UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 10

Re: Whose Truth?

From: "C Hathaway & J. Presson" <earthwrk@doitnow.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:21:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:59:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Whose Truth?

>From: ujack@pop3.scrapcity.cnchost.com [Mark Medford]
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:29:00 +0000
>Subject: Whose Truth?

>Dear Friends,

>So much of what we are debating is experiential. What a difficult
>thing to challenge - someone else's experience! No line of argument,
>no amount of logic, can convince me that I was not touched by an
>event, if I BELIEVE that I was. Given new information and insights, I
>might draw a different meaning from the event, but I will never disown
>the experience itself.

No one should have to disown their experiences.

>The ability to discern is critical. Without it, we free float on a sea
>of fact and fiction. But what tools do we use to discern? The way that
>I perceive things in this world is uniquely my own - as is everyone
>else's. One is no less valid than the other. Although there are many
>common perceptions, there are also those that have roots in my own
>emotional, cultural and intellectual history. So... when I encounter
>information that fits my inner criteria, that feels "right" to me, I
>embrace it. Likewise, if it doesn't fit, I reject it. I do so with
>equal passion.

Good advice.

>Since joining this list, I've read many emotion filled posts. I
>respect the courage of those who have shared - and I understand the
>need that others have to react. We are not only pushing boundaries
>here, we're challenging beliefs. This is always a risky business.
>Must our responses be so sharp? Can our convictions be tempered with
>compassion? I would hate to think that this environment, this forum,
>this community, might be seen as too hostile to join. I would hate to
>see personal bias bar, emotionally, others from participating. No one
>wants to be attacked.

Another good point. No one does want to be attacked, they don't
like to have to read them for months on end either.

>Perhaps I'm naive. I assume that the information shared here - if
>not clinically accurate - is at least sincere.

This is the problem, when doing research it is (or should be)
required that all said research be done as objectivey as possible.
There are ways to do this, but it takes time and an honest desire
to find the roots of the abductions that are going on.

>When it comes to sharing experiences that originate within this
>"new frontier" of UFO's - we're very much like the blind man describing
>an elephant. Until we are able to study the whole phenomenon, with eyes
>wide open, who's to say which perception is "correct"? Although I have
>my own pet theories and gut feelings, I would never presume to serve
>them up as "truth". I would simply say: this is what happened to me...

I would have to say that is another problem. People forgetting we
are sharing OUR VIEW most of the time. That may not be the
clearest, and I have noticed after being online since the early
90s the people who do the most name calling and say they are the
victims are the ones who have something to hide and usually are
looking through fog at the objective perspective.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: earthwrk | ujack

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com