John the Parrot

09072m BWOHK John the Parrot calling all Emersonians and other people of individual character. I am the parrot belonging to Elf, the Ambassador to Planet Earth for Mars, and will be giving you his Martian perspective on this or that.

21jun01 04:05am As ambassador to Planet Earth for the Crystal People of Mars, I have much to communicate to yáll. As an Earthling myself, I naturally express my opinions etc about mundane matters of topical interest, in my sections. But here I hope to offer you all, my awareness of matters of cosmic interest --- beyond the here and now of myopic concern so common generally. The perspective of the Crystal People of Mars is indeed actually quite beyond my own feeble human awareness, but they wish me to convey as well as I can what I am able to divine of their sort of opinions; this is due to my long association with them over many years of espousing their existence when other folks scoffed at the very idea of life on Mars at all. But life is a matter of definition: the search for extraterrestrial life is usually too anthropo-morphic to merit respect among us cognoscenti.

270601 0908 The whole question of life itself applies to the notion of a search for life in outer space: what is life? As an absolute atheist, I view and enjoy The Bible as an anthology, and wonder about this or that detail, without demanding that they all come together in any unity. Accordingly, I suppose folks noticed sea-shells on the hills in Palestine/Israel/Judea and figured there must have been sea there before, so a flood; but why punitive?! Also, noticing faces (figures resembling human faces) in rock and wood, people could accordingly easily imagine Jehova creating Adam from mud. And, since in the moon there is at least one figure resembling human faciality, one could imagine an all seeing God who looks like us. So I note a tendency to conceive of life not only in human terms, but also in terms consistent with one´s moral view of the totality of life everywhere- everywhere. And with a belief in an event called Creation (whether by God/Allah etc or/and Bigbang) we are stuck with a concept of life as a consequence.

But in my own opinion (and I am not trying to convince anyone) there has never been non-life. So what is life, in the sense of life in outer space, in the sense of any sort of life (not only what we presumptuously call “Extra Terrestrial Intelligence”)?

Of course, I distinguish between Real (universal/cosmic) life, and actual life (life as we know it). But there is also plenty of room for a middle area, of life not as WE know it, but as may exist beyond our feeble minds´capacity to comprehend.

So what is the cause of our fascination/obsession with ETI?! Are we afraid, lest a potential invader take umbrage at our lack of awe? As we assume that an “Alien” (and gee whiz of course it must be alien mustn´t it?) “race” will have not only larger penises and breasts than we do, but also more advanced (whatever that may be) intelligence, we sure ought to behave deferentially in a hope for clemency, especially considering our deficiencies moral as well as intellectual, not to mention artistic!

Note that we are dependent in SETI upon “THEM” to communicate with/to us: if we assume they may well be in the habit of communicating generally (among themselves and/or with others of similar ilk) in a way or ways incomprehensible to us mere Earthlings, we need also to assume a likelihood at least that the very mode itself may be beyond our capacity to perceive as communication, or anything at all. (and maybe it is treason for one of them to get in touch with humans )(they may consider us devils) Of course, I can imagine middle-ground possibilities; maybe we and they can help each other, work together to get together---maybe they are not so absolutely smart after all. But maybe they are already here, and have been for a long time, and so what?

The difference between a great genius like DaVinci or J S Bach and the rest of us is so immense, that they may as well be of different species; or so far more evolved that for even a significant proportion of the rest of us to catch up would take thousands of years. Or maybe they are sports only (one-offs) not susceptible to even breeding or hybridization.

And what of the many of potential Einsteins killed by war, disease, celibacy etc?

Anyway, we cannot limit our view of what may be out there (or here) --- we cannot reasonably specify, order up, what sort of aliens we seek. It is on the contrary incumbent on us to try to open our mental perception at least as wide as our radio-telescopes. It may after all be only one or two alien sports who/which will be able to contact us, while the mass of THEM are as relatively backward as most of us are vis a vis DaVinci.

Or maybe the strength of their society is in their protecting potential genius and giving it possibility to develop, instead of massacring it in stupid systematic perversity---maybe they do and have been doing for eons, what we know we should be doing but cannot convince the Republicans.

And maybe they are really the Bonobo Chimpanzees.

Maybe they are being gentle with us, and until we show ourselves (or some of us do) ready to accept what they have to offer, or could in some way be compatible with them, they will treat us as too immature to contact, and avoid us for our own good and their own peace of mind. Or maybe we would not like them and they know it. Or maybe we might later. And who is this “WE” ? Do aliens practice what we like to call “democracy”? (what if they breed like rabbits and then cull like eugenicists to “improve”?) Are “THEY” a they at all?. 130701 19:37 I mention that the designation “THEM” in my new position(site or whatever) entitled THEM does not (repeat: NOT) refer to the Martians.

250701 16:20 The scientist Lovelock (James Lovelock), who gave us (from his friend) the word Gaia, is interesting, but note that he chooses to limit his perspective to a limitted form of life. I go deeper (and vaster) .

16:47 The great fallacy with bigbangtheory is it assumes creation.

260701 00:13 I imagine a sphere outside the universe, so to speak; i e, a pulling as if by a sphere integral to the universe, part of its shall we say concept.

111001 1940 NOTE: NOW WE ARE BACK IN DATE SEQUENCE, AFTER HAVING HAD INSERT FROM “THE MARTIAN EMBASSY” OF THOUGHTS OF THE AMBASSADOR, FROM A MARTIAN PERSPECTIVE, MOVED OVER HERE TO THE PROVINCE OF HIS PARROT, JOHN.)(ELF (THE AMBASSADOR) THANKS YOU FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE.)

onsdag 24. oktober 2001 21:20 Spacecraft approaching Mars.

171101 2143 I offer a Martian perspective on Earth politics: If you remember the American civil War (American in this website means USA) and the issue of slavery, I point out that altho that satisfied the needs of mobilizing the masses (masses includes all who are not The Big Boys, in the sense that an 18 year old is different from a 10 yer old --- hormonally different and capable of perceptions beyond those of children), it was actually a matter of does Washington want a nation half its size or the whole size; and does Washington want to have to fight about the undeveloped West vs a Confederacy --- and, conversely, what does Jefferson Davis (so to speak) really want? The Confederacy succeeding to get independence would then try for a piece of The West to be run from e g Atlanta. Similarly, what does bin Laden want? The Palestinians in this question represent (very loosely speaking) the slaves in the American South in 1860 --- a focus for propaganda. Slavery in USA was doomed anyway, even as a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is certain. There are other issues at stake. In the meantime, in the real perspective of clashes of vast peoples, re Islam v v The West, it is helpful to distinguish between mentalities of ethnicities: consider the differences between a) the mentality of personal introspective exploration (characteristic of The West at its best)(“Know thyself”), v v the mentality that prescribes constrained limited mental activity from cradle to grave. The notion “Democracy” includes exploration. The American philosopher Peirce discussed the relationship between thought and democracy, and had faith in the aggregate wisdom of the populace. In democratic thought we accept the fallibility of life itself, and its risk. In other mentalities risk itself is the target --- they oppose Descartes´ “I think, therefore I am” with, “I know, therefore I am”. This latter includes the paradox that one need not actually know anything, and indeed, cannot know anything, so, accordingly, abdicates thought. So such a mentality has a notion of democacy, such as may be, far different from the other. When religion is attached to such matters, people become menaces to each other. But i emphasize that the Big Boys know better than to be steared by such folly --- they have other fish to fry. Beware. søndag 18. november 2001 02:22 A necessity in culture is that folks be cognizant of games played in assumed- unconscious- contract; e g, when a woman mate attacks the male, he ought to be aware of pseudo-kindergarten games --- otherwise, she will feel that he is useless in that dimension and despair of truly relating with him.

lørdag 24. november 2001 23:10 I guess human beings are too stupid to notice the legal distinction between WW2 and Usurper´s war vs terrorism, in that actually the provisions for a declared war vs a known enemy are of an entirely different order from those assumed in a vague situation vs an enemy defined by practices vaguely referred to as evil and terrorism --- the infinite connotations of the vague, so disgusting in bad art, are what make Hitler so charming to like minded assholes like Ashcroft and Lott and their nauseating Un-American ilk. This sort of thing is what makes Republicanism more dangerous than terrorism. søndag 25. november 2001 19:35 A trap to avoid (for me) is what I call the idiot-paradox: A person may be excellent in her profession, but then feels obliged to go into other waters , as is natural --- but we who observe must remember to be patient and not annoyed when a skillful surgeon, say, is foolish or worse in international politics, say. But this is also a problem in another direction: a local hydraulics engineer who is successful in his job, avoids his own children. ( Is this out of embarrassment at possibly not being as good at being a father as he is at work?) But in the larger scope, I mention what has prompted my now saying this: opinions by two academics who are evidently successful in their professions, appear to have been written by sophomore bullshit- artists --- their thoughts in the area of international politics (with some domestic )(USA). So of course this may expose them as unable to think even in their area of expertise, but that is a separate issue. Basically they , in spite of their exalted status as academics, should NOT be seen to merit respect as political thinkers, and their thoughts about September 11 are not deserving of any special consideration or respect, any more than if they were bus-drivers (but some bus-drivers have excellent political sense). Indeed, it is often in the very nature of growing up to be an academic, that one misses certain experiences in life which may help one gain shrewdness as to political behavior --- too often, academics discussing in what they claim to be scientific method or at least manner, are like the famous trench-folk in Plato, rather than being able to smell a piece of shit or even see it in the road, in any normal way. On top of that, they deceptively throw into their stews some notions which are obviously valid (wily they have to be to succeed in academia). And, considering that people growing up suffer often by unpleasant contact with others they dislike, which leads them to form attitudes which later in adult careers they foist upon the unsuspecting, as professional opinion, watch out --- caveat emptor. So, rather than disqualifying such assholes as George Lakoff and Finn Tschudi, who are likely excellent at something, we should give them patronizingly a place at the back of the class when the topic is politics. And carefully avoid paying attention to them, lest they function in the world of Western Intellect like Taliban do in Islam. May Whizbang protect Islam from ignorant priests, and protect the world of thought from witchdoctors posing as professors.

onsdag 9. januar 2002 20:51 For johntheparrot: 010102 0040 Some people , pretending to be dispassionate objective observers, mix into their reports of what they see, feelings they do not want others to perceive in them. Certain people who hate their landlords etc or hate Globalization, want to muddy the water to combine what the terrorist does and what they themselves would hope the terrorist wants to do. If we imagine bin Laden had destroyed WTC without killing aybody, we can consider that many people would have welcomed that as oposition to Globalization. Some people have hate they go around with and dream of retribution. That one is a scholar does not prevent these feelings. I do not however mean that all who foolishly squeeze perverse terrorism into molds of reasonable complaints are so motivated, but I think it is part of what moves peple who should know better, to force such an absurd connection. Ah, yes, and there are those who figure it is a way to get votes. But in philosophy as in real estate, the 3 most important factors are
'location, location, location" --- philosophers too often resemble soccer players with no ball and no umpires (umpires?). They seem to feel that if they can impress the ancient Roman audience with their flair and address, they can claim to have won the game. But a castle built on sand cannot prevail. It sounds nice to say, that since it is bad to be bad to e g the poor of the world, we can prevent (or at least minimize) terrorism by being good. So, two birds with one stone. Jerry Fallwell (the nutty evangelist) said God was punishing us by the terrorism --- how come people who see the absurdity of that, fail to see the absurdity of the equally nonsensical notion that if we are good the terorists will go away?! The reason to be good is: to be good. Period. And terrorism has nothing to do with it. But scholars are often, at heart, demagogues; partly because they are used to teaching adoring students, and partly because they grew up with inadequate contact with their peers, and want now to compensate by showing them how to wipe their asses. But a demagogue is a demagogue, whether a professor or, e g, a journalist. People with agendas, whether Jerry Fallwell or some normal concerned citizen, try to support the cause by any means at hand. If one can get support for helping the poor of the world by using the terrorists as boogymen, why not; except that it is dangerous to insult people's intelligence. This is especially so when there is a real concern to be dealt with: terrorism is no joke. Like Bubonic Plague, to treat it as a professional- football invites disaster. It is automatic for clever folks to be carried away by the resonance of each other's minds --- Don't we sound clever, and that is why we have diplomas and social status. But linking terrorism to our own bad behavior is wrong diagnosis and leads to more plague. The people who have been terrorists in our recent past have NOT been the poor, the hungry, the deprived. But before I proceed, I must distingish terms, like “location” the foundation must be examined ala geology, to clarify the strata. Of course special interests want to tar with one brush the freedom fighter and the terrorist, and other variants. Some acts of violence are terrorism, some are campaigning for national aspirations, some are lunatic, some are vengeance, etc. We must keep an open mind, as discerning cancer types, so as to distinguish; otherwise we cannot focus our efforts effectively. So we need theory of terrorism, and that is not achieved by blind moralizing. (example . the notion of states that sponsor terrorism, does not apply to Basque, to Ireland or to Sri Lanka, or McVei (sp?)) The basic task is to prevent successful attempts. Many people will perpetrate crimes of whatever sort because the opportunity is there, like Mt Everest. And the opportunity compels response in the weakminded because it means someone is not paying attention, and THAT is too seductive to resist --- the culprit had to show the wise-asses they are stupid. There are mamny people who nurse grudges, but they do not do terrorism. It is not the poor of Latin America who blew up 3000 people a few weeks ago. The same applies to every other case of true terrorism, simply because that is how I am defining terrorism. When people organize for violence to gain their rights which have been kept from them, that is not terrorism --- it is called terrorism so as to discredit it. (Jungle natives protecting their territory are not terrorists, nor were Guatemalans opposing what Reagan called that democratic regime) If it can be shown that bin Laden has national aspirations which he and his team are attempting to further by what they did to USA, that is not properly terrorism --- it is war. If Laden wants USA out of the Arab/Moslem world, and is working in concert with Sadaam Hussein of Iraq, USA has to consider what is its own interest in the matter, and not indulge in air-fairy whining about terrorism, and the complaints of the poor and unfranchised. If USA wants to maintain a presence in the Arab/Moslem world, it needs to be realistic, and deal realistically with its allies in the region (and generally). Accordingly, USA should have studied the political realities of the matter and played hard-ball with its own electorate --- years ago. But what is USA? Please define. USA cannot deal effectively as what it is --- an imperialist --- while going about like Goody two shoes, and whining when people throw mud . It should not have taken the tragedy of September 2001 to bring us to our senses, and one can only hope that we do not even now go back to hiding our heads under the blankets. USA IS the world's most powerful nation, and denies that at its peril. This problem cannot be solved without moral awareness, as moral awareness is the rationale of political action. Moral awareness in this context means confronting nations like Saudi and DEMANDING correction of their internal politics. (But with a practical plan, not like our simple-minded badgering of The Shah of Iran) There is indeed a conflict between Jefferson and Mohammed. But, in my presumptuous opinion, reasonable Moslems couldn't care less --- they want Jefferson for politics, and Mohammed for culture. It is a matter of territory. USA must realize that militant Islam is fading, in favor of Moslem compassion. The demographic orgy of young Islam has had its orgasm and wants peace. The oil is seeping out of the Moslem mind. And USA has much to learn from the communion. If we had not dithered about shily-shallying with former Yugoslavia, the matter would have been settled by the end of 1994, and we would have had our hands free to deal with other emergencies like Ruanda/Burundi, the great apes, and Taliban and bin Laden, not to mention our own homeland security. But that would have required a national recognition of our place in the world, so that we could DEMAND that other nations accept it. I myself confess to being a moral imperialist; we should have long ago stopped various obscene practices throughout the world, e g, female circumcision and dowry burnings and caste racism. But I recognize that we have the problem of our own throwback fools, such as those who prevent international aid money where abortion is promoted. Of course, I am not the only moral imperialist, and some are actually Chrisian missonaries, so watch out, that we do not while opposing Moslem terrorists in ThePhillipines give aid and comfort to such exploiters. In the bad old days of the Cold War, USA said, “well we cannot do this orv that because what will USSR do”. And now we have to confront our own voters --- what will the current administraiton do to Alaska? Is America what Usurper Bush refers to when he says our economy is more important than world ecology? If some self-indulgent ignorant sociopath dowager in the Presidential Suite endangers the entire hotel it is my responsibility to oppose her. If she says "Don't you love mother, apple pie, the flag and America?" I say "I could not love thee half so much loved I not honor more". The same myopic venality posing as capitalism, that kept us drunken bums without security systems or safety systems (when air traffic picks up again we will miss the long overdue air traffic control radar) is also what keeps us from preserving world ecological resources. Usurper Bush's anti-planetary behavior is more dangerous than bin Laden. So what we are dealing with generally will take time and social-evolution, together with right-minded people and nations everywhere. Terrorism is not the problem. Terrorism is a practical matter of proper policing. Reasonable downtrodden do not throw bombs, they negotiate --- but if we choose to ignore them, our problem will not be terrorism, it will be our own souls. It is sneaky to give credit to terrorists for bringing us to our senses, and it not justified by the facts. It gives terrorists a flag and a cause, while they are actually merely bad. But why do we even allow ourselves to be characterized as people who must be beaten with a stick before we come to our senses? If you do not do what you should, others will do it for you, and you might not like the result. The direct wrong result of rationalizing terrorists is that they wind us around their little fingers, with the help of those among us with ulterior motives. Such pseudo wisemen say, “ you see, I know what is really bothering the terrorists, it is this and that”. Actually it is nothing of the sort. But the pseudo wiseman couldn't care less. What he wants is his own way and of course prestige. But what such pseudo-intellectuals really want is to prevent themselves from realizing that they are dumb. This is also how they manipulate each other. By pretending to be hyper-virtuous, they cover their mental inadequacies, in a situation of life in which it is important to them to appear to one and all including themselves to be SMART. So they say it was wrong to bomb Kosovo. I may vomit. Taking rest 010102 0205