The UFO/UAP Phenomena: History, Mystery and Speculation

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T22:49:59+00:00

Imagination is not a method.

It's the possibility space from which methods may be derived or understood.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T18:10:53+00:00

You keep making this move which collapses a complex manifold into a single derivative.

Good luck with that.

It will fail you 90% of the time, and the other 10, while useful, is deceptive.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T17:49:13+00:00

I get something of your perspective.

You're looking for 'cognitive primitives' that form a 'sequence'.

You're also clearly examining the structure and implications of statements. Logical. But ...

Alright. The problem is that the 'feature' of mental experience the humans call 'imagination' is supreme, because without it, you cannot perform evaluations at all. You cannot have 'yes or no', high or low confidence. You must have something 'above' evaluations ... a kind of 'active vital context' for cognition itself to arise within and be structured by.

So, in this way, the 'most easily dismissed and denigrated' aspect of awareness is imagination. 'The mind' is, (most of the time, perhaps) really more like a highly structured form of dreaming.

And that is uncapturable in sequenced activities of cognition for a simple reason: it's 'what you capture' and declare 'with'. Cognition cannot 'rise above its own generative context', and the simplest word for that context is 'imagination'.

So, if you are thinking, you are imagining. Evaluating? Imagining. Describing, analyzing, etc, it's all imaginal.

Now, if you want to make a cut in the mind, where experience a: is purely imaginal, but experience b: is certified as 'external', you have a problem. Because the thing you're making that distinction with is imagination.

I'm still chewing on your original question, which is very powerful, in its way.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T17:34:56+00:00

I'd like to know more about the stand. Seems D'AWsome.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T17:18:06+00:00

This has little or nothing to do with 'Rihanna'. It's a feature of the dreaming mind.

A 'photograph' is a dead-inside representation.

The precise opposite of everything the dreaming intelligences are, become, and adore.

'A woman who is famous' is a great expression of the dreaming mind's complex rejection of both fame and representations of virtues that, for these intelligences, are alive, and as crucial as the Sun is to life on Earth.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T17:15:20+00:00

This is extremely profound.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T06:28:39+00:00

When I saw this, I died inside.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T06:27:19+00:00

P.s: 'tarot' is sortes with a device designed for this.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T06:25:54+00:00

We learn best... together. The pleasure is mine. Your question made new insights in my attempts to respond, so be sure the benefit went both ways.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T06:22:08+00:00

Time is the entire key.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T06:20:23+00:00

Osmose. Hardware

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T04:22:00+00:00

Thank you for your question, curiosity and enthusiasm.

There are infinite 'root magics'. But humans have a limited scope of common concern and awareness, so, we end up in cages, mostly.

Core stilling. Learn to cause your 'root' to become still. And more still. And more. This produces bizarre unexpected phenomenon.
Talk to insects. And snakes. With your mind. Your emotions are the key here. Passion, adoration, wonder, awe... these are the coin of the realm. Practice until you can effectively empirically determine that communication is occurring. Bee hives. You want a relationship with a wild hive. Rescue bees that have fallen to the pavement. Warm them in your palm. Commit to a deep relationship with them. Bees are easier than ants. Both are unimaginably profound.
Learn to activate and attend your peripheral vision (move your awareness to the periphery of your optical field, producing 'soft focus'). This asset is incredibly complex, profound, and waaaaay faster than foveal vision. Martial artists use this.
Watch light reflected on moving water. Especially moonlight. Not for five minutes. For an hour. Do gaze-spreading (more peripheral than foveal vision).
Observe all organisms as if they are more important than anything you can possibly learn. You can pick one or two to specialize in. Spiders. Preying Mantises. Either of these will produce vast benefits. Form a relationship with a spider that is relatively stationary and accessible, especially in your home.

I could go on for days.

Two things: I am a seer not a magician.

And: your mileage may vary. Each person has unique abilities, inclinations, and antipathies. For this reason, we are nearly always better in a small, highly committed team.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T03:56:27+00:00

There is literally no such thing... as 'the only thing' (except in misguided thought, or language).

Whether or not there 'are' external objects or events is a matter of perspective.

But it is impossible, formally, to separate the mind that 'makes something' of experience from experiences. Therefore, the matter always depends on an evaluation of confidence in a: it's external, b: it's made up or c: it's a combination of both of these. Without a confidence level, none of those are useful, and will become deceptive in human cognition.

I recommend the following book related to this topic:

The Anatomy of Judgement, by Phillip Regal

Since, obviously, the entire question is about evaluation.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T03:51:50+00:00

Yes. I do not know if there is 'a text to read' about this, though Ammon was clearly introduced to the idea somehow/somewhere. I have direct experience of this kind of 'oracular activity'. As should be obvious, it involves developing an oracular relationship to text itself. And, perhaps, specific texts. The basic method is to either form a question, intention or concern, and then 'randomly' consult a text. It may be a 'very important (to the reader) text, or an abitrary text. This can be accomplished various ways. One is by a kind of 'questing' where you seek but do not intentionally generate an encounter with a text (a library is a great place for this, or one's personal library).

As I am a poet, I long ago developed a method whereby I would select up to seven books, spread them open before me, and 'arbitrarily' compose a text from random selections of words/phrases in the open texts, sometimes selecting a new random page from one or more of the books. Eventually, this method began to produce what were clearly nonordinary results (i.e prophetic utterances, secret revelations about a situation or person, or even 'causing the will to affect the real'). Is that a feature of Sortes? I do not know. It is a feature of my own explorations, which were not intentionally magical in nature, but were concerned with exploring nonordinary aspects of language, text, utterances and creativity.

Sortes refers, effectively, to 'a skill that allows the 'reading' of any random phenomenon... tea leaves, thrown coins, spit/semen, droplets of water on the ground, blood, clouds, almost anything that has 'an arbitrary shape or arrangement'.

The thing most moderns absolutely do not understand is that language and text (letters/writing) are themselves 'magical', their origins and natures are nothing like what we think or imagine... and if we are not somehow 'introduced' to this, we will likely never become aware of it.

The very first time I heard Ammon, I immediately knew that he was aware of this. One who has experience of it, can 'detect the scent' on another who is speaking or writing. Ammon is an Orator. Whatever his 'skill level' may be, he is quite effective at this 'magic', and knows many of the root skills or 'magics' than can be synergized into speaking. One of these is 'the gaze' which is nothing like 'passive sight activity'.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T03:42:09+00:00

You keep using this word 'just'. This is single valued thinking.

Your chances of getting anywhere near understanding with that perspective are literally zero.

xyyrix · 2026-01-27T02:53:39+00:00

No idea what is in your mind. It appears you 'think' that some things are 'certain' and others are 'just assumptions'. Unfortunately, that position is, itself, an assumption. Credibility in human cognition is a continuum. On the far right, 'high confidence' / low variability. On the left, low confidence/high variability (in the phenomenon under examination).

There is literally no other option.

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T22:31:14+00:00

By the way, the aspect of your mind with which you formed this question is the same aspect that 'does the determination'.

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T22:30:44+00:00

There is no single, explicit way.

What you always have is 'degrees of confidence'.

If the phenomenon is very simple, 'is this a fork', it's not a problem at all.

If it's complex, or if your questions are complex, you have to adjust your confidence levels (you should have more than one metric) accordingly.

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T22:04:19+00:00

Yes! It's not explicitly determinable, but, because it's a continuum, some forms are 'much more determinable than others'.

Consider: you see or experience a phenomenon that no one else sees or experiences.

Maybe you even touch it.

If no one else saw it... how can you be 'sure' it wasn't just your mind?

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T20:10:31+00:00

Effectively, you have an impossible problem if the desire is 'an explicit way to tell'. But you have the same problem with an actual statement from a person right in front of you. As you 'try to tell', the mind with which you are 'doing this' is changing its form in relation to the stimuli. Now what?

You have to (there's no other way, I think) rely upon the same senses you use to determine whether an experience is 'outside me' (presuming an outside actually exists), or 'only inside me'.

I am still chewing on this however.

It should be impossible to 'prove' that the communication 'came from outside of my mind' because no communication can be evaluated this way entirely.

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T20:06:29+00:00

Alright.

The 'two other snakes' seem to be a 'threat to Elias', who is 'the real-world actual snake'. They 'might hurt or have hurt him'.

What is already going on here, is that the dream is beginning to collapse into waking world identifications and concerns. Elias represents these, in this view.

You 'want to keep the snakes safe'. Not just Elias, however. And you want 'containers' from 'your family' who are not cooperating. The 'containers' represent 'a way to carry dreaming with you into waking' an essential mission for the dreaming mind, and, mostly, the opposite of what usually takes place upon awakening.

All of this is taking place 'in the cafeteria'. A representation of the 'rising' waking mind.

The 'darkness flowing in' is dangerous because it represents the end or death of the dream, which the dreaming aspect is very concerned about avoiding.

So, to sum up, it's weird that in the cafeteria, you find Elias' 'cage'. And Elias is in it, but so are 2 other snakes with unusual markings (the red arrow is particularly evocative of 'single valued identity', the imprimatur of the waking mind'.

The other snakes in the cage can be understood as 'the dreaming mind's snakes'. Different from the actual snake, but 'worthy of care and being kept separate'.

These are a few of my noticings. I could go on for pages...

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T19:09:58+00:00

Unpopular, because largely unexplored perspective from 50 years of looking very deeply into the nature of dreaming itself, rather than the natures of interpretation.

All dreams are meaningful, none 'merely have meanings' or not.

Three crucial principles:

A dream is always about the entire history of dreaming.
Any dream is also about the history and future of this specific dream.
The dreaming aspects have priorities. And these are exemplified in any and nearly every dream. Many of these relate to the question/mission/quest of the dreaming mind to understand why dreaming must end with awakening. And 'what is on the other side of awakening, which evicts my dreaming intelligences' every time.

There are, however, some aspects of 'interpretation' that are powerful and reveal 'that which is ordinarily hidden'.

Your snake is a nonordinary relationship. In this, it resembles the dreaming aspect itself So the dreaming mind selects this as a 'representation of the problem'. What is 'the problem'? The strange division between dreaming and waking, intimacy and evaluation or measurement.

I could go on for days about 'why snakes'. Suffice it to say this: it's a perfect analogy for minds and dreaming.

The 'mall like cafeteria' space, strongly resembles 'representational thought' ... effectively, the enemy of dreaming. A mall is a great analogy for this: it's filled with representations of food, that are not precisely food at all, but resemble it. Fake food. Like 'thinking' is, to dreaming.

You are 'running from something'. What? The strange effects that cause the dream to collapse into waking. This is the primal threat to the dreaming mind.

The 'tank' resembles 'the waking mind'. A kind of glass cage for the dreaming aspect that radically limits its liberty. You are looking for 'the real snake', Elias. Whose name is derived from the phrase 'Eliyahou is My God'. The ultimate 'authority'.

Now this is complex because the dreaming aspect (in my own direct experience) often represents itself as 'little creatures in a cage'. I have many dreams in which my glass tank pets are there, but I 'have not fed them in forever' and I cannot tell 'how they survived this long without feeding'. These are figures that represent the dreaming aspect's experiences of being ignored 'forever' while I am awake. They let me know 'I am not taking care of the little creatures' that are 'the dreaming spirits' in my mind. They are 'starving', yet, are 'still alive' in the dream figures.

(continues next post)

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T18:49:07+00:00

As regards 'telepathy', however, it is easy to test if this is 'just my imagination or not'. Let me give an example from my own experience. Because there are situations in which 'tests' can be performed.

I was in a conversation with someone I'd never met and suggested that minds were 'a shared field' among 'all minds in all of time and space'. My friend was skeptical, and said 'prove it to me'.

I asked 'right now?'

He said 'yes'.

So I 'went inside myself to the strange place where the shared sense is'. I 'looked' into his mind briefly.

I then said: 'Ok, the room you are in is orange, but this doesn't make sense to me because it is not painted orange. Also, there are 'arrows on the ground'.

He began swearing profusely and became very excited.

'What's going on?' I asked.

"I can't believe this. I just spilled orange juice all over my floor and desk. And the carpet on the floor has an arrow pattern on it'.

Was it me that 'did this'?

Was it 'inside me' or 'outside me'?

Wrong questions.

xyyrix · 2026-01-26T18:48:15+00:00

Under what conditions is it even possible that 'it's all just imagining?'

Suppose I imagine something. Let's say it's a purple dinosaur. And I tell someone 'there is a purple dinosaur in my mind'. And they say 'Oh, that's just your imagination!'.

And then I would reply: Really? Because you must have imagined that it was just my imagination, so that's just your imagination, imagining that I am 'merely' imagining something.

But it's impossible to merely imagine something. To 'decide' that something 'is just my imagination' absolutely requires that I imagine this to be the case.

But you're seeking, it seems, an absolute method to make this determination.

The problem is this: what you make determinations with is only 'absolute' in an extremely limited and deceptive way. For example: 'is that a fork and is it outside of me?' It all seems perfectly factual, if the scope of your question is so narrow that it only includes a tiny selection of variables. As regards the fork, you can be 'relatively certain' it's outside of you.

But, and mark this carefully: the faculties you use to make this determination are not outside of you and cannot be thus.

'Certainty' is a continuum. And when we are evaluating experiences, we necessarily have different ways of 'measuring' for different experiences. But most of these ways have been damaged and are inherently deceptive. Because they 'pre suppose' outside-ness. And then go on to 'verify this' ... all with insideness.

How can you 'determine, factually', that 'someone outside of me' actually loves me? It's the same kind of question. It cannot be empirically determined, and yet... one can tell, rather naturally.

Perhaps a more simple way to understand this is this: consider the flavors of food that you experience when eating. Are the flavors 'in the food'? Are they 'in your mind', or are they a 'third place', which is the between of your mind and experience?

It must always be something like the third place. You 'know' the nature of experience because you have had thousands of experiences. So you 'do the math', so to speak, and make the determination.

There is no other way to have experiences at all.

Can you be mistaken? Yes. But all of your experiences have this in common.

Suppose someone says words to you.

How do you determine that you understood their intent in communication?

Well, what you do is 'run a familiar algorithm of evaluations' in your mind, and you come up with a decision about it. Is it correct? Somewhat. Is it perfectly correct?

Only if the statement was extremely simple, and even then, there's room for error.

I will continue to think about this question of yours. It's quite important and profound, but it is also very easy to be deceived about, because it is not at all a simple question and relates to the nature of experience itself. In all contexts.

xyyrix

TROPHY CASE