Recently the United States Government released some interesting UFO files, or UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), as people were saying. I saw some of them, and I heard commentaries on them. What’s being suggested is that it’s one of the four: 1) a foreign government, 2) a local government, 3) aliens, or 4) illusions.
It looks a lot like aliens to me, but I think we could be looking at it wrong. If we entertain that reality functions more like a computer than a singular cohesive 3D universe, then it makes more sense to think that one could possibly perceive the existence of aliens if one is in contact with the aliens. That is, maybe it’s simply just difficult for aliens to contact us through what reality really is, and the results of both of our desires for communication is displayed in some or all of these UAP videos.
If reality were based on tunings and our desire to stay within awareness of one another, then we’re floating somewhere in the infinite number of possible tunings. I imagine we have a natural ability to recognize life and as such, we inherently stay near one another, although in clusters.
Beings from a distinctly different tuning would be beings from a different universe. It is perhaps in a different universe that the aliens we are seeking to communicate with reside.
The theory applies to UFO sightings in general. If one has been communicating with aliens, then the person is more likely to witness UFO’s as the mind’s way of portraying what has been going on inside the mind.
Perhaps during our evolution we were a bit hasty, and because of this, we don’t see where all of our beliefs are coming from. Perhaps if we could see this, we could potentially see why everything in reality exists, as they would exist by the nature of our agreement, so perhaps deep-down subconsciously we are actually simply conversing and this conversation is what is responsible for our experience and portrayal of reality.
Following this idea, then if one were communicating with an angel, they may later witness an angel, visually or as a feeling as seems to be common, but it was because they were initially psychically communicating that they witness the one with which they were communicating, instead of the other way around.
This theory has a few interesting implications and questions. If we are to believe this theory, then reality is founded on and modulated by subtle psychic activity. This leads to the dilemma of the identity of people one speaks with.
There is another theory. This theory is that the original man was actually a manifestation of ideologies and ways of life. Originally there was the man, who was the original ideology — simply of God. Then, that man was split into two, a masculine variant and a feminine variant. These different directions of thought gave way to many different directions of thought. Each one of these beings was a voice and potentially a person (were the being to be portrayed).
Following that, in a system of living ideologies and ways of life, one can be born if a resulting ideology matches the individual’s identity closely enough — after that, the person gains control over that identity.
This means that over time, we identify more people, but some of them are simply living ideas. You, too, are a living idea, however, you are less easily worded than ideas like good, masculine-good, and feminine-good. When an identity matches you, then you are created.
Then there is the question of whether or not you could exist in multiple places simultaneously, if you are found this way. All of these ideas can work together, however.
If what we perceive is based on the information we’re receiving, and the stability we witness is simply due to a long list of prior commitments, then you can perceive a world in which one is born in the midst of a conversation, with certain ideas, both simpler and more complex, closer and further.
All of these ideas, simple or complex, general or unique, reflect an invisible psychic conversation in some way. Interestingly, this also means that some ideas can shift, depending on what conversations you’re having. Since distance indicates connection, these conversational shifts would likely occur societally, in waves.
Some ideas don’t shift as much as others. If you were talking to the idea of cooking, the idea of cooking would reflect the background (subtle) conversation you’re psychically having internally — the same conversation that contains the possibly subtle agreements that keep the world physically stable.
Whatever you say to this being, is commuted on the network perceived by the deep subconscious (near initial or principle desire), and these messages are conveyed to others in a similar fashion. In this way, the idea of cooking in the morning, were this to be an identified person, could reflect the simultaneous conversation that he or she is having with hundreds or googols of people.
The idea is that, within the context of your history and the obligations implied, your mind generates an explanation for the conversation you are subconsciously having. While you can be identified multiple times in multiple places in the system, it seems likely that the system re-organizes and consolidates one’s identity. This is because a part of one’s identity is a coherent memory of living life. In the case where you are identified in multiple places, the identity would shift such that it was only seeming to be you, as to preserve the singularity of your identity. However, through reflecting off of ideas, your presence can be echoed, and can echo as well.
The system is really just a very ancient and still ongoing conversation between people, and there exists no principal (or most fundamental) desire any greater or less great than another desire — this sameness of all initial and principal desire prevents the reversal of decisions, which means that the constructed reality does not digress, but instead, decisions are only added.
Interestingly, because life may really be a portrayal of a conversation, age may be possibly attributable to the shifting demands of one’s memory as one progresses steadily through the conversation with others — that is also to say that it’s possible that aging is partially associative, as is possibly the way with many conditions and facets of our manifestation.
The prior argument also suggests that one dies when their memory has skewed their identity so much that they no longer identify with that memory of the self. The skewing of the memory occurs because of the need to associate with others, so everyone becomes skewed, together. The need to associate, in this case, is also fueled by the notion that if your identity gets lost — the system of life cannot find you anymore — then you could risk dying, as well. This is because, according to this perspective, your life is determined by the existence of your known identity. All of this makes dying seem mostly inevitable (although we are hopeful for a resolved future, as it’s unwanted). Also, the phenomenon of associative identity skew would indicate that beings psychically close to each other share more features with one another than beings further away from another.
Returning to the topic of the videos of possible alien activity, it could be possible that there have been decades of understanding growing between people and aliens and of their technology, resulting in an ability to see these kinds of spacecraft or aircraft. It may be a modern variant of the historic sighting of an angel.
The idea of communicating with aliens through an analog computer system that is the manifestation of reality would suggest that we would first have to become psychically closer to them, and only then our collective mind could portray these ideas that the local people and the aliens have been entertaining together. This is also saying that we cannot perceive things that we don’t understand, so as we understand something better, we become more likely to witness it, and this pattern occurs in multiple different ways.
Again, I re-iterate, the lack of freedom to simply alter reality can potentially be attributed to a series of prior commitments and affiliations that one has. These manifest as a series of feelings. At the most primitive level of human desire, the object of desire is irresistible. That is because one has no alternative desire. The singular initial or most primitive desire is a completely irresistible desire. Because of this, it’s not far-fetched to say that, in this case, the deepest and most irresistible commitments and mantra-like conversations of our collective psyche go unnoticed and categorized into what people simply refer to as “the subconscious,” and, depending on the quality of possible influence over the perceived world, people use to word, “God,” to explain this conversation. However, I think it can be possibly understood more lucidly and with more discernment and description.
Considering everything one doesn’t understand to be “the subconscious” may be a way to ignore the truth of what is going on. Instead of the idea that there is necessarily a separation between consciousness and the subconscious, a good idea would be to understand that it may be possible to see oneself in one’s totality, without a true separation between consciousness and what is considered subconscious.
People are very good at identifying cognitive phenomena when there are clear descriptors and conversations about them. However, things that are far more subtle are often thrown into the category of “unknowable.” I think, perhaps, we are a bit misguided in that we may accidentally presume that the subconscious is supposed to become brighter for us to consider it knowable, rather than for us to become more comfortable with our dimmer psycho-physiological systems.
I see benefit in the practice of believing that one can perceive the dimness, knowing there is only so much total information present. I think it may also be for the seeming overwhelming amount of subconscious activity that people have become accustomed to habitually ignoring it. I think if one always understands that things are comprehensible, it may make it easier to practice perceiving the subconscious in a manner like what I have described.
In the context of communicating with beings from another universe, we are perhaps becoming more familiar with the subconscious, and as we do this, we perceive more, understand more, and that information becomes conscious. Eventually, perhaps, there will be no distinction between subconsciousness and consciousness — they are of the same, only separated by a gap in understanding, just as we made be separated from the aliens by a gap in perceptibility and thus understanding.