SETI BOUNCE seti@lists.csn.net: Non-member submission from [Robert Clements <clemensr@one.net.au>]


Bob Cutter (bcutter@teal.csn.net)
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:27:59 -0600


>From: owner-seti@lists.csn.net
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 02:29:55 -0600
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.sni.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-seti@lists.csn.net using -f
>To: owner-seti@lists.csn.net
>Subject: BOUNCE seti@lists.csn.net: Non-member submission from [Robert
Clements <clemensr@one.net.au>]
>X-UIDL: 938438263.021
>
>>From bcutter@csn.net Mon Sep 27 02:29:50 1999
>Received: from lynx.sni.net (bobcat.sni.net [199.117.160.5])
> by lists.sni.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24282
> for <seti-list@lists.csn.net>; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 02:29:46 -0600
>Received: from one.net.au (darkblue.one.net.au [203.17.224.215])
> by lynx.sni.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA21876
> for <seti@sni.net> mail_from <clemensr@one.net.au>;
> Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:43:53 -0600 (MDT)
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:43:53 -0600 (MDT)
>Message-Id: <199909270943.DAA21876@lynx.sni.net>
>Received: (qmail 1537 invoked from network); 27 Sep 1999 09:43:17 -0000
>Received: from async36-syd-isp-8.nas.one.net.au (HELO LOCALNAME) (203.101.8.37)
> by darkblue.one.net.au with SMTP; 27 Sep 1999 09:43:17 -0000
>X-Sender: clemensr@one.net.au (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: "Clements, Robert" <Robert.Clements@dva.gov.au>
>From: Robert Clements <clemensr@one.net.au>
>Subject: Re: FW: SETI-L: Lucretius & Apparent Psionic ET Machines
>Cc: walt_williams@setv.org, seti@sni.net
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: walt_williams@setv.org [SMTP:walt_williams@setv.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 4:44 pm
>>> To: seti@sni.net
>>> Subject: SETI-L: Lucretius & Apparent Psionic ET Machines
>>>
>>> Hello Robert,
>>>
>>> Ok, you answered the first two questions handily and elegantly,
>>> what about the psionic aspect? Just because this is an
>>> apparently modern observed phenomenon in suspected ET
>>> machine visitations, does not preclude it from being an ancient
>>> (Earth metric) observation as well.
>>>
>>> Were there indications that support 'out-side', i.e.,
>>> non-Terrestrial observational influence?
>>>
>>> Best Wishes,
>>>
>>> Walt Williams, 99.09.20
>>> SETV
>
>Haven't been avoiding youir question: i've just been off work for the best
>part of a week; & i wasn't FWing SETI messages to my home email. I was able
>to get this fixed this morning (our time); but as i'm likely to be off work
>for @ least another week, delays in responses are likely to continue... i'm
>not even sure i can publically post from this email address...)
>
>There's no real answer that i can give here; especially as the tradition of
>human insight being attributed to visions received Enuma Elish (when on
>high; the opening characters of the Sumerian creation mythology) was (qf
>Parmenides's astonishing Way of Being/Way of Seeing; which offers an opposed
>idealised - & therefore true - vision of reality with what must have
>originally been a detailed summary of the - supposedly false - knowledge of
>the universe as available to a mystically inclined Greek philosopher of the
>time), is (the only marginally less astonishing Italian count & composer,
>Giacinto Scelsi) & probably will continue to be a major part of our
>intellectual heritage (whether we like it or not)....
>
>... however: when i reread the relevant book (2) in Lucretius (from a cheap
>CD Rom called _Great Works of Literature_, if anyone's interested) - the
>provocatively titled _Infinite Worlds_ - to reacquaint myself with the
>arguments, i found them much as i remembered them: relentlessly rational in
>the classic Greek style....
>
>(The ancient Greeks almost fetishised rationality & logic; to the extent
>that simple parodoxes like Xeno's arguments against motion or the sour
>intellectual jape known as the Cretan - to this day Greeks tend to consider
>Cretans shifty & rather untrustworthy (qv, Zorba the Greek)... the Megarian
>thinkers used this racism to create the conundrum of a Cretan saying: i am
>lying; & used the inability to deduce truth or falsehood (or either; or
>both) from the statement as a cornerstone of their philosophy - could be
>intellectually terrifying)
>
>... naturally observed; & in some places, startlingly modernistic. No
>extraterrestrial vantage point to justify the argument is offered; any more
>than the noble dog, Diogenes the cynic, used Hubble's constant to link
>himself to the Cosmos (the expression cosmopolitan - literally, citizen of
>the Cosmos - is often att. Diogenes; & whether this attribution is true or
>not, it certainly reflects the idealism which lurks behind classical
>cynicism)... all both philosophers needed was a profound belief in the sense
>of underlying order closely associated with the Greek expression _Cosmos_.
>Like Bruno, Huygens & Sagan after him; with Lucretius, the default
>assumption is that the infinite worlds exist; & his arguments are mainly
>illustrative... & - @ first glance - oddly reassuring....
>
>(On this last point: you have to remember that Lucretius is the poet
>laureaute emeritus of all spin doctors: basically a propagandist for the
>cause of atomism; he does this in large part by reassuring the punters that
>the radical insights offered by his teachers ARE NOT A THREAT (capitalised
>because extremely important)... consolations to the reader - reassurances,
>if your prefer - recur throughout the poem, especially in book 2)
>
>To bring this aside back to the titular subject of this list:
>
>There are pluses & minuses in finding writings easily misattributable to Dr
>Carl Sagan a couple of millenia before he was born: on one level, one can
>reassure oneself that our reasoning isn't completely an (figuratively) alien
>artefact of the 20th century; on the other, one can also wonder if all it
>really shows us is that we persist in making the same intellectual conceits
>& errors. In the light of writers like Lucretius & the atomist thinkers who
>shined his path (Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, etc), we need to be
>especially vigilant in analysing our own reasoning when it comes to this
>area; particularly if the results from the various strands of SETI, OSETI &
>ASETI research continue to come up negative. It's clear that an assumption
>about infinite inhabited worlds is as obvious & reassuring for some thinkers
>as it is terrifying for others....
>
>All the best,
>
>
>Robert Clements <Robert.Clements@dva.gov.au>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 10 1999 - 15:46:37 PDT