tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post114370053476498742..comments2023-08-15T01:24:39.187-03:00Comments on The Other Side of Truth: EDH vs. ETHPaul Kimballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1144122615782264212006-04-04T00:50:00.000-03:002006-04-04T00:50:00.000-03:00Thanks Paul...I agree. Which is why I find Lead an...Thanks Paul...I agree. Which is why I find Lead and her writings fascinating.<BR/><BR/>As a rebuttal to Clancy's published work last fall, at least to the "Cultural Influence" argument regarding abductions, I thought if I could show that the basics of the phenomenon could be found in history, this could at least scuttle that argument. I recalled a post I had read on Rense (ugh) regarding Lead and her writings. That post can be found here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.rense.com/ufo5/lead.htm<BR/><BR/>Jesse Glass published this in 1999. In 2003, the entire works of Lead were transcribed and published here.<BR/><BR/>http://www.passtheword.org/Jane-Lead/<BR/><BR/>Please note I am with Glass when he writes:<BR/><BR/>"Jane Lead's visions, though expressed in quaint and archaic English, and obscured in part by theosophical terminology, nevertheless escape the strictures imposed upon them by time and point of view, to inhabit their own region of the numinous. No matter how Jane Lead struggles to force what she sees into the Procrustean bed of conventional theology, the strangeness and specificity of her visions, call us back time and again to wonder over the real import of their message."<BR/><BR/>I have discovered she had more in common with todays abduction scenarios than not. Some examples:<BR/><BR/>March the 22d, 1677.<BR/><BR/>In the Night, as I was waiting in my wonted solemn Retirement, what might further be administered. I was cast as into a magical Sleep, where I saw my self carried into a Wilderness; where I saw only pleasant, pastoral Walks and Trees, which much suited with my Mind and Inclination there to walk; where I found nothing to disturb my superiour Meditations. In which place I promised my self opportunity, as not willing that either my Name, or Place should be known to any, saving One. But while I was thus pleasured in my reserved state, I suddainly did see one, that was known to me, walking very strait and upright, with a Book reading in his Hand: He seemed to be as one, that would not look awry. But it was said presently, that this Person was a Spy: then presently two more did appear of the Female Sex, both which did make a kind of Assault upon me; but one of the Females was more fierce, and did give my outward Skin a prick, as with a sharp Needle. Upon which I called for Angelical aid to succour me, or else too hard they would be. Whereupon I was parted from them, and saw them in that place no more: A voice, saying, None here shall henceforth come, but such as can agree to walk with thee perfectly. And so the Vision broke up."<BR/><BR/>Several days later she writes:<BR/><BR/>"Some Days after I did further enquire into the more full meaning of this Vision, why such should so conspire against my solitary reserved Life: but especially that one, who was in my Eye of more value, because of a known Life of Truth, and Integrity?<BR/><BR/>I found this written upon my Heart, Their Eyes must for a while be with-held; they will not you know, till ye can get the new Name engraven, as of precious Stones upon your Forehead. For it was secretly whispered to my Spirit, that in some there might be a refined and spiritual Emulation, as in others a more Gross and Sensual. Both of which I had councel, and caution, how to walk with; so as no occasion of stumbling might be given justly to the gainsaying Spirits: Whose pryings were to see how we would walk, while in the Wilderness state."<BR/><BR/>In this passage, Jane describes a presentation:<BR/><BR/>March the 11th, 1677.<BR/><BR/>In my first Sleep, in the Night time, many magical Workings and Ideas were presented to me. As first, a Figure of a Woman, with a Crown upon her Head, who seemed to me to be but of a small Stature, but her Visage was bright as the Sun, and clear as the Moon, with a White loose Garment girt about her with a seeming White Silken Girdle, who came near to me, saying, Behold and see, what ye may arrive to be in me? And so passed away.<BR/><BR/>Then after a while, there was a Child all Lovely and Fair put into my Arms; it was all naked, of a smooth shining Skin; I could not see who it was that disposed it to me, but it was unexpectedly let down into my Arms. I thought it to be very Weighty, though but little; so passing to go away with it, it suddainly slipped through my Arms unto the Ground, at which I gave a great Screek, and with great Fear and Concern, took it up again without much Damage."<BR/><BR/>These are but a few of the passages I discovered and although I know it is impossible to accept as proof of anything, in my mind, I have come to believe that whatever is here, it has been here a long time. I have one more, one specific to me that is most interesting. It revolves around an experience I had that Martin Jasek has posted at his UFO*BC website. My account was written -prior- to my reading of Kevin's account. You will see how this all comes together in connection with J. Lead in my next post.<BR/><BR/>http://www.ufobc.ca/Beyond/asimilarencounter.htm<BR/><BR/>I share this with you because I need your eye. I have read you for awhile, both on The List and elsewhere, and suspect from this post you have tangled with the good Dr. Wu, as have I in the past....:rolleyes:...LOL<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>~CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1144054869336149342006-04-03T06:01:00.000-03:002006-04-03T06:01:00.000-03:00C:I only have a passing familiarity with Lead, fro...C:<BR/><BR/>I only have a passing familiarity with Lead, from my grad school days. However, as a student of Henry Alline, I have a great deal of interest in mystics, so I'll have to do a bit more research into Lead. You have piqued my interest! :-)<BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1144045920248443562006-04-03T03:32:00.000-03:002006-04-03T03:32:00.000-03:00C:You wrote:"I am curious as to how you can so eas...C:<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I am curious as to how you can so easily dismiss this. At what point in time, if they are here, do you hypothesize they arrived here? And if they have been here awhile, might they not have been perceived throughout the ages in the context of the amassed knowledge at any given time. Elementals, Trickters, Pookahs - these "mythological" characters all demonstrate the same sorts of behaviors as todays Greys, Mantis and little Blue Doctor entities, as reported."<BR/><BR/>The same way I dismiss anything else - easily, without any real thought, and glibly, with a sneer on my face.<BR/><BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>Hmm... seems like I was briefly possessed by Alfred Lehmberg there for a second. [Shudder]<BR/><BR/>Seriously...<BR/><BR/>I don't dismiss the EDH. However, the "Trickster" concept, which I always find pretty ill-defined by those who propose it, strikes me as based more on myth, and wishful thinking (in some cases) than on serious scientific reasoning. Really, I have never seen a coherent, reasoned, thoughtful argument in favour of the Trickster concept. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, I suppose, but if it does then I have not been made aware of it.<BR/><BR/>The ETH is grounded in science - the science of physics, biology, space travel, life on other worlds, and so forth. That it why I favour it, as opposed to an explanation which is more fitting, in my opinion, with Bullfinch's Mythology.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the EDH has a scientific component as well, parallel universes and so forth being a valid scientific theory. I just think it's far more speculative than those that underpin the ETH.<BR/><BR/>As for whether ET (or whatever) has been here throughout the ages, of course that's possible. UFO reports didn't magically begin in 1947, after all (one of the great flaws amongst the ETHers, in my opinion, is that they tend to use this as their starting date). Perhaps it is just our perception of them that changes - fairies (or whatever) hundreds of years ago, aliens today. But that cuts both ways - Old Hag / succubus hundreds of years ago, and alien abductions today. The point isn't what label we put on it, but rather what the cause is, and here I see no valid argument in the "Trickster" vein that can explain the modern UFO phenomenon. I think it's a cultural artifact from an earlier, more superstitious era that retains a following among the more "New Age" elements of ufology. <BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1144045201810502362006-04-03T03:20:00.000-03:002006-04-03T03:20:00.000-03:00Ray:You are correct - the various theories are not...Ray:<BR/><BR/>You are correct - the various theories are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that both the ETH and EDH are true (just as it is possible that neither are true). However, what we are discussing are the relative merits of each, and the relative likelihood of them being true. My point is that I find the ETH to be the far more likely explanation for UFOs, when compared with the EDH.<BR/><BR/>Look at it this way - in a civil case in a court of law, the issue is judged on the balance of probablities, meaning is it more likely or not that A happened as opposed to B (A being the explanation offered by one side, and B that offered by the other). That is the standard that it relevant here, as we are still just dealing with theories, none of which can be proved anywhere near the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.<BR/><BR/>However, as I stated in my column, this is, or at least it should be, an intellectual exercise more than anything else, as UFOs remain exactly that - unidentified.<BR/><BR/>Paul<BR/><BR/>P.S. Never worry about cross-posting. I'm always happy to have any comment (well, any intelligent comment). The more well-thought out views, in the more places, the merrier.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by!Paul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1144044837855265572006-04-03T03:13:00.000-03:002006-04-03T03:13:00.000-03:00Paul:I hope you don't mind crossposting. I posted ...Paul:<BR/><BR/>I hope you don't mind crossposting. I posted the following at Mac's blog and I wanted to get yor reaction here at your blog.<BR/><BR/>= = = =<BR/><BR/>When it comes to UFOS/ETs, why does One Answer Fits All? It's like that stupid concept they tried to foist on consumers years ago with clothing: One Size Fits All. Like one wag observed, One Size Fits No One.<BR/><BR/>Why not overlapping explanations? Isn't it possible that there's more than one cause for events that appear to be the same? For example, maybe there are extraterrestrial objects in our skies and sometimes the government allows the stories of such sightings to cover up test flights of experimental aircraft. So a weird nocturnal light could be an ET probe or a new top-secret aircraft. Maybe it's a natural phenomenon like the northern lights, but more isolated and rare. (Nocturnal ball lightning.) Or just an advertising blimp seen at a deceptive angle. Why pigeonhole every event into one tidy explanation?<BR/><BR/>I think the word "unidentified" in UFO should be stressed.<BR/><BR/>Ray XRay Palm (Ray X)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01600471069648853966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1144009759551498252006-04-02T17:29:00.000-03:002006-04-02T17:29:00.000-03:00Paul, you wrote:"It gets worse when people trot ou...Paul, you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"It gets worse when people trot out the concept of "the Trickster" - as far as I'm concerned, you might as well be talking about leprechauns, or saying that it's all the work of Satan, because at this point you've moved beyond any real scientific reasoning, and into the land of myth, or belief. Nothing wrong with that, but just don't expect me to buy into it as a reasonable working hypothesis based on science, because it isn't. It's more suited for the Dungeons and Dragons set."<BR/><BR/>I am curious as to how you can so easily dismiss this. At what point in time, if they are here, do you hypothesize they arrived here? And if they have been here awhile, might they not have been perceived throughout the ages in the context of the amassed knowledge at any given time. Elementals, Trickters, Pookahs - these "mythological" characters all demonstrate the same sorts of behaviors as todays Greys, Mantis and little Blue Doctor entities, as reported.<BR/><BR/>Just wanted to throw that out there and again, just curious as to your thoughts. One other thing, have you ever heard of the 17th century theosophist, Jane Lead? If so, what did you think of her writings? If not, boy do I have a story to share with you. It won't take much to get you interested.<BR/><BR/>~CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1143790185344308062006-03-31T03:29:00.001-04:002006-03-31T03:29:00.001-04:00Mac:Post-whazzit?Stop usin' the high-falutin' word...Mac:<BR/><BR/>Post-whazzit?<BR/><BR/>Stop usin' the high-falutin' words and terms, you show off!<BR/><BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-1143767203758640862006-03-30T21:06:00.000-04:002006-03-30T21:06:00.000-04:00Oh, come on, Paul. Where's your sense of postmode...Oh, come on, Paul. Where's your sense of postmodernism? ;-)<BR/><BR/>Seriously: Very good points. But you haven't had the last word yet!<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>MacMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074004681516756703noreply@blogger.com