BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The Demystifying of Alien Life

  
 
Tamayyurt
17:21 / 18.06.05
I don’t know whether to put this in the Lab or the Head Shop... I'll just put it here and it can be moved if a mod thinks it belongs elsewhere.

Nasa’s Terrestrial Planet Finder and the ESA’s Darwin Flotilla have spawned a few of these fake CGI nature shows about the habits of life on other planets:
National Geographic's Extraterrestrial

Discovery Channel's Alien Planet


And many people are watching these boring, yet strangely interesting, pseudo-documentaries. I’ve had conversations with people (very religious and/or just plain close-minded people, who years ago dismissed the concept of alien life to my face) about how one day we’ll find these alien animals. I think the key to this paradigm shift is that these shows are portraying alien organisms not as cute little Buddha’s (E.T.) or savage sport hunters (Aliens, Predator) but as “normal” animals. A lot of people are buying into that concept, which isn’t so strange. Somehow it fits with their understanding of the universe. The other day I told (lied to) a coworker of mine that the little rovers had found clumps of moss on Mars. He just shrugged and said, “That shit’s everywhere.” I was amazed by this very matter of fact answer from someone who doesn’t believe in evolution and doesn’t think it should be taught in schools. I came clean and told him I was just kidding and he’s said “Man, if it’s in a shower tiles it’s probably there.” I could’ve told him they’d found fish on Europa and I’m sure he’d of said “Now the Astronauts can go fishing and stop eating paste.” Are these shows changing the way people are thinking about Extraterrestrial life? Is it something else?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:05 / 19.06.05
He just shrugged and said, “That shit’s everywhere.”

I think there's a fair bet that if you'd gone up to a peasant in medieval Europe and said "Hey, I just saw a demon, like the one on that carving they have in the church", you would get a similar response. Yeah? I mean, the media in those days (morality plays, the Bible etc) provided an image of "the other" that most everyone beleived in*.

Same as if you'd gone to Ancient Greece. "Yeah, I've just been to Mongolia. There was Griffon, actually." To the Greeks, it was only common sense that there would be a Griffon in Mongolia (actually a protoceratops fossil: see the "America Has An Erotic Fear" thread for details).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that pictures of demons were actual recordings of aliens, rather that we have always had an image of "the alien".

Our media today- films, comics,TV etc- gives us an image of "an alien". Kids can draw "an alien" when asked. I think the main difference between now and then isn't that we have an image of an alien being and they don't; it's that we can presumably acess alien life with our technology at some stage in ways they couldn't.
 
 
bobotheanticlown
03:04 / 21.06.05
good point!

in civilasation there has always been the others from beyond, the devils, angels, demons or supernatural cratures every one new about and though might exist.
but only recently have people noticed that there MUST be somthin out there some were- we know that in the infinate univers the odds are imposible litraly that we are alone.( im not a faniatic obsessed with alians, its just that it would be the weirdest thing ever if we were alone in the universe)
 
 
Tamayyurt
04:19 / 21.06.05
Actually, I was trying to make the opposite point. I don’t think your average joe would really buy the idea of an alien/demon/other… like in the movies or myth. What they would buy (and I think they are buying) is the idea of aliens as normal plants and animals from an exotic environment. Do you see the difference… they’d never believe (or readily accept) a humanoid alien that speaks a strange language and flies around in a dish, but they’d accept Martian bugs or Europian fish or space rats… simple flora and fauna not of this world but of nature nonetheless. That’s why I mentioned the two shows above (I know the links don’t work, even though I edited them days ago, moderators?) documentary style shows like the ones on Animal Planet only about alien organisms. By demystifying I mean that they’ve played down the “ALIEN” aspect and played up the “foreign animal” angle.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
07:29 / 21.06.05
I don’t think your average joe would really buy the idea of an alien/demon/other… like in the movies or myth.

I'm not sure that's true. Why did people run exorcisms and rub garlic under their doorframes? Or, for that matter, things like putting flowers on graves- it's all about warding off entities that the people beleived strongly in.

Plenty of people across the world today beleive in supernatural stuff: and I'm talking about the mainstream population, not just the various Barbelith types.

But that aside, I can see your main point. We can accept the idea of other animals, but not people, i.e. we can't stand the idea of it being as or more intelligent than we are. Perhaps that's just human arrogance, or could it be a reaction against the movie image, which has been presented to us so many times that it's a cliche, making any new image seem more accurate, even though, let's face it, we have no way of knowing.
 
 
werwolf
13:59 / 21.06.05
[quote | Legba Rex]I don’t think your average joe would really buy the idea of an alien/demon/other… like in the movies or myth.

I'm not sure that's true. Why did people run exorcisms and rub garlic under their doorframes? Or, for that matter, things like putting flowers on graves- it's all about warding off entities that the people beleived strongly in.[quote end]

i think the "avergae joe" would deny the existence of alien, demonic or any other-of-that-sort entities, only because to protect his/her standing within society (talking about the societies that we call "idnustrialized").
since our social values deem belief in anything that we cannot touch, see and/or scientifically prove as unfit (people that contradict these established patterns are likely to be called "insane", "crazy" or "estranged" or some such...) the "average joe" will probably always play by the rules, if only not to fall out of line.

i'm reminded of a book that isaac asimov once wrote (can't remember the title and am not too sure if it really was asimov after all) in which he calculated (it was not really pure mathematics and his scientific approach was a bit loose, but the rhetorically it was worth millions) how ridiculous it was to believe that we are the only sentient and "intelligent" life in this vast universe. now, i'd think that the "average joe" can't help but feel that there must be "something" out there, what with all the information that was made available within the last 100 years or so due to scientific progress.

taking into account that most human societies are built upon egomaniac patriarch fantasies,it would simply NOT DO to think of that "something" out there as equal or even "superior" beings. therefore, i think, it is much simpler to think of it as "alien plants" or "alien animals". something that will not push us out of our centrefold spot in this year's "universe hustler" so easily.

thus both fears have been kept at bay (the fear to contradict values established by society and the fear to be defenseless towards "something that is not us") and the "average joe" can freely say that there just HAS to be "something" out there, without feeling ashamed or out of place or afraid. that's my 2 cents.

% of course, the average joe couldn't care less, what with all the aliens already taking away his/her job opportunities, running over his/her country and just being subhumans, cuz that's what they really are. %
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:13 / 21.06.05
Funny how people are so quick to describe what the average joe thinks, despite refusing to countenance the notion that they might _be_ one.

i think the "avergae joe" would deny the existence of alien, demonic or any other-of-that-sort entities, only because to protect his/her standing within society (talking about the societies that we call "idnustrialized").

Except that every industrialised nation (except France) has some sort of dominant religious culture, which plays a part in the construction of the state. Certainly, the largest religion on the census forms in the UK is "Christian", which covers a vast number of levels of belief and commitment but bespeaks some sort of readiness to accept the existence of numinous or noumenal entities. Further, is industrial society not predicated on intangibles such as capital and reporting lines?

That's before we get on to the minutiae of the invisible forces of that may seem silly and superstitious to those of us who do not see ourselves as "average joes", but are vastly popular. Angels are an obvious one, and the ghosts of loved ones looking after those who survive them. These may be friendlier than the demons of yesterday or the communist angels of today, but they are still non-human and not subject to scientific proof. How does the idea that the average joe is necessarily roooted in uncompromising materialism survive that?
 
 
grant
17:28 / 21.06.05
Well, I think an interesting way to set up the question isn't necessarily the kind of aliens the "average joe" believes in, but that they're being believed in at all -- by which I mean the way alien life isn't being presented as science fiction in the conventional sense, but as a subject of speculative documentaries. As science journalism.

Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," by the way, was the first place I remember seeing Real Live Alien Animals (as opposed to the little green men in the martian invasion movies). I remember the Jovian balloon-whales -- the huge floating creatures that could exist in Jupiter's upper atmosphere. That had to have been 20 years ago at least, before the greys took over public consciousness (although well after they were first described).
 
 
dj kali_ma
03:14 / 22.06.05
To answer the thread summary, so I don't get confused: I like the idea of aliens because it's a nice thing to think about other than some of the things I've really seen. I clicked into "aliens" more than "faeries". My granddad considered all unexplainable phenomena as "faerie fuckin' with ya". I perceive it more as something technological, therefore... aliens.

That, and well... there's a stigma against the mentally ill, and I'm shit-scared of bringing up that part of it.
 
 
werwolf
06:39 / 22.06.05
[quote | Haus, Hearth, Home, Heart]Funny how people are so quick to describe what the average joe thinks, despite refusing to countenance the notion that they might _be_ one.[quote end]

if that was aimed at me, then all i can say is that i would not really exclude myself from what constitutes the group of "average joes".

[quote | Haus, Hearth, Home, Heart]Except that every industrialised nation (except France) has some sort of dominant religious culture, which plays a part in the construction of the state. [...] How does the idea that the average joe is necessarily roooted in uncompromising materialism survive that?[quote end]

you're right. so, it's more my latter assumption ("values established by society") than materialism alone. i may have started my previous post on the wrong foot, should've taken all values within our society into the fold from the get go.
but that doesn't contradict what i was trying to say (as summarized in my previous post in the paragraphs starting with "taking into account..." and "thus both fears...").

so, what would you say? am i totally going off in the wrong direction or is there some substance to my thoughts?
 
 
bobotheanticlown
03:36 / 23.06.05
1 point. if alians were to alnd in your back yard and give you scientific evidence that proved they existed and wre monitering humanity since the dawn of civilsation, do you realy think people would listen??? thye woudl lock you up, have a battery of scientists anilise your evidence, and for the sake of humanity declare it fraudulent, and never think of it again, and if an alien landed in washington DC and killed gorge w bush for the sake of would peace, there would be ALOT of peopel who calimed that it was just mass hystaria that had casued ppl to see them and that gorge bush was jsut a rfigment of our imaginations
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:42 / 30.06.05
Well, society certainly has a historical habit of trying to discredit anything new- be it women's rights or an end to slavery. Are things set to change, though? Will we become less narrow minded as we evolve?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:41 / 01.07.05
Bobo- There's no way to know for sure. I believe that, as of yet, no-one has been visited by aliens, you might like to say "oooh, that just means the Government is good at covering it up!". I'm not sure what the point of the rest of your message was.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:43 / 01.07.05
Legba, as evolution is an extremely long, slow process and society is changing on an almost daily basis I would suggest that evolution is not a prerequisite for changing opinions.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:35 / 01.07.05
Certainly one could look at what we mean by evolution in this sense. Generally, evolution describes changes brought about in response to a need, in order for a race to function more effectively in changing conditions. So, one might ask, if we stretch evolution as a concept to cover social and intelllectual changes, and thus reduce the cycle-time massively, whether there is a changing condition that requires adaptation towards greater broad-mindedness. Possibly this is _an_ adaptation, but is it going to be a successful one?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:16 / 01.07.05
Well, the species that do well, like the rodents (who are the most successful mammals EVAR!!11!!) are all adept at surviving on just about any substance or in any location. They can even eat cardboard. Same goes for 'roaches. Perhaps there's a correlation, then, between this concept of high adaptability and the idea of broad mindedness?

Perhaps, as the rat needs to be ready to eat anything if he wants to keep his place in the leaderboard, so we need to be more open minded? Does that make sense?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:26 / 01.07.05
It makes sense as a metaphor. Whether or not it is in any way correct is rather a different question, however. Most obviously, if you are in an environment where food sources may be limited, the ability to eat a wide variety of different things is going to be a useful adaptation. However, what do we have to demonstrate that being broad-minded is a useful adaptation? I'd say not so many, as both broad- and narrow-minded humans are currently surviving pretty well.
 
 
werwolf
11:49 / 05.07.05
makes me wonder. only a couple of spantanous tangents:

.] is "narrow-mindedness" a tactic of survival? do species refuse "new" or "unfamiliar" things, because they need to protect themselves from what they do not know, because it _might_ be dangerous?

.] would humans deny the possibility of alien life therefore? it _might_ be dangerous, better to oppose and/or deny it?

.] do we only accept "new" things once we have learned how to handle them?

well, after having written these questions down, i can give quite a few negative answers to all of them, but also a couple of positive answers. what i really like to know is whether we, as human "race" or "species" or whatchamacallit, feel superior to any- and everything in our current evolutional period and if this is directly influencing our behaviour towards things that we cannot classify within our "pyramid of life" on which we are at the topmost? sorry for repeating myself, but i really'd like to know your views on this.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:36 / 05.07.05
Can you give an example of something not within our 'pyramid of life' as I don't really understand the question as is?
 
 
werwolf
13:04 / 05.07.05
[quote | Our Fifty-First Century Lady] Can you give an example of something not within our 'pyramid of life' as I don't really understand the question as is? [end quote]

yeah, sorry. sometimes i have difficulties explaining what i mean.
when i say "pyramid of life" i mean what humans perceive as the "natural order" which includes every living being on earth, that humans believe to know AND feel superior to. for instance, at certain times in history some animals were labelled as "monsters", because they were not sufficiently researched by humans for us to feel superior to them.

so, something that is not within this "pyramid of life" today might be aliens - they either do NOT exist (because humans do not know enough about them to feel comfortably superior) or are monsters (same reason as before) or are only "harmless" plants and animals (because that is something that has in thus human "pyramid of life" already been classified as "inferior").

i realize that this is not well thought through and that it seems a bit jumbled together, but i was hoping to get some feedback here.
 
 
Quantum
15:34 / 05.07.05
I was just thinking about this last night after watching 'Joan of Arc' and her crazy visions. (Bear with me...)

The instances of close encounters have been perceived in terms of the Fae, ghosts, Demons/Angels, and in modern times *aliens*. This suggests to me (and Jung) they are projections from the unconscious, or at least somehow psychological in nature; our mind explaining the other- Joan saw Jesus, we see greys. (Haus- So even in France there's a history of religion not even Robespierre could extinguish, it's still Catholic under the skin- Lourdes?).

I think people are more inclined to believe in human-type aliens (and hide those irrational beliefs) than little green rats or moss. The growing prevalence of TV shows about alien life is like the prehistoric animal and dinosaur shows, an excuse for CGI fake-nature mockumentaries. It'll pass pretty quickly I reckon.

If people are ostensibly more inclined to profess belief in moss etc. it's possibly due to the (maybe) microfossils from the Mars rock, it's the science-du-jour. Like people pretending to know about string theory when that was new, it's a psychological stratagem to look clever. I challenge anyone with any kind of background in any relevant science to seriously consider those TV shows at all realistic.

This is one of my pet bugbears, popular hypothesising about alien life- we don't know what it will be like, check the def of 'alien'! Why is carbon based life more likely than methanoids? Why do we assume water is essential for life? What are our criteria for defining life outside of the one example of a biosphere we have? Generalising from an example of one is generally considered bad science, and fanciful extrapolations from informed musings (while entertaining) are less than informative.

So what I'm saying is I think people's actual beliefs about aliens are inclined toward greys and conspiracy theory, whereas their claimed beliefs are based on pop-culture pseudoscience.
 
 
Quantum
15:48 / 05.07.05
Werwolf- you could be right about humans maintaining their supposed supremacy by only believing in inferior aliens, but what about the people who see aliens as the super-parents who are wise and civilised, unlike us barbarian earthlings? (A.C. Clarke's 'Childhood's End' springs to mind, also 'Contact' 'Close Encounters' 'E.T.'...) It's a fairly common perception.
 
 
bobotheanticlown
01:49 / 06.07.05
hmmmmm.
if an alien wee to land (im not sayign that they have)
people would probab;e try to cover it up, if jsut for the sake that it would meen that humans are inferior beings to them, and people wouldnet like that at all
 
 
werwolf
05:47 / 06.07.05
[quote | Quantum] Werwolf- you could be right about humans maintaining their supposed supremacy by only believing in inferior aliens, but what about the people who see aliens as the super-parents who are wise and civilised, unlike us barbarian earthlings? (A.C. Clarke's 'Childhood's End' springs to mind, also 'Contact' 'Close Encounters' 'E.T.'...) It's a fairly common perception. [end quote]

hmm, yeah... that's bugging me as well. see also scientology and pyramidians and the like.
but perhaps this isn't even a contradiction. i really don't know, but it could very well be possible that the idea of benevolent alien-parents to the human species is just a porjection of that superiority complex. perhaps it's a backdoor way. for instance: a person is blocking him/herself from narcist tendencies (because of whatever reason: exaggerated oedipus phase or subjugating role models, i'm not a psychologist, please bear with me) and therefore is unable to directly feel superior to anything at all. yet inherently there is the need to do just that. in order to achieve that, the god-like status, it is projected unto something that is linked to the person, but is unblemished --> benevolent alien parents to the species.
thus the person can via bypass live out any narcist and omnipotence dreams - the aliens are superior to us, but since we are their descendant we can probably achieve the same status, we are born with the abilities to do so; the aliens are far away and unlikely to visit us soon, therefore the fantasy/projection cannot be tarnished.
wild speculations here. i know very little of psychology so i can only assume (based on personal experience and what little i have read and most importantly understood of psychological theory).

something else: are we talking about general "aliens" or are we still focused on extraterrestrial "aliens"?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:02 / 06.07.05
(Haus- So even in France there's a history of religion not even Robespierre could extinguish, it's still Catholic under the skin- Lourdes?)

Much int he same way that Britain is still Catholic under the skin - Roman Catholicism is not the state religion, but a lot of people still practise it. That's not so much a history of religion as an ongoing relationship with religion, just as muslims practising Islam in France have. It's important not to confuse state religion with popular religious experience.
 
 
Quantum
18:40 / 06.07.05
are we talking about general "aliens" or are we still focused on extraterrestrial "aliens"? uh, sorry I'm not getting the distinction- I'm talking about general aliens I think..
I think people are more comfortable with both grey-type ETs and 'realistic' CGI moss, because they've become our culture's 'other', supplanting older cultural archetypes (at least in Western culture) like goblins or greek gods. (Except for some of us in the Temple of course )

(sorry if this is threadrot...)
Except that every industrialised nation (except France) has some sort of dominant religious culture, which plays a part in the construction of the state. (Haus)

Uh, America? Australia? Canada? Russia? I must be misunderstanding.
"It's important not to confuse state religion with popular religious experience."
Silly, confused Quantum. My Geography is terrible, what's the state religion of Australia again?
 
  
Add Your Reply