Part One: The UFO As A Non Linguistic Lifeform.

“I throw a spear into the dark, that is intuition. Then I have to send an expedition into the jungle to find the way of the spear,that is logic.”
— Ingmar Bergman

"I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been."
-Mary Shelly


Is it possible that individuated minds are simply recombinant facets of a singularity that uses a common operating platform to become self aware? If so, are UFOs a evolutionary and intermediate manifestation of a developing, non linguistic, seemingly dependent creature in it's infancy, for which we have provided a nursery in the form of a refuge of habitation, an ecology that is, in of itself, one of entanglement?

In this lies a cautionary tale.

The classic definition of communication is "The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior," However in all this there is a learning curve. Cybernetics is the study of feedback and derived concepts such as communication and control in living organisms, machines and organizations as applied in this case, to learning. Can these concepts be applied in a revision of the nature of UFOs?

The assumed role of deception in this phenomenon parallels Thomas Pychon's observation that “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” This issue is a circular argument in lieu of the role of self deception in the face of an unknown versus a manipulation that comes from without. What I am suggesting is perhaps the phenomenon itself is neither one, while on the other hand, our own perspectives seem to reinforce that it may be a case of both being in play if we are faced with an unknown phenomenon that does not openly extend itself to us, it must have deception as it's prime motive as a tactical ploy. This undoubtedly, arises from the earliest human territorial prerogative wherein suspicion as a heightened awareness was a necessity for survival.

Conversely, in our earlier stages of developing self awareness, these instincts can make strangers appear to be either overwhelmingly intimidating or frightening and so perhaps a reluctance to engage with that which "they" do not fully apprehend can be applied if the shoe is on the other foot. This is meant to suggest an encounter with our species may not be as assuring or "safe" as we naturally assume it to be. What we imagine ourselves to be and what we are is a line of demarcation that would be difficult for a proverbial child or "stranger" to process, let alone integrate.

Further along this line of considerations, one could go further and suggest that if this is so, then would a learning curve be present? Consequently one could then invert the normal line of assumptions that we are dealing with a sentience in an advanced stage of cognition. Perhaps the opposite may be the driver. When you ruminate over the evidence, one has a sense of this.

"A new kind of mind thus beings to come into being which is based on the development of a common meaning that is constantly transforming in the process of the dialogue."
-Physicist David Bohm

However, if this phenomenon represents more than an interface with consciousness and has the potentiality to become self aware, then can it be separated from this proverbial embryological cord as something other than a Darwinian adversary?

Perhaps if myths are indeed metaphors, it is the reinvention of this form that is occurring as indelibly as those of the Dragon were for our common ancestors.

The entanglement between the historical cultural contexts of manifestations as well as that of it's evolving nature during our own epoch apparently follows a parallel path of acceleration in terms of the complexity of the conceptual basis that it utilizes as a shell to encapsulate the leading edge of our speculative formulations as to it's identity.

In a few decades, it has changed it's general form within a subset of wildly variegated transitional combination's that apparently follow our own capability to conceptualize them as a visualization of a potential coherency, much like a child would conceptualize it's own identity along the entrainment of complexity which arises from it's own self image. This self imaging is, in the case of the UFO is still pliable and non linguistic.


Non linguistic communication is the imparting of information without using language. Or in other words, sending and receiving messages without using a communication system that has the characteristic features of a language as identified by linguists. Albert Mehrabian, a psychologist at UCLA and a pioneer in non linguistic communication research, has studied nonlinguistic communication for over thirty years. His research shows that, on average, the spoken words we use account for only seven percent of the meaning people derive from conversations. Paralinguistic information accounts for thirty-eight percent. The majority of meaning, fifty-five percent, comes from nonverbal, or unspoken information. What do our non liguistic behaviors portray to one who has never encountered them?

Perhaps the visualizations of a non linguistic communication in it's early developmental stages depends upon the context of the observer in relation to the form of mimicry it parrots, not so much as an act of determination but rather as a ongoing process of integration. During a certain developmental stages in human infants,,intelligence is increasingly demonstrated through the use of symbols; memory and imagination are developed as language use matures; thinking is nonlogical, nonreversible, and egocentric enough to be indifferent to the context in which it behaviors occur, in the form of the observer's reactions and\or anticipations.

They are largely outside of the context of a give and take of a transactional behavior focused on the recipient. This parallels the behavior of this phenomenon.

Correspondingly, this leads to the possibility that if this phenomenon represents a more evolved or if you will, more complex living organism than ourselves, this may not necessarily infer that it's cognitive ability to have a fully developed sentience is fully formed, especially if it's lifespan should require the passage of centuries rather than in years to be fully developed to it's full potential.

In the last post, I was concerned with the appearance of sentience versus actual self awareness and how difficult it is to discern between these two Janus faces of behaviorism by even the most dispassionate observer. However the inference in that post was perhaps there is an intermediary form of sentience that learns by mimicking the behavioral characteristics of it's parents. The close encounters with the phantasms of our mirror of the possible are filled with non nonsensical communications, half truths and outright parody that is so absurd that it is laughable which then we then reorient ourselves to observe the early behaviors of an infant who learns by mimicking the behaviors, the language and modality of it's parents. I am suggesting that this phenomenon is not simply an extension of human consciousness but instead possibly represents a non human form in it's early developmental stages.

What I am suggesting is not simply a parallelism but rather a reformulation of Jung's conceptual basis of the Universal Mind, in that this collective database is not simply a singularity of differentiation but rather a semi autonomous nexus that utilizes input from us in a parasitic manner to formulate coherency in relation to differentiating itself from us. It is both human and non human, contingent in form, an excellent mimic and is set upon a proverbial learning curve it which what it is is largely determined by what we believe it to be.

The same could apply to the intangible frameworks we utilize to defend our own realities and which may constitute the boundaries of this phenomenon's potentiality, as it was Tolstoy who said" “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

In the case of appearances versus the unknown natural laws that would apply if this phenomenon represents a living organism, perhaps the creation of distinctions that are required for self awareness are trial and error choices of comparative relationships rather than a predetermined role.

All of us are but individuated by not only biological variation but also as the result of identifying ourselves by a learning an externalized curriculum of relationships which are entirely experiential, which we in turn develop as quasi-identities of persona. Beneath this learned differentiation is a common or consensus form of expression whose mathematical variations are the appropriate configurations of language in order to elicit a form of intermediate reality that we have formulated as a database, that in of itself has no independently derived existence and so all of these many perhaps countless variations that are thermostatically set into a cultural form of shared concepts, which in turn, form a creature who while none the less existing in anthropology cannot be determined to reside in a specific location, outside of the behaviors it manifests in it's expression.

They are yet but another example of the material nature of an intangible, of information translating into behavior, that may be exhibiting itself in a chimera whose reflective surface observes us, translates and reformulates it's varying basis of comparisons through the development of conceptual relationships. Then again the basic energetic composition of localized information can be spontaneously transmitted over vast distances. This would allow for a semi closed feedback loop which allows for the spontaneous metamorphosis of form as indicted by the data utilized to conceptualize it. It could be a non local phenomenon which is attracted in a localized arrangement based upon the bias or receptivity of observers who are entrained to visualize a conceptual form by anticipation. This, in turn drives a reciprocal process of locking a contingent visual identity onto a common referential form.

In all this we have the apparent immeasurably of quantifying the potential of observers in relation to the probabilities of localized manifestations of this 'other." despite this, I suspect there is a strong correlation between the two which essentially forms a proverbial gravitational field that is an attractor, as much as in is in microcosm through the potential of those who experience the paranormal versus those who do not.

This infers that information can be likened to a field that much as lightning does strikes under predisposed conditions and only appears to be random in this case due to the immeasurably factor.

In all of this we have another major feature of all of these architectural arrangements of seeking coherency that is to say, the lack of a universal identity, a universal concept of who and what we are despite our best in filling, remains a potentiality that in of itself seeks it's own image by metaphor, comparison and contingent belief systems, which have had their own developmental arc. Therefore if a sentience had a parasitic connection to our own information field as a composite arrangement of it's resulting form, it would be as far from being in stasis as one can imagine which is exactly what it is, just as much as what it is not, as an intermediary form of energetic expression.


In other words, the Greys are representational mimics or the shadow plays of this phenomenon that have no independent existence of their own as they are representative of behaviors of a conceptual interpretation of human behavior expressed as a metaphor arising from the images arranged toward incoherent behavior as a process of imagination from a sentience whose contextural relationships between it's entangled root and fledgling autonomy are not fully formed.

In a paper on "ASL Linguistics: Nonlinguistic Communication" by William Vicars, Mr Vicars uses the example as follows to illustrate this concept;

"Suppose I design a new water dispensing system for charitable use in an multilingual locality. I want to make sure people of any language background can use it. So I videotape myself going to the machine, setting my jug under the spigot, pressing a red button to position the spigot, pressing and holding a blue button to fill my bucket, releasing the blue button, pressing a green button to raise the spigot, and then taking my jug and walking away. My making and posting the video equates to my sending a message. The video is on a loop and so it continues playing again and again. People coming to the machine will be able to watch the video and form and understanding in their mind of how to use the dispenser. The message has been received. Language was not involved in the communication. The person watching my video may choose to use his native language to encode the steps of getting water into his memory. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm not using his language to communicate with him. A message has been sent and received without reliance upon language. I may use language to formulate my message. He may use language to process and encode my message into his brain...but the medium of transfer of the message was not language. That is the essence of nonlinguistic communication. "

And so if we take this process to ascertain the nature of the form of non linguistic communication ( in this case form and behavior)of the UFO, it becomes obvious that this non directed behavior while demonstrative, is not purpose driven but is a crude representation of processes in behavior that it apparently does not comprehend in terms of context, but rather an imaginal use that uses behavior as a representational totem or a "magical" act, as if attempting to determine the reaction to inversely deduce it's meaning.

We in turn are then entangled in a semi autonomous experience that is a parody of the other, as expressed by a mimicry of human behavior. We may be creating a monster in that experiential learning by mimicry, that may have a very dark shadow which is none other than a reflection of our own.