Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Warming Calculations

While researching a novel I hope to write, which involves climate change among many other things, I decided to use the Farmer’s Almanac web site and do some investigating of my own. 

Let me state right off that my degree’s in English. What math I know I learned 30 years ago and the science is self-taught. Undeterred by these shortcomings, I wanted to see if my zip code had warmed at all in my lifetime and what I might be able to make of it, based on a very simple set of data over an admittedly microscopic span of time, geologically speaking.

The approach I took was necessarily simple: I looked up the pertinent weather history on the Almanac web site by entering my zip code and date and, in a couple seconds, the high, low and average temperature, dew point, wind speed, and precipitation—its type and amount—pop up. Also, in my zip during the winter months, it will tell you how many inches of snow were on the ground. 

Keeping things simple I decided to record the average temperature each year on my birthday. I gathered 52, and then broke them down into decades. 

Including the year I was born, 1962, the decade ending:


·         1971, the average temperature was 29.05 degrees Fahrenheit.

·         In 1981 that temperature was 29.58 degrees, +.55 over 10 years and accelerating at a rate .0275 over 20 years.[i]

·         In 1991, the average was 30.25, +.67 over the previous decade and accelerating at .0406 over 30 years.

·         The decade from 1992 to 2001 seems an anomaly, as the average temperature was 30.13, down .12 from the previous decade, and acceleration slowed to .0275 over 40 years.

·         The fifth decade, however, makes up for that with an average temperature of 32.54, +2.41 from the previous decade and accelerating at .0702 over 50 years.

It appears factual that the average temperature in my zip code on my birthday has, according to my English major math, risen at an accelerating rate over the course of my lifetime. 

I believed the science going in, but wanted to see how my own meager calculations might stand up against what I’ve been hearing for 25 years. I encourage you to do the same. Look for yourself.  Do your own math. Mine seems to echo what I've heard from experts over and over again. I was hoping to come up with something different, something to give my contrarion spirit hope...



[i][i][i] I’m sorry about my math and lack of proper terminology. For rate change I took the average temp of 1981, subtracted the average from 1971, then divided by 20. I followed that procedure to calculate the rate for each decade: 1991-1971/30=rate; 2001-1971/40=rate, etc. If my method’s incorrect—I know it’s crude—let me know in the comments.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Chapter 1 of Does the Moon Ever Shine in Heaven?

1.
 

Some say when you die you move toward the light. This seems dark for light. Perhaps I’m not dead. Maybe some didn’t know what they were talking about. What if it were me who misunderstood them? What if they meant that when you die you move toward lightness rather than heaviness…? But people talk of a bright light, right? Yet they’re also rising, as if they no longer bear the weight of their bodies. Then again, maybe, there’s a third kind of light that some meant, as in a light bulb lighting seeming a symbol for someone having an idea, the symbol being that in death one becomes omniscient…we’ll know when we’re dead, some say. Or some others might say light refers to goodness. All these people with near-death experiences seem like nice people. Like good people. Conrad doesn’t have Marlowe quoting Kurtz: “The light, the light.” Hell no. We don’t hear of cases of serial killers or mass murderers [there seems a difference] or pedophiles being brought back from drowning or a heart attack and how they saw a brilliant light and began rising up into it…as if being abducted by a UFO…and how when they came back felt themselves totally blissed out in their God-given lifestyles…I wonder what Charlie Manson will see? Did Jeffrey Dahmer’s light look more like a glowing gullet, as if he were falling into the warm, sacred effervescence of someone’s gastric bubble bath, of someone else’s acid reflux? Do we all end up feeling justified in the end, or just some of us?

I don’t know.

I think I’m dead but can’t prove it. To disprove it would require my being alive, which would mean people would acknowledge me, and I’d have some facility with tools and technology. Yet I haven’t been touched in days. I can’t Tweet. I have no face to book. Those same some sometimes say “poets don’t drive.” But I’m no poet. I’m terrified at being cut loose in the universe.

What if I’m not actually here? What if I’m only an idea? What if all this manifests the final dregs of my residual unconscious? If you’re reading this, could I be dead at this the time of writing? Well?  I can’t be photographed.

Does my enlightenment seem to haunt this page like a ghost? Maybe so, but my heart feels knotted. What I seem to see are memories of things I’ve done that have somehow tattooed themselves onto my mind, their ink permeating the membrane into my psychic genes, now forming these patterns of genetic memory dancing before my eyes—a whorl of genetic thoughts awaiting action.

How will I ever untie myself from this nonsense?  Does the moon ever shine in heaven?

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Does the Moon Ever Shine In Heaven?

Available soon from BlazeVox[books]:


Experiencing the heart and mind of a suicided murderer, Does the Moon Ever Shine in Heaven?  gives voice to a killer’s disturbing passage through the Bardo Plane. According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Bardo is the existential phase between death and re-birth where the soul confronts itself, trying to stave off its karmic pressure by confronting the active contents of its mind. Here, the narrator must go beyond the rage that would destroy him and everything else it can. The narrative voice must annihilate itself to make irrelevant that American way of life it once perceived as a legitimate provocation to violence. The narrator’s rage, at one point taking the form of Ayn Rand, chomps away at itself with the same ferocity as the bullets he fired. The perceived universe—a syzygy with the voices of Al Pacino as animus and Diane Sawyer as anima—sounds hugely compassionate, allowing for a kind of redemption beyond morality, where language itself carries the soul into the beauty and love it’s always wanted…Really
*****
Does the Moon Ever Shine In Heaven? invaded my dreams…I loved trying to figure out how Richardson did that…it's the first thing I've read in a long time that kept me tripping over myself at every moment in the best of ways. At a technical level, I'm amazed at the way Richardson was able to narratively stay in an "interior" space like that without letting everything slide into stultifying abstraction. You know what I mean: when a person tells you about a dream in great detail—it's usually captivating for about three seconds. What I love is the way [Richardson] generates fluctuating levels of diction and cultural reference that produce a constant pressure of confluence. I find myself thinking of Dante in Hoboken—or of a prayer wheel being set out in a hurricane. Italo Calvino gets some of this effect in his books of stories Cosmic Comics and T-Zero, and I'm also reminded of Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel

Daryl Scroggins, author of This Is Not the Way We Came In and Winter Investments

In Does the Moon Ever Shine in Heaven? Chuck Richardson sends Dostoekvsky's Notes From Underground into the information age: angst goes surreal, beyond identity, meets pop culture in the form of Captain Beefheart, Diane Sawyer, Ayn Ran, Michael Corleone and the beat goes on. A rampaging rip of a book that throws all expectation out the window—including normality itself. If you can handle the raucousness Richardson throws your way, you will laugh out loud. I did.
Jefferson Hansen is the author of a book of poetry, Jazz Forms (Blue Lion), plus a novel ...and beefheart saved craig (BlazeVox). He edits http://thealteredscale.blogspot.com/.

*****

Follow on Facebook

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

New Poems

These are the first five in a new collection of poems tentatively called "-Response."



Richard Serra


multi-tas
              king on mult
                                  iple scales
                                                  sent
                                                        ient tri
                                                                  gono
                                                                              
                                                                              me
                                                                              try
                                                                            flu id
                                                                              top
                                                                            ology
                                                                            recur
                                                                             ring                                                                                  obdu                                                                                                              rate buoy                                                                                                                                          ancy a
                                                                         cross scale
                                                            multi-dimensional psycho
                                                                               geo
                                                                               me

try



Sally Mann


Monster
mom peculiar
mendacious ambiguous fun
dog bones
chewed John Wayne
Bobbits naked pictures
of kids/goats/making human
being family objects
subjecting family subjects
objectively naked evolving
wild landscape families being
wild objects subjecting wildness

why not
it’s not so scary
you’ll get used to it [and
be glad
when you do]
she’s kind of sexy
but married what
’s more i
portend the aesthetic and amoral



Margaret Kilgallen/Barry McGee


flat street folk
art
“beauty is where the line wavers” says maggie
while i’m watching her
paint on her ladder
she’s kind of sexy up there
but hangs with
McGee

a found
reappropriated
cluster of imagined scenarios
on the street and in
hear train graffiti
foklore managing et trois
realizing it’s all friction
struggling to occupy space:
open/free vs. closed/monetary

space things will open in time
when we’re found

disabled
on the line
wavering…



Pepon Osorio


someone was
murdered hear
a sacred seen a
space of coexistent contradictions
displacing inside with out
beyond the yellow tape
behind it
moving the human
body composing
decomposing hub
caps and portraits

a corner prophet
speaking easily

at the barber
shop celebrating
disaster
becoming macho
contradicting
his own diasporas
the ones inside
his self feeling
how art works
celebrating
happy
broken
black Jesus
calculating

His intervention
screwing the Beautiful with Alien morality
and getting crucified for It

an invasive displacement
a transgression at the crime scene
violating sacred space to plant His flag
there

while getting crucified for It

move along, nothing to see
where this artist whispers
gunning for It

in
visibility



Human Beings

Evil=a sub- or meta-conscious motivation sabotaging processes of self-maintaining disequilibria…or any cognitive entropy that would disrupt an artist’s work…The tighter I squeeze, the more It behaves like water.
There ain’t no fun humping a flat line.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Hate & the Disintegration of Arrogance

For the last few months I’ve been reading and thinking about the language/literature/art of hatred and extremes. Celine, Bukowski, Reck, Thoreau, Sade, Bataille, Claire Denis, Gaspar Noe, Lars von Trier and Genet [among others] have been/are on the evolving list of subjects. Last night I watched Shane Carruth’s Upstream Color on Netflix. It was beautiful.
Preliminary thoughts: It’s an extremely moving film that absents all forms of bullshit, leaving only what’s actually happening without any explanation. The viewer feels like an alien observing an alien world where some sort of crime seems to be unfolding. There’s an impulse to stop and play things back [as in the original Manchurian Candidate], looking for small signs and it pays off. One gets the sense of, if not the futility of transgression, the larger framework in which it’s only a function of its context. 
I also think Carruth, who wrote and starred in the film as well, which is meticulously independent of any Hollywood influence, has found a way to dramatize spiritual materialism in a truly groundbreaking way that leaves the viewer stunned and speechless by all the terrible beauty passing by on the screen…occurring beyond one’s influence [the pain of being an observer unable to participate, or, better, at best being only able to observe their participation much like the characters observe, on some level, the things they find themselves doing]. To say the upstream flow “ends” at the source…the organic blue stain…isn’t quite right, but not far off either. It displays the kind of against-the-grain biocentrism that separates the adults like Thoreau from the children like Emerson...the people who can accept the acid trip vs. those who take exception to it…The world isn’t what it first seems…It’s better than that…and it will either make you feel good or bad…it all depends who/what you think you are and what/how one observes what one’s doing…and it all seems further entangled, somehow, on a quantum level the curious keep looking for…make human sense of…committing murder along the way.
The philosophy here is Thoreauvian and therefore more Arne Naess and Helen Caldicott than the Sierra Club [which is thankfully moving away from its Emersonian attitude to a vibe that resonates more with its true source, John Muir, as planetary conditions—the song itself—deteriorate with entropy and time]. A little hint about the “plot:” The worms/larvae might be viewed as an army formed by a certain meme, as Dennett describes it. They seem a metaphor's morphic resonance recurring in the biological realm, in the physiology of their host organisms.  One might view Upstream as a display of commensalism, mutualism, amensalism, parasitism and/or symbiosis among and within species on various scales…and one can’t help but think of E.O. Wilson’s consilience…Carruther reveals imagination becoming process becoming film becoming a viewing that resonates for days...
The film embodies the impossibility of distinguishing observation from participation. For a human being to participate, she must observe. To observe, he must participate. Observational participation requires a mixing of identities, a further evolution of what’s actually happening…and none of it can ever be avoided…
*****
This morning, beginning to think again about the film and how it relates to my above stated project, I began scratching notes on a sticky pad. These notes appeared in two distinct columns. The subtle difference between the two columns, I think, is that the left hand column, for which Reck and Thoreau exemplify the list, are more observer than participant in their subject matter. Thoreau’s participation with Nature is something that evolved out of his way of perceiving it. Reck, of course, was as aloof as he could be to the Nazis. The right hand column of participants is headed by Celine and Bukowski. One might think Sade would fall into this category, and they’d be right if the characteristics I listed for the grouping had been different.
For those writers whose language is hateful, and, according to their texts participate in that which they hate, the genesis of this behavior and perception seems rooted in their family relations…their childhood. Celine and Bukowski seem to have hated their fathers. Each seem to have battered self-esteem because of these relationships and appear to minimize humanity [Father, superego, authority] in relation to their privately felt selves. Celine and Bukowski read like beautiful losers to me. Neither will be feted in good company and each would and did celebrate that fact.
In the other column, to the left, whose hateful language is based on astute observations of their communities, from which they held themselves aloof, I believe the genesis of their antipathy derives from a love of nature and Truth. They are idealists whose love of goodness drives their hatred as they perceive their societies, their civilizations, destroying everything they hold dear and beautiful out of some sort of satanic malice. Also, Reck and Thoreau, unlike Celine and Bukowski, were winners, or of higher socio-economic status. The observers’ standing was more elevated than the participants’ view. Reck and Thoreau found ways to transcend, by which I mean go beyond [not necessarily “above”], while Celine-Bukowski dove right the fuck in…
Sade, of course, fits into neither category—or maybe both. He had too much self-esteem and had a decent childhood to match well with Celine or Bukowski. He did, however, dive right into his shit. He was a beautiful loser, too, but didn’t minimize humanity relative to himself but, like the observers Reck and Thoreau, minimized humanity relative to the cosmos, putting us in our proper place. Sade may have been arrogant relative to his fellow humans, but he was also downright humble about human beings relative to their [our] possible place in a “moral universe.”
What they all have in common is a hatred of human arrogance, which is something Carruth’s Upstream Colors disintegrates by actively absenting all ideology from his film’s plot [though the same can’t be said for its structure and themes]. It simply shows how we humans function in the germ-sphere…and what our best hopes might consist of…
I’ll stop there, but when I pick it up again I’ll be including Bataille, who says some interesting things about evil and literature that, in my way of thinking and feeling, are just plain wrong…

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Now Linking to UK's Militant Poetics and Ann C. Crispin's Writer Beware

I like the attitude over in the UK. American writers should consider starting up something here, too. And Ann Crispin's blog "Shin[es] a bright light into the dark corners of the shadow-world of literary scams, schemes, and pitfalls."

Check out Writer Beware and Militant Poetics...

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Does the Moon Ever Shine In Heaven? [an excerpt]

Here's a brief excerpt from my forthcoming novel from BlazeVox[books], Does the Moon Ever Shine in Heaven? A Tale of the Bardo Plane:

http://www.blazevox.org/BX%20Covers/BXspring13/Chuck%20Richardson%20-%20Spring%2013.pdf

The rest of the issue's spectacular, so check it out...

Friday, December 21, 2012

Dripping Viking Blood On Every Page


Also, reading what I was writing...

What Stopped Us…Who Did We Think We Were?

[Note: The original version was written in the present-tense. I changed that to the past-tense as it feels truer to the present situation. I think this scenario is also relevant to the issues of gun control and the so-called “fiscal cliff.” What it all comes down to is how negotiable is one’s way of life in light of a new reality? In many ways, this date does seem close to a tipping point on a number of issues. Regardless of which side you take in any given argument, ask yourself what would be required to change your position. The shared situation of our moment is the successful re-negotiation of how we’re going to live together. A new day is dawning whether we like it or not. The past tense is used to convey my cynicism re: the survival of the “American way,” which has come to be defined by militaristic consumerism and ignorant religiosity, and just doesn’t even begin to address the present necessities of human life on Earth. So here are my rather brief thoughts, for what very little they’re worth, on the biggest issue of our time. Naturally, putting them in the past tense puts this in the realm of “fiction,” which might, with your leniency, provide it with certain liberties…]

Imagine a wood sprite appeared before you while hiking and, assuming you loved nature and possessed a heroic character, it informed you that if you sacrificed your life forthwith you would save an entire species of indigenous plant.

Explaining, the sprite told you that if you took another step in any direction, you’d permanently disrupt the delicate balance comprising the habitat of the final patch of blackjack trillium anywhere.

If you relented, the wood spirit would have simply made you disappear, ending your physical existence in this realm, or transformed your mode of energy—whatever it was you chose to believe in at the time.

What would you have done, assuming you had had faith that the offer had been genuine? Just how important did you think you were? Where did your sentiments and sympathies lie, and why? Were true heroes self-indulgent? Did they believe in the superiority of their kind, or did they serve a higher purpose than their own self-interest, expanding their identity to include everything they related to with love and reason?

These questions seemed preposterous to many, and were perhaps as unnerving as asking a chemical corporation’s spokesperson whether or not that company’s product—Tupperware—was worth endangering the life and health of the surrounding community, which shared in the risk of [but not the profit from] its production.

Yet, the very reason it was impolite was the very reason it was so important. Who we thought we were dictated our behavior and defined the choices we made. That behavior and those choices, psychologically motivated, had profound material effects on the ecosystem that maintained us, and the story that defined and conceptualized our sense of self, which allowed us to function.

My guess was that such questions pricked us with profound discomfort because they pointed out the degree to which each of us in some way had sold out to the amoral philosophy of the free market system, and then rationalized that corrupted sense of self with an incoherent, toxic form of sky god monotheism validated by space age military technology. In other words, we were as moody and agitated as any heavily armed addict whose supply was threatened.

The fact was that each of us was who we were, and did what we did, because of America’s superpower status. Each and every human being in America had materially benefited from the nation’s military budget in some way, either directly or indirectly, and the price paid for this was made painfully aware to everyone but Americans themselves—at least until the end—in the form of the primacy of American national interests, politically and economically defined, around the globe.

The fact was the prices we paid for goods were artificially low across the board, as the true costs of their marketing; production and distribution were externalized or socialized. American politicians of both parties, to remain in power, necessarily ensured that this continued for the duration of their terms in office. Any deviation from that unfair advantage would’ve landed them in hot water with workers and investors alike, and most likely would have cost them their prestigious livelihoods.

In other words, Americans didn’t realize that they paid less for things at the store than people in other countries did, but would end up paying more in the long run for a suite of problems associated with that imbalanced cost-benefit formula. American military might perpetuated our advantage, allowing us to go to Wal-Mart or have a pizza delivered to our door in 30 minutes. It allowed us to go anywhere in the world and feel at home with the golden arches just down the road and the latest products from Hollywood and New York filling the airwaves and movie screens. It was an advantage we took at gunpoint. Did that make those who supported such a political economic system guilty of armed robbery, even if we were merely unwitting accessories after the fact? Was ignorance of a law an excuse for avoiding the consequences of violating it? That may have been so in cases of human jurisprudence, where sympathy might be taken, but was certainly not a valid excuse in wild nature, which operated by the immutable laws of physics and raw transfers of data.

One of the things I was required to do to get my dolphins when I was on a nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine during Reagan’s first term, was to trace the path of a water molecule in the ocean through the submarine, which was to be viewed as a living organism, the chemical changes that water molecule went through, and how it was dispersed back into the environment and in what forms. From there it was only a matter of reading a few ecology books to realize how the sub’s poop ended up back in its mouth again. It was the way an ecosystem worked. Ironic I’d learn about that, or begin learning about it, in the place I did.

Another, perhaps deeper irony, was that one wasn’t recognized as a citizen on the boat until one recognized how the air one breathed was made and where the water that one drank came from, and who and what was responsible for the whole process. The submarine was a mini-ecosystem. Sailors had virtually no rights or no means of escape until they recognized their function in that system, which could not be fully understood until recognizing the functions of all the other ingredients that made the organism tick. This level of enlightenment was attained because everyone recognized that education, training and awareness were literally a matter of life and death. The true freedom to act in one’s enlightened self-interest was an absolute necessity within the authoritarian program that operated the boat’s life support systems. Poseidon was unforgiving when it came to submariner error.

Now, let’s return to the original question, but rephrased: Imagine for a minute that you were on a submarine and the captain said you had to go into the torpedo room to battle a fire and fuel leak that you were specifically trained to handle. If you went in there it would be certain suicide, but you might save the boat and your shipmates if you did. If you didn’t, the sub was most likely going down and then you’d all end up dead. What would you have done?

Most of us would have said we’d have gone in there and done our duty, but it wasn’t that simple. Unless one was trained to fight, it was a 50-50 bet whether or not they’d take flight or do so. Of course, training also made one more effective in a crisis. Everything actually depended upon what one’s mind contained and its potential capabilities in the moment before the crisis occurred. Life was, in part, maybe mostly, a preparation for behaving responsibly when one had to behave that way. Those who lacked the discipline perished and failed to reproduce, and their traits were lost to history [like everyone else’s was].

Unfortunately, most people didn’t view their lives on land as being equivalent to life aboard the sub. They failed to see that we basically inhabited a space ship that had evolved its own degree of self-consciousness, an organic self-awareness or nascent sentience in the form of humankind, as opposed to an artificial intelligence, made manifest in holding faith in something that did not exist in and of itself. It was our ecological function, therefore, to be hyper-sensible and responsive to the system’s needs. If an asteroid had been headed for Earth, we could have been the planet’s defense system. If we were causing it to die of fever, we were a virus hoping to communicate its disease elsewhere. Truth was we were both contagion and anti-asteroid defense mechanism. Existence was the friction between chaos and entropy, death and desire, which warmed and lit our universe.

Yet we lived in a society in which hardly anyone would be willing to sacrifice his or her life for an entire species of weed. We instinctively valued our individual lives over that of a complete strand of life’s web because we were human, lord over nature, and deep down believed the world ended when we died. Our lifestyles and standards of living had to be maintained at all costs. We were so perverse that we’d kill and die for the convenience of microwave ovens and the lizard brain pleasure of an SUV in heavy traffic, but not to ensure the healthy future of life on the planet. We committed genocide against dandelions and grubs, poisoned birds and contaminated groundwater, triggered asthma attacks in our neighbors and caused their mother’s breast cancer and child’s leukemia for the sake of a green lawn. And we disenfranchised billions of people worldwide through the international financial system that our nation’s elite private interests clearly dominated.

And now we’re dead, the result of our perverse national belief system. It was probably already too late to save the planet by the time we became aware of it. America, which was seen by its citizens and many around the world as humankind’s best hope, nailed nature to the cross for its own short-term profit. The effects of global warming accelerated beyond scientific predictions. Our sub had sprung too many leaks and too many vital systems were crippled by fire. We were in deep water with no backup, no rescue in sight. It was time for a deathbed conversion before it was even too late for that.

Since humankind was, perhaps, Earth Mother’s ego, it would have been nice if she had had some sort of realization about herself before she lost her mind, her madness, her pathology and healed. Her life and ours might have meant something had we bothered to live by It.

Finally, I was honest in the early version of this piece, in which I confessed I wouldn’t have killed myself to save the last specimen of a species of wildflower. To save the last individual of a great ape might have been another story, but to say the least I would have made a concerted effort to change my lifestyle, which I did and continued doing with varying degrees of success, in an effort to tread as lightly as I could on the Earth…despite my considerable appetites.

The bottom line was if one didn’t strive to function responsibly as an individual human being within the ecosystem and seek to overthrow America’s amoral political-economic dogma, one might as well have done the world a favor and dropped dead [which we did]. The preferred response, of course, would have simply been for one to alter their lifestyle, to decide to curtail their comfortable mode of being in favor of a better, more meaningful one.

But it didn’t happen. It couldn’t have. The fact was, everything alive had been convicted and sentenced to death. Our response to that news dictated what our existence felt like. How did we want to be and what stopped us from being that way?

Those were the questions. Our responses were complicated, but the problem wasn’t. And now we’re dead.

Originally published as “Looking for a Deathbed Conversion” in Dissident Voice, August 2004; anthologized in The Cost of Freedom, Howling Dog Press, 2007.

Related Links:

Climate Change: It’s Even Worse Than We Thought
http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate?cmpid=NLC%7CNSNS%7C2012-1911-GLOBAL%7Cworseclimate&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_content=worseclimate

Telemorphosis: Theory in the Era of Climate Change, Vol. 1, edited by Tom Cohen
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ohp;idno=10539563.0001.001

Impasses of the Post-Global: Theory in the Era of Climate Change, Vol. 2, edited by Henry Sussman
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ohp;idno=10803281.0001.001

Friday, November 30, 2012

A NEW TRUTH COULD BE AROUND THE CORNER

OPENING BLURB:

Imagine the scene: the President of the United States of America [Bill Clinton] has just addressed the nation on television from the White House Rose Garden, officially informing us that strong evidence has been found suggesting we’re not alone in the universe. He opens the floor to questioning. The reporters have a once in a lifetime opportunity to ask the leader of the free world, and arguably the planet, one of the most profound questions ever asked and answered at a pivotal point in human history…the press jostles to be recognized by the leader. He looks searchingly through the crowd, then points to a man in the back. Magnanimously, the President has picked an ordinary Joe to ask this most momentous question. Eagerly, the plebeian queries: “Mr. President, how do you feel about Senator Dole’s flip-flopping about the abortion plank to the Republican Party platform in San Diego?”

Related Update:


What are we doing?

Most people truly aware about global warming know time has run out and we lack the space to deal with the consequences. It feels like the accelerating rate of change is beyond our ability to cope. It feels like the feedback loops between self and system are dissolving beyond repair. Whether it’s technology, lifestyle or world events, people are tiring as we become materially exhausted. Many would love to migrate, but there’s no place left to go. This means we’re reaching a breaking point, and when it’s reached we’ll find out what we’ve actually become. As it is today, nobody really knows.

Candidates in “democracies” around the world can’t and won’t talk about global warming and what it means because the interests they represent won’t let them. It’s interesting that people will riot and kill over a cartoon, or shoot somebody over abortion, or burn them at the stake for witchcraft, but not get too stirred up over how they themselves are killing the planet with their lifestyles and attitudes.

Today I’m posting an excerpt from a work in progress. Though the narrator is a fictional character, the story about the alien abductee actually occurred pretty much as related here. The views stated are not mine but those of the abductee. This is an extremely rough draft, so please, no comments on its fictional quality. Its relevance becomes apparent if you replace aliens with Gaia and global warming [or at least add them as the piece’s essential ingredients]. Rather than being livestock for aliens, in my fictional Gaia theory humans may have evolved as instruments of the planet’s cognitive evolution. We’re an emergent function of the planet’s cognitive evolution into a mindful defense system able to shoot down incoming that have hurt so much in the past. Perhaps.

Of course, all this is coming from a teleological perspective, as in things come into existence intentionally, and when you think of it, intention of some type does inform everything. Consciousness exists. Therefore, if it’s perceived, if it exists, intention is involved in some way. Or maybe not. Everything’s open to debate, though for some reason we won’t discuss this on a large scale.

Global warming is symptomatic of something our Emerger—whether it be God in Heaven, an alien race, Mother Earth evolving us or some exotic combination of the above—is rejecting. Any way that one looks at it, global warming is a sign that the “gods” are not happy. We’re ignoring the signs. These “gods” are slowly revealing themselves to people over time and will do so on a grand scale once the human population—the human superorganism—is mentally ready for that kind of awareness. There are signs all around us. We’re like livestock to the aliens, an emerging organ within the global organism to Gaia… “What’s that?” she might wonder…

What all these “others” have in common is their possession of a consciousness above and beyond anything we’ll ever grasp on this dimension alone. It’s approachable by us only through our minds.

When the alien abductee’s  ideas were first presented to me I was humiliated. But after awhile, it took some years actually, I came to realize that “good,” if it’s anything, is that which humiliates the worst tendencies in people. I’ve come to believe that “worst tendency” is the belief that the Earth exists for human use and life revolves around us. I believe in a cosmic biocentrism where mind in human form is but a single strand of mind within a conceivably infinite fabric. Quite often these negative, anthropocentric tendencies fight back with a vengeance [it sucks being humiliated], but they always lose [as animus must always lose to anima, being sapped by it], and expended of the excess, which is to say negative energy, our worst tendencies have no fight left in them. That’s because at the heart of these negative tendencies appears the denial of another person’s truth, a rejection of another’s reality because it doesn’t resemble one’s own.

To think humans are the most important species in the world is a lie we can no longer live with.

Continuing this kind of dishonesty is leading to Armegeddon, which is what happens whenever humans ignore their “god’s” desire.

I write hoping for a more peaceful apocalypse…or more loving revelation.

There are multiple layers of delusion/narration involving the narrative of this fiction-in-progress. Any disagreements you may have with what you’re reading will be with the narrator[s], not “me.” As all the novel’s narrators are delusional, none are reliable. And what about the readers? The truth is up to you. And remember, please, this is only a rough sketch, an initial draft to get something down…who knows if it will even make the final cut…but I’m sharing it because I think it’s relevant and kind of interesting:

Wednesday, August 7, 1996—Journal Entry: HE BELIEVES WE ARE NOT ALONE

At 11: 35 p.m., Tuesday, August 6, 1996, while tuning in to Nightline for the day’s final dose of moral outrage after laboring to remove the rubble foundation from a friend’s old country house all afternoon in ninety degree heat and fishing all evening for worm thieving prey in a bug infested swamp and spending the post-funk, pre-midnight hours in my Jacuzzi with the friend whose house I had earlier helped demolish, I sat alone in the dark before the boob tube and learned from Ted Koppel that supposedly solid evidence had allegedly emerged from scientific studies that life, albeit in a microbial format, once dwelled [and still may] in our nearest planet neighbor’s crust at the same time that life for we earthlings began developing here [for all the details read the newspapers, etc.]. Setting aside my skepticism that an asteroid hit Mars 16 million years ago sending a micro-corpse infested fragment of its surface into solar orbit until it entered the Earth’s gravitational field finding its way to the South Pole some 15,987,000 years  later[1] only to be discovered in 1984 by a NASA sponsored Antarctic expedition hunting space debris and getting stowed for twelve years in a warehouse somewhere before being analyzed and declared mind-blowing, I think that at the very least the possibility of its being true, or real, is exciting enough. What a fabulous story! This essay is going to analyze the meaning of this story if it is true, as well as the meaning of the “discovery,” or news, in the event it turns out not to be.

*****

One Saturday in the fall of 1991, I was canvassing a neighborhood in Sierra Madre, CA, for Greenpeace. I noticed in my clip that I had a card for a member who consistently contributed $250 each year, and it was time for her to contribute again. Her address placed her high up on one of the mountains [I don’t recall the name], and I decided to work from its base up, which would mean she would be one of the last people I’d see on my initial run up the street.
When I arrived at her house, I had yet to receive any donations from the people I had spoken to. However, most folks weren’t home so I wasn’t bothered that much by it. The neighborhood was nice and I had that $250 card. Her house was a one story structure nestled neatly into the side of a cliff. From the street out front one could see the urban sprawl of Los Angeles. It was a beautiful setting choked by smog. I approached the door and knocked. A stocky woman in her mid-thirties with dark hair and penetrating eyes opened the door.
She was all business, eyeing me suspiciously. I introduced myself and asked if the woman whose name I had on the membership card was at home. She turned out to be the woman in the doorway. After looking out into the street, she nervously invited me to wait on her doorstep while she retrieved her checkbook.
She returned a few moments later with a check for $250, which I eagerly accepted, and an envelope in her other hand. As I began informing her about the issues our local office was working on, the woman said she had something I might be interested in seeing. Believing she had evidence of some local environmental atrocity, I eagerly agreed to see whatever it was she wanted to show me. Without a word, she handed me the envelope. I opened it up and inside were ten instamatic photographs of a flying saucer hovering in the sky over her street. There were two Army choppers circling it [I assume they were circling, they may have been hovering]. She took me by the arm and led me to the spot in the middle of the street where she had taken the photographs. I stood there and watched the landmarks in the pictures form before my eyes. She then informed me that she had been in contact with aliens her entire life, that she was under 24-hour government surveillance and that she had had a respectable job with a big California bank and that she was a person who believed in reason and logic, that her experiences had cost her her job because of a nervous breakdown… Things were going too fast and getting too far afield of Greenpeace and ecology, so I politely let her finish and then thanked her for her contribution and left.
However, further canvassing proved impossible. How does one doctor instant photos? She seemed so intense. I was certain that she believed what she was telling me was real. And how does one doctor instant photos? With two and a half times the day’s fundraising quota in my hip pocket, I decided to take a seat on a rock and try to absorb what I had just seen and heard. If it was real [how could it be?], what did it mean? I decided to return to her house and see if she would answer some questions. To my relief, she was glad to see me, and not at all surprised. She invited me into her house and sat down in her living room. It was a dark, wooden interior that was rustic and charming. She served me a glass of ice water, invited me to sit down, and said ask away. Here, to the best of my recollection, are the highlights of the interview that took place:
Q: Do you have any further evidence?
A: Look at that beam in the wall. Do you see anything? (I see what looks like the face of an alien: large head and eyes, small mouth, skinny neck…formed by the grain in the wood). They’ve been here many times. But do I have physical evidence? Just the pictures, and the coincidence of that face in the wood. They’ve been here many times. Last time was just sixteen days ago. It was in the middle of the night and I was in bed sleeping. When I awoke, I sensed that something was present. Through my bedroom door over there I saw a very tall, very dark, emaciated figure standing right about here (she gestures at the space of floor in front of her). She was obviously the leader. She was very black and for some reason I refer to her simply as Cleopatra. She had a lot of little grey helpers with her, about six of them, three feet tall or so. Their large heads peaked just above the top of the counter over there (she points to her kitchen counter, which could double as a living room bar if she wanted it to). She told me not to worry, that everything would be alright. But how would you feel? I just want to be left alone. But they won’t leave me alone. They keep coming back.
Q: Who are they?
A: There are three races: the greys, the browns and the blacks. The blacks, like Cleopatra, seem to be running the show. The greys are their immediate assistants, and the browns seem to be manual laborers. They come from a planet in the solar system surrounding Alpha Centauri, and they’ve been coming here since the beginning. They are responsible for many of our major technological breakthroughs, which they only helped us with once we happened upon the theories behind what made them work. Plastic is an example of an alien-wrought consumer good. We had help with World War II, but they didn’t help us with the bomb even though Hitler drove them crazy, because they hate to interfere. They have an underground base in the desert near here and they’ve been helping our Air Force in the Cold War. You can go out Route 87 any night and see things in the sky. You should go some time (I have changed the number of the route, and never went there, not really wanting to be confronted with more information—I wish I hadn’t done that).
Q: Why are they here? Why do they interfere?
A: To expand their gene pool. Their species is dying out due to a lack of genetic diversity. The human species was basically made in their own image and planted here with the intention of growing diverse strains of DNA which would enable them to survive the purity of their own genetic structures. In other words, they are using humans to breed. We are nothing more than very precious, semi-conscious livestock. They are watching political events closely and have told the world’s leaders that they had to either shape up on their own or face a takeover. The aliens can’t afford to let us destroy ourselves, but they would prefer that we live freely because freedom, and all the responsibility that goes with it, generates the strongest strains and widest variety of genes. However, any genes is better than no genes so they’ve given our leaders an ultimatum. Either straighten up, or get straightened out.
Q: Did they give them a deadline?
A: Yes. But they wouldn’t tell me. I don’t have a need to know. All they would say is that time is running out, and that things are coming to a head. They will reveal themselves to the masses if and when they must, but they’ll do it gradually so the people can be somewhat prepared for it. There will be signs. When they do come, some people will be fed up with the world and welcome them. Others won’t. Since we’re nothing but livestock, I pity those who won’t. What’s happening in world politics is directly related to their ultimatum. From their perspective, abortion is the worst crime.
Q: How did they get here?
A: My knowledge of science is too weak to give you a good answer. All I know is that they’ve learned something about space-time warps and how to manipulate them. Their spacecraft use a form of energy that has not yet even become a theory or a dream for human scientists. It has something to do with the mind. That’s all I can say. We’ve got a lot to learn, and we think we know so much.
Q: What philosophy or religion is closest to their own?
A: Orthodox Judaism [she appears of WASPish descent]. The ancient laws of the Jews were laid down by aliens as rules the herd should live by, so that they should be fruitful and multiply. It is this tradition that rings truest to their ears, since it was they who created it for us. Orthodox Jews today practice pretty much their original religion. One might just say that the Orthodox of most religions live closest to their teaching.
Q: What about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Native American spirituality?
A: Orthodox Judaism is the purest surviving form of what they originally taught that has any kind of political influence in the way they intended. The other religions have all, for the most part, wrongly [implying that there’s a right way] adapted with the developments of civilization over time, or perished [adapt, even if it’s wrong!]. Christianity came much later and was immediately hyper-politicized and popularized by the Romans. It also tended to tear down cultural differences and mix gene pools, which was alarming from the alien standpoint of diversity, but nonetheless necessary because the aliens knew that differences, implacably perceived among the livestock, which was psychically programmed to remain “pure” for the sake of the survival of its diverse gene pools, would someday threaten their existence: thus, the queer, paradoxical alien teaching of Christ [one of them who walked in our shoes] to “love thy enemy.” Islam focuses too much on authoritarian matters and worldly affairs with its big and little jihads, and what passes for orthodoxy is really just a political machine. However, Mohammed was one of them. They used him to put the rest of the house in order in that region of the world. Buddhism is very close, and can get you there, it’s the way of the future, but today it lacks the socio-political organization within the world powers and thus the ability to fulfill, at least for now anyway, the inherent purpose of the religion given to them by the aliens: to be creativity in the population and thus expand its mind, so that it may live peacefully with itself upon the earth. However, it should be made clear that members of all religions or spiritual temperaments, especially those individuals whose sensibilities hearken to the original message [such as those humans who forever noster with what Chief Seattle called “the seventh generation”—see Jim Nollman’s Spiritual Ecology], are in good graces with the aliens. Aboriginal religions are on the mark, and like Buddhism they are a big part of the future wave but lack the influence of Judaism, and thus fail to fulfill the global political purposes of all religions—harmony with the ways of the gods. There is no one true religion, just one that’s closest in its practice to the original provided by our alien progenitors while fulfilling its political purposes more than the others. There’s even a debate between the blacks and greys as to whether or not a culture so strongly traditional as Orthodox Judaism, and that one so obsessed with purity, might not be damaging to the general intent of their harvesting the broadest range of compatible genetic strains. A multiplication of diverse spiritual sentiments is what they are now harvesting in the abstract, which is very real to them, and they are extremely pleased with the results of their policy of minimal interference with close surveillance.
However, the answer to your question is that Orthodox Judaism is closest in its practice to the religion they gave us, or at least what I’ve been able to ascertain of it by observing them and carefully considering what they’ve told me. I have a feeling, though, that our God is their God and that there is only one God, and that It definitely exists, and is indeed bound up in a single reality that includes all of us put together. It is with God that all consciousness must strive to harmonize itself. Its essence emerges from its intra-relationships with Itself.
Pray. 

Unable to dismiss the encounter, I brooded alone over it in my Hollywood apartment for two weeks, unable to work or concentrate. The idea that we were livestock was unsettling. My misanthropy and sense of poetic justice prevented me from dismissing her claims, no matter what it meant for me. And what did it mean for me? All I could feel was a sense that I had been cheapened, lessened. What she told me was humiliating. It was far worse than when I had originally read Freud or discovered that very intelligent people, folks much smarter than me or my parents or my pastor, believed we evolved from apes. I could not assimilate that information with my arrogance, even though it fit in well with my self-loathing and hatred of the human race. I guess I really didn’t hate myself that much, maybe even loved myself a little more for being so pathetic. My hatred of humanity melted into sympathy. I could empathize. We are so pathetic. I certainly felt more tolerant toward my fellow humans after that, for awhile anyway. I came to the conclusion that I could no longer work for Greenpeace.  My self-righteous rage and mortal fear of environmental suicide had been extinguished, for the time being. I slowly decided to change the course of my life, and packed this experience away in the back of my mind, not being able to bear the conscious humility of it for a prolonged duration, until the month of August some five years later when the rage and fear had rekindled itself…
How does one alter instant photographs?

*****

The response to the discovery of the alien microbe fossils intrigued me. I, myself, was intellectually stimulated but strangely bereft of any excited emotion [yes, I’m aware of how that sentence sounds; it’s a fictional voice speaking…sometimes “bad” writing can be a part of adequate writing]. I guess for me the existence of microbes in space had become a foregone conclusion. Yet, at the same time, those for whom it was not a foregone conclusion, seemed to respond with a similar apathy, which I found unsettling. Why weren’t people more impressed? Why wasn’t I more impressed? [This question, which I have asked myself many times, is an example of extreme denial on my part…I still can’t except the idea that I’m a domesticated stud cow for ETs, my sex life is too lifeless for such a possibility].
I think that the main discrepancy in any response to these allegedly alien exposures is directly related to the difference between intelligent or conscious life, and non-intelligent or unconscious life. Unfortunately, the more highly developed a creature’s sentience, the more sensitive humans are to its existence. Regardless of the fact that plants have plant consciousness, and beetles have bug consciousness, unless the creature breathes and sleeps as we do, eats and shits in similar fashion, fucks and dreams in related forms, loves and hates, fights and plays, makes decisions that serve the pleasures of their existing senses…we can’t get too excited. To get excited, we need creatures we can relate to. The more related we are, the more excited we get. Just compare the difference in pleasure people get, say, in frolicking with dolphins or chimps in a free but safe environment, and people lining up and paying several shillings to sniff a giant stinky plant in London. Pleasure is experienced by both groups, but which seems more exhilarated and why? Could it be that humans subconsciously envy the unconscious liberation of most of their fellow creatures, envying most the unconscious ones, thus dismissing them as afterthoughts in God’s creation [man was created last in Genesis], while consciously longing for everything to be like them, in their image? Could it be that our investiture in the quality of our experience is simultaneously a denial of our lack of ability to grasp reality, and an affirmation of our conscious desire to live while alive? What are we humans trying to accomplish in life? What do we, our achievements, this life-world really mean?
Regardless of the absurdity of my questions and corresponding assumptions, I believe my general apathy in response to the discovery of fossilized Martian microbes is directly proportional to the degree in which I did not experience them. I received the news of their discovery over television. Whereas I was informed of the existence of humanoid beings visiting us in flying saucers by an actual eyewitness, I was not only at the press conference but I was at the scene. This brings up the second point—relationship. The degree of inter-relationship between the observers and the observed within an event is directly proportional to the relator’s [observer’s] level of experience [first-, second- or third-hand, etc.] [At this point, I could digress on the repercussions of the Heisenberg Principle to deconstruct the reality of our topic, but I won’t, at least not in this essay]. The Sierra Madre incident vibrated with inter-relatedness, whereas ABC News seemed unrelated and distant in comparison. Of course, I would yawn at such late night news, no matter how dramatic in the privacy and darkness of my own living room, far, far away…even from my next door neighbor…
My primary interest evolved finally to the responses of my fellow humans upon hearing the news. At about 1 p.m. Wednesday, August 7, President Clinton made a brief but eloquent statement regarding the discovery and then opened the floor to questions. The first and only question asked, stunned the President, and stunned me. Imagine the scene: the President of the United States of America has just addressed the nation on national television, officially informing us that strong evidence has been found suggesting that we are not alone in the universe, he opens the floor to questioning, the reporters have a once in a lifetime opportunity to ask the leader of the free world, and arguably the planet, one of the most profound questions ever asked and answered at a pivotal point in human history…the press jostles to be recognizd by the leader, he looks searchingly through the crowd, then points to a man in the back, magnanimously, the President has picked an ordinary Joe to ask this most momentous question, eagerly, the plebeian queries: “Mr. President, how do you feel about Senator Dole’s flip-flopping about the abortion plank to the Republican Party platform in San Diego?” The opportunity was there and the chance was blown. So be it for Shakespeare on CNN. At least this time [then again, maybe there is something Shakespearian about it…]. This, coupled with my 86-year-old uncle’s angry intonations later on regarding the bureaucracy of NASA manufacturing this crap to siphon more money from his wallet, and my mother’s disgust at hearing of my inordinate interest in the whole thing, led me to ask myself the questions: Who cares? Why do they care? Who doesn’t care and why don’t they? What kind of event is truly “earth-shattering” to them? Was the birth, life, and subsequent crucifixion and alleged resurrection of Christ “earth-shattering” at the time to most of the planet’s population? What about Tathagata Buddha’s life, was it “earth-shattering” at the time? Let me take these questions one-by-one.
Who cares? People with active minds hell bent on using them care. Hopeless romantics in love and little tramps waiting for Godot care. So do the paranoid and anxious, the open minded and the childlike, princes and paupers, mailmen, presidents, cowboys, welfare moms and bankers, athletes, artists, philosophers and golfers, hunters, chemists, environmentalists…humans.
Why do they care? Evidence of extraterrestrial life expands their frontiers immeasurably in a time of severe constraints. Life, once believed unique to Earth, is actually ubiquitous in the cosmos. Rather than it being anomalous, it’s routine. Rather than it only emerging here, it also emerges elsewhere. In fact, it may be trying to emerge everywhere, but can only find nurture in some places, and among those places only a few can sustain evolution, and among those yet fewer still witness evolution sustaining itself to the point that It becomes sentient, and fewer still…but then, when calculating the size[s] of the universe[s], one comes to the inescapable conclusion that we are not alone. And our mind expands, we become a bit more fruitful, and gain a somewhat greater dominion over our precarious existence here. This is the greatest reason in this world, or any other, to care.
Who, then, doesn’t care, and why don’t they? People who are hungry and dis-eased don’t care. People with anger, sorrow, hate, suspicion, envy, pride, arrogance, ignorance, selfishness… humans, they don’t care. All of us at one time or another doesn’t care. But just because we don’t care doesn’t mean it’s not important. Therein lies a seed of tragedy: the failure to see what’s really important, because we’re human and won’t. The initial response for most people at such times is intolerance. We tend to treat like with like, adding to our consternation, rather than reaching for diversity, change and constant flow. Anything that represents diversity, change and constant flow [perpetual motion] tends to upset people, so their minds put on the mantle of apathy. The mind will always seek its pleasure [Freud]. Just look at my response to the flying saucer lady of Sierra Madre. What’s really good, what’s really important, always seems to humiliate the worst tendencies in people, and quite often those tendencies fight back with a vengeance. The best thing is to leave such people alone, because tomorrow they’re liable to be more open to it, and if not tomorrow, sometime, elsewhere, they will, and they’ll begin caring. When the human heart is open, it cares about everything; when it’s mind is open, it’s willing to believe.
What kind of event is actually “earth-shattering,” and what kind is really people-shattering? People’s lives make sense as stories. Every adult alive is a walking autobiography. In their heads swirl the stories of their lives. Their minds [possibly those of most people; the postmodern mindset is still a minority, but like Buddhism and indigenous spirituality, it is the wave of the future] construct these stories in traditional, Aristotlean patterns, filled with binaries and linearities, causes and effects, all emanating from the consciousness of the thinking-autobiography, its self-awareness, its hand in writing its own story, and the choices it makes in doing so. “Human-shattering” events are those that rupture the perceived material fields of thinking-autobiographies. The death of a loved one, a divorce, loss of a job, a move…all these things are “human-shattering” events. They change the story of our lives, our scene changes, the mood and tone with it. But life on the grand scale continues on its course as the materials of singular lives are forever altered. But somehow, when people use the term “earth-shattering,” it is meant in a more global, or common, sense. This is something difficult for walking-autobiographies to contend with. It is something that emanates from the larger context, from the broader current, of the world they occupy. Quite often events such as these are not immediately felt. How many Cajuns drowned themselves in the swamp on the stock market crash of 1929? Then again, how did the Great Depression and the federal programs it necessitated change their lives in the long run? How many people on earth mourned when Christ was crucified? How many were enlightened by the teachings of the Buddha when he lived? These were all, certainly, “earth-shattering” events, but they did not change the stories of the walking-autobiographies who inhabited the world when they did.
So there are two magnitudes, at least, of “earth-shattering” events. An “earth-shattering” event of the first magnitude, is one that has global proportions. An “earth-shattering” event of the second magnitude is one of personal proportions. Both, however, affect each other. The degree to which they do, of course, depends upon their inter-relatedness and the way in which their experience is perceived. Ultimately, therefore, all “earth-shattering” events must be personal and global if they are to be completely “earth-shattering.” The discovery of possible microbe fossils from Mars is an “earth-shattering” event of the first magnitude lacking second magnitude resonance on a personal scale. Therefore, as a star, it has a very bright surface shine, but seems to lack a certain depth to its radiation. The excitement, therefore, is primarily intellectual, it is not visceral, rising up from within. The flying saucer lady of Sierra Madre, however, represents an “earth-shattering” of the first magnitude that is almost overwhelmed by it second magnitude, or personal significance. Any way you look at it, the very real existence of extraterrestrial life is “earth-shattering.” The degree to which it is so, varies from person to person. Denial of the truth of others, who come from elsewhere, is a lie we can no longer live with.
So, the real questions are: How “earth-shattering” will the discovery of possible ET fossils from Mars be in the long run? How “earth-shattering” did it prove to be when the sun no longer revolved around a flat plain of land surrounded by Ocean? The answers to these questions, though obvious, take time. Lots of it. No one singular discovery ever changed the wholesale view of mankind. It always took a series of discoveries, each with its own magnitude, to conjure up the emergence of a new reality, of a new world, of a new mind. Could these fossils just be the beginning of a chain of discoveries that will definitely conclude that we are not alone?
 
CONCLUSION
 
Any way you look at it, the very real possibility of extraterrestrial life is “earth-shattering.” The degree to which it changes reality varies from person to person.
 
However, the same isn’t true of global warming. It’s a fact, not a possibility. It’s actually human shattering. Edward Abbey wrote that you can’t change human nature without mutilating human beings. But that’s what evolution is: constructive mutiliation.
 
Death is the fundamental fact of life. Denial of this truth, like the denial of the truths of others who come from elsewhere, is a denial we can no longer live with.
 
I hope the best is yet to come. But it won’t be if we won’t stop lying to ourselves about ourselves.
 
A new truth awaits us, and it’s more beautiful than we’ve ever dreamed…
 
Stay tuned.

RELATED:





[1] Altogether a dozen of these alleged meteorites were found, only the first one collected has yet yielded what might seem to be evidence of life.