> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:

>> I remember many years ago, my older brother and his mate were walking
>> home after a 'couple of beers' . Just mildly relaxed. Far from
>> intoxicated and neither touched drugs.

>

>> They both saw a couple of UFO's. Their nature was such, that one
>> wouldnt have mentioned it to the other for the fear of being
>> ridiculed.

>

>> They mentioned it to me, because they knew I was open minded and had a
>> mild curiosity of the subject.

>

>> I had just read what at the time, seemed quite feasable, regarding an
>> individualls ability to see (and hear) beyond the normal spectrum.

>

>> I was amazed how even the mention of such an explanation put me, in
>> their eyes, where they felt they would be put, if mentioned to ther
>> work mates.

>

>> That was a good lesson in judgment. When a belief dominates, there is
>> little room for open mindedness, regardless of the evidence.

>

>> Any reference to the 911 interpretations is purely coincidental !!!

>

>> BOfL

>
> This is interesting, in terms of what the language allows us
> to express and the way our interpretation of that language
> changes with experience.
>
> UFO. Its literal meaning leave room for the question - what
> was that? However its current usage, presupposes an answer.
> To say you saw something which was unknown to you, shouldn't
>   necessarily mean it was out of this world. Yet this is the
> paradox enshrined in this re-tokened language.
>
> We don't know.
>
> How often do we allow ourselves room for the thought. So often
> language allow us to claim knowledge of the unknown. This or
> that question is tokenized with a word or a phrase or a jibe,
> and that alone allows us to claim an answer when we actually
> have none.
>
> We can't say for sure.
>
> We recognize our answers aren't enough. This is perhaps where
> we ought to start, rather than jump to the closest answer.
> Beliefs extend out of the commonality of our answers, their
> use and function creates its own credibility. Our use of the
> token UFO, now answers the question before its been considered.
>
> We are controlled by language.
>
> It seems to me we are at the mercy of the language and those
> who know this. We are bound to its limits, limited by its
> function. Satisfied only because we have something in place
> of the question. Perhaps we would do better to entertain the
> question, keeping the question alert in our minds until we
> are as sure, as we can be, that the answer fits.
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
>              ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -