opposition, perhaps) well larded by personal fables, presumptive assumptions, and dissonate cognitions... lettered though they may be

Indeed, history might bear out that too many earnest proclamations regarding "such being so" invariably fall short of any mark at all! Verily, moreover, the preceding becoming its own step away from any proposition that such be other ...than that as, laboriously, already legislated to be "known"... even if that academic but "alternative *such as so*," is. ...Especially, if it is, eh? 

Forget the guy who says "such be so." He's most often wrong. Watch the one who says, "Such may be so." She's, most often, right. 

Intellectual cowardice, then, as a life choice or cultural plan. "Personal investment" preferred to and over, apparently, "existential expansion of the experienceable experiential." You can tell how much cooler the latter is than the former, just in how satisfyingly it rolls off the mind's tongue. 

Frankly, the cowardice alluded to provides that our mal-interpreted Fermi is subsequently distorted into an especially turgid hubris and then roundly flogged by the self-invested and self-denying mainstream skeptibunky elite, their follow-ons and fanboys, this writer offers, facilitating this smothering reductionist caul. Not good for anyone as the crow flies. See, sense dictates a living ring above our planet with the ability to fly the 21st Century back down to us in disaster... but we whine and scuffle instead at the behest of psychotic billionaires... 

Indeed consider, forgetting all the obvious canted holes, blithe illogics, and homocentric assumptions of the preceding assessment, the Fermi rubric is still held up as a sacred shield by the fearful skeptibunky—a justification for continuing his philosophically chauvinistic, close-horizoned, and color-desaturated worldview as regards ET. Fermi verily! Fermi, yea and verily! 

If "they" were there we'd know it... as we do! As. We. Do.

Additionally, other half-baked proclamations indicate further "mainstream" assertions to support a "we're alone" hypothesis against all sense and seven categories of evidence. These point to an observation that any intelligence capable of invasion would have invaded us already; we have not been invaded. Ergo... ...like a snake eating its tail, eh? With regard to our conjectured alien, how are we so sure we'd know we'd been invaded?

See? Revealed, the same blithe assumptions, canted interpretations, and disintegrating logics, but a pattern emerges, good reader! A "model" is created for the complacent unbrave; a safe (but cowardly, reactionary, and digressive) mold is formed. In turn, we are encouraged to form to same! Tilt! 

Such is the hurdle, it seems, presented to us by the planned mediocrity of ardent klasskurtxian sociopaths in their jealously coveted *command* of our hijacked culture! A busy sentence, but I do not overstate.

Further... here's another loss-leader *shield* against the other that your garden variety skeptibunky holds prevaricatingly aloft—the smarter ones anyway—the ones practicing a cleverer form of corrosive and back-stepping denial! The aforementioned skeptibunkies will agree (!), almost to a man (fewer female skeptibunkies, not so oddly), that there must be some kind of intelligent life out there in the cosmos (...somewhere!), but then they must irrationally shove that intelligent life so far off into a universe (multi~verse!) of time and space that it is guaranteed... ...never to intrude on their coveted considerations of themselves as, what? A shining jewel in the crown of their God's—favored—creation? 

Likely nothing could be further from the truth... and more squirty guffaws. These slaves to *conventional wisdom* won't perceive that our overestimation of ourselves is most often punished and that our underestimation of ourselves is very often rewarded... but I digress. 

Consider Fermi's, "If they were here, we'd know it," and the additional baselessly dusty rubric, "an intelligence capable of invasion would have already invaded." 

Compare these with the skeptibunky's parallel assertion that "of course intelligent life must exist out there... somewhere"! Does the reader see the disconnect or the dichotomy in these assertions made from a single and very debatable logical ethic?

Remember for a moment that *they* likely have *invaded*... ...and that *we* really do know it! The historical record on film, in ink, and carved into stone, the massive anecdotal and considerable physical evidence (thousands of trace cases!), a mathematical certainty (!) and finally, convincing evidence of a personal nature (if one has it... I do...)... ...provides all the conviction one needs to believe that this is so! But even if they weren't here and invading—which they are, remember, the data are very compelling—would it not make more sense to conduct ourselves with something of a sociological "out" that they were here? Everyone agrees they're out there somewhere; why not here?

Of course, it would. At minimum, reader, we'd be nicer to one another... and what a grand unification we would be...

The answer to why we do not accept the likelihood we're not alone locally is found in our lack of general criticism regarding corrupt social institutions, a reactionary non-elected leadership with a tolerated nature that is decidedly anti-individual and so sociopathic as a result, and finally our own very cultivated desire to, individually, take the most traveled path to the then ~despairing~ ends of our too short and largely miserable (in the aggregate?) little lives... ...heavy freaking sigh! 

What ~cowards~ we are as a summative species! What craven non-bravery we display so collectively! What profound ignorance we cultivate, together, so covetously!

...And all of it while the universe yawns before us like the inescapable future that it ~is~ and towards which we shall ~continue~ to accelerate... without regard to our attention or lack of same!  It might be possible to catch the train looming to run us down. Can't you feel a hum on the tracks? Train's a-comin', boys and girls! 

I must participate in what eschews our cowardly behavior! I must, of needs, ~detest~ our lack of bravery as a species! My understandable revulsion is clearly provoked by the planned and cultivated ignorance of our individuals, ironically, and their complacent dependence on spurious conventional wisdoms that, one, betray them, two, discount their individuality, and three, erode their quality of life! Why would we stand for any of that but that we are trained to do so?

On the other hand, I ~anticipate~ the acceleration to the inexorable future! I ~welcome~ the disclosures of the larger reality! I am ~optimistic~ about that reality as an intellectual force multiplier useful for every individual capable of making the inevitable transition to the next quantum jump in perceivable reality every day! Sometimes, it's just rolling out of bed that is the victory ...when we might be boiling out of churning nebulas and evocative black holes in ships of space and time themselves!

I'd soar and cleave to that future, fellow motes! Soar with me! Choose to cleave

I would aspire to rip the now proverbial scales from our collective eyes like the earnest protagonist character in "Matrix". See, it wasn't about Neo, really, was it. Like it wasn't—isn't—about Christ, really. 

Christ is just the stand-in object, remember, for the individual entreated by the Christ as a reflector. Christ is nothing without the adherent of the Christ, relecting. That goes for any big cheese "G" in the panoply, presently, for my money. The reader is Christ, or closer to Christ than this writer has detected.

I'd opt for the *reality* pill as would the reader, I'd bet. We'd all want to take the pill Neo did. Truth or Lies, discovering what Neo discovered: that the truth can be an improving agent for constructiveness!  The contributing reader could be along for that ride. A ride requiring belts, I add, and an eventual toll paid out of embarrassment. A lie has a short shelf life, conversely, then nothing.

Omar Kyam wrote... "...the moving finger writes and have writ, moves on. Neither piety nor wit can call back a single line to alter, nor tears wash a word of it." Cogent advice from a master, a dead shoulder upon which we are still able to stand. It's your finger does the writing, where it can, actually. Last digression... 

We provide the shoulders on which those who come after us will stand. Do we owe them more than intellectual suicide, cognitive dissonance, and a low common denominator? Do we owe them a solid place to stand... a firm place to build? 

Of course, we do... all those things and more. They are us after all. They are you

That's enough. I remain watching the skies. Read on.