Exploring UFOs, Disclosure Phenomena, and the Law of One

In this enriching exploration of the perplexing world of UFOs, disclosure phenomena, and the Law of One, Doug Scott and Austin Bridges delve into how these complex layers of existence intersect and influence each other. Our conversation revisits earlier perspectives and discusses crucial recent developments, notably the emergence of insider whistleblower David Grush, a former Air Force intelligence officer responsible for investigating UAPs and the groundbreaking proposals in the field of UFO disclosure.

The discussion further explores the understanding of UFO phenomena from the standpoint of social influencers, contentious debunkers, and distinguished academicians, examining the profound cultural and individual impacts. This episode takes you deep into the philosophies and spiritual perspectives surrounding the UFO phenomena, moving beyond the simplistic believers versus skeptics' viewpoint.

Engage in deep contemplation about the nature of consciousness and the dynamics of reality as we navigate through Jungian dream interpretation and philosophical discussions on symbolism. This episode broadens the perspective on the UFO phenomena, articulating how it embodies both elements of positive evolution and fear instilling influence, often leading to confusion.

Our exploration of the integration of the Law of One, metaphysics, and process theology sheds light on the understanding of polarity, the moral realm, and humanity's ascent into the fourth density. The episode also delves into academic discourses around UFOs, emphasizing the complexity inherent to such subjects and the importance of academia as the foundation for societal progression.

Conclude with a stimulating discussion about the balance of positivity and negativity in collective consciousness, examining humanity's alignment with the influx of information. This final contemplation agrees on a divine pull towards unity and wholeness and the influential role intellectuals play as bridge builders for future progress. Links:

Law of One Material: www.llresearch.org 

Diana Walsh Pasulka - https://www.amazon.com/stores/D.W.-Pasulka/author/B07NL6KZN5

James Madden - https://www.jdmadden.com/

Jeffrey Kripal - https://jeffreyjkripal.com/

Jaques Vallee - https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B001K8JD8Q

Bernardo Kastrup - https://www.bernardokastrup.com/

Dr. Matt Segall and Bernardo Kastrup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7I5j2cteFQ&t=5936s&pp=ygUcYmVybmFyZG8ga2FzdHJ1cCBtYXR0IHNlZ2FsbA%3D%3D 

Process Thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMXfVR499qc&pp=ygUVYW5kcmV3IGRhdmlzLCBwaGQgZXhv 

 

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Alright, man. Okay. Well, I'm excited about just having a conversation and seeing where you're at.
What I would love to do is ask you first is set the stage for us about viewing
the disclosure phenomena from a law of one lens,

(00:22):
which is a little bit of a summary of maybe our previous conversation,
and spend as little or as much time as you want on that.
But then we'll transition into what you've been doing since then.
I think it's been a little less than a year since that conversation.
And then what does looking at the phenomena look like from a non-Law of One

(00:44):
perspective, but still keeping in the sense of there is always a viewpoint from which we look into this?
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I think at our last conversation we did a lot of work
laying the groundwork for what the Law of One was and how it would relate to the UFO phenomenon.
Obviously there's correlations between the fact that the Law of One is channeled

(01:07):
from beings who are supposedly from, you know, in the confederation of planets,
they are the people, the beings inhabiting the UFOs and
sort of manifesting the UFO phenomenon along with their
counterparts of the sort of negative oriented beings and
so it is a bit easier to
grasp qfos from that perspective because

(01:27):
you have this very grounded these are who they are this
is what they are these are their intentions and we also sort of waylaid that
into a more general also sort of non-love one perspective where it's a holistic
thing the ufos act as a catalyst for our current condition whatever whatever
current condition we're in,

(01:48):
correlates to how they influence us and how they appear to us,
which is a perspective that works really well with the Law of One,
but you don't necessarily need the Law of One to look at it that way.
I guess that's a very sort of Jungian perspective.
So to sort of give the basics of how the Law of One might view where we are
with disclosure is that yes, there are UFOs that have been here for a long time.

(02:11):
They've been probably increasing their relationship with us.
A lot of them, as Ra would say, are from the negatively oriented faction,
the Orion Empire, and their goal is not necessarily to.
Conquer us physically but conquer us in a spiritual sense sort
of influence us in a way that leads us towards their

(02:33):
philosophy which is a philosophy of service to self of establishing
an elite of primarily control
as their form of relating to the creation whereas the
more positively oriented faction the confederation of
which raw is a part they would be here to influence
us or at least provide to us an opportunity for

(02:53):
their philosophy of service to others of relating
to the creation in a way that is accepting loving
opening the heart and sort of integrating the
harmony and the unity of the creator in our paths and
those are sort of two polarities as raw would call them and
those are the intentions of the
whoever is behind the ufos these two

(03:16):
factions and the way that they are
able to appear to us does rely on our
own sort of spiritual progress as
a planet as a species or even as individuals
they're able to interact with us in
different ways based on our own free will essentially both have sort of the

(03:36):
fact of free will into the equation of how they can or want to interact with
us and they have limitations based upon the free will of who we are and so the
disclosure movement as i saw it was was probably being negatively influenced.
But acting as a catalyst and a reflection for us as a species of how we are

(03:57):
approaching disclosure.
How we're approaching the topic of UFOs is really.
The UFOs themselves are secondary to even just the way that we're looking at them.
The way that we are talking about this whole thing, I think,
is sort of the primary purpose behind them in terms of especially a positive evolution.
You know, we're attempting to grapple with our own distortions,

(04:19):
our own focus, where we are focusing more on certain aspects,
particularly in the material realm, the sort of materialism, the military,
the control aspects versus the more holistic perspectives that you can get to
through spiritual perspectives.
I think that's basically the sort of quick summary of what we discussed last time.

(04:41):
Mm-hmm. Yeah. I don't have anything to add. That was really well said. Good, good. Okay.
Now that was a few months ago and you continue to be enthralled by the,
it's a, it's a real calling for you right now.
I know that last time you said that maybe early on in your life,
a few years ago, it was a catalyst to kind of get you into the whole law of

(05:07):
one, or did you discover the law of one?
Was your like moving into the UFO thing, your avenue to get into the law of
one? Was that how that worked?
Yeah, well, the story is a lot more interesting that I would take a bit more
time to tell than we have.
But the law of one was in my life in the background since I was a child.
But then going through my path of atheism and sort of hardcore skepticism,

(05:31):
UFOs broke down the biggest barrier I had to get to spirituality.
Spirituality and because of that the law of one sort
of came into my life and the sort of relationship between ufos and
spirituality and then the law of one itself it was
just that sort of life purpose resonance that you know it
completely took over my heart essentially when i first read it i knew this was

(05:52):
central to my beingness and so um ufos were really important in allowing the
law of one to become a spiritual backbone for me and i've always understood
that to be sort of a path of a lot of people who find the law of one, not everybody,
but UFOs sort of spark this thing that helps to break down some barriers and

(06:13):
helps to expand the mind a little bit, then it leads them to the law of one.
But once they find the law of one, there's this sense that that's what the purpose
of the UFO experience was for them, was to get them to this material.
And any more focus on the UFO is a sort of tangential to this thing that it led them to. Yeah.
And then if I'm also reading you right, you put down the mantle of disclosure

(06:39):
for a while or looking at that phenomena because you,
like so many of us, saw that disclosure was being mired with this conspiratorial mindset.
Mindset, that when one dives into the law of one, things like the warfare spirituality
that kind of frames the disclosure movement, or at least had,

(07:01):
isn't interesting anymore because you're really looking at more of a unitive consciousness.
So, you kind of put it up for a little while, but then maybe a year and a half
ago, I think you started to dive back into it, almost against your will at first.
It was like this invitation and then curiosity, and then when you were able to dive back in.

(07:22):
A mature psycho-spiritual sort of maturity at this point to see and sift and discern well.
So what we're getting, I think, today is you fully showing up on this side of
having processed a lot of inner work and taking a look at it where you're giving
us a balanced view, I would argue.

(07:43):
So I think that's what we're in store for. Does that sound about right?
Yeah, absolutely. I think that the description of disclosure that you gave,
the disclosure movements especially the disclosure movements
tangentially related to the law of one
i have definitely taken on that sort of
warfare disclosure mentality that you
talked about another aspect which was maybe a

(08:06):
bit smaller was just that if i had stepped back and took
took stock of the state of disclosure in terms of whatever it means i think
a lot of people define it as the government spilling the beans about ufos it
can mean a lot more than that that I just sort of saw that I didn't think it
was ever going to be possible in our lifetimes. It didn't seem like something that would happen.

(08:26):
And it didn't seem like something I necessarily thought needed to happen, necessarily.
So that was really sort of why I stepped back from it.
I was always a little interested in UFOs. But then we talked a little bit in
our last discussion about sort of what's been happening.
And that happened primarily in June of last year, 2023, is when that all sort
of started taking off. And it grabbed me again.

(08:49):
And like you said, got me really engaged with UFOs. But this time,
I'm sort of what's drawing my attention is a different perspective.
All right, well, let's jump right on into this different perspective.
So since June of 2023, maybe lay out the groundwork so we can track with you
and see what some of the stuff that some of us have been paying attention to,

(09:11):
but it has been in the background of our culture a little bit.
Yeah, I just highlight June 2023 because that's when the primary whistleblower,
his name is David Grush, came forward and he made a big splash,
especially in the UFO community.
But it has led to things that are significant from an even larger cultural context.

(09:31):
There's been public hearings, and that's not necessarily new either because
there's been machinations in the disclosure movement going back to 2017.
There have been hearings already, but for this, it was a very significant public
hearing because he was talking about conspiracies, essentially,
you know, things going on in the government.

(09:53):
But on top of that, there's been legislation that has been debated,
some passed, some not passed, that is for people who pay attention to the disclosure movement.
It's groundbreaking sort of legislation that's being talked about.
And it indicates to me that there are at least some movements or currents in
government that are interested in making UFOs a popular discussion point.

(10:19):
Whether that is from a transparent point of view or not, I still wouldn't put
my bets on either one of those.
But it's showing an interest in making UFOs sort of a popularly accepted phenomenon
that we acknowledge as a culture are real and they're not dismissed like they used to be. Yeah.

(10:39):
So this is bringing it up. Oh, I'm sorry.
Yeah. Well, I was just going to say this is bringing it up from moving it up
in the culture from laughing it off,
calling it foolish to, yeah, this is a talked about and accepted theme to talk
about across genres and domains in our culture.

(11:02):
And so that served as a catalyst for that.
I'm wondering if you can give me a little bit of a snapshot of what might have
taken place in the courts or legislation.
You mentioned it, but do you know any specifics there?
Yeah, when I think about that, the biggest thing I think about is just not to
get too into the weeds, but there was an amendment to the yearly defense spending

(11:27):
bill called the UAP Disclosure Act.
And it's hard to describe just how significant that amendment,
it was a proposed amendment, it eventually got gutted.
But the fact that it was even proposed and sort of entered into the legislative
record record, is significant because it outlines not just this idea of a path
forward for disclosing UFAP,

(11:49):
is what they call them now instead of UFOs, but indicates that they're doing
this in a very specific way.
They define the idea of non-human intelligence in very specific ways.
Want it to set up a panel that would assess government records from various
sections of our society and culture, not just from like a military or government perspective.

(12:15):
You know, they're looking at religion, philosophy, economics, stuff like that.
So they had a council proposed in this. And so the legislation itself,
it's a fascinating thing to just read through.
And particularly because they give a reasoning for why they think it's important. essentially.
This was a bill that was written primarily by Chuck Schumer,

(12:36):
co-sponsored by his Republican colleague as well.
So it was bipartisan, as they say.
And he is the Senate majority leader. He's one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, D.C.
And he, in this amendment, wrote specifically that they feel the amendment is
necessary because of programs that that are being hidden from Congress, in other words.

(12:57):
And so not only does it give this groundwork for what they're talking about,
NHI, UAP, what exactly it is they think exists and needs to be talked about and investigated,
but they're saying this because they feel they have good evidence that there
are things being hidden from them as the overseeing body that should be able to oversee this.

(13:18):
And just the fact that that was proposed as legislation and eventually gutted
by what a lot of people would view the military-industrial complex is a sort of narrative.
If you look back, it's almost like a story that you could write before it even happened.
It's very mythological, almost, what's happening. But it's significant to me.

(13:40):
Chuck Schumer writing this amendment, having it proposed, and then it getting
gutted by these specific factions, that alone is groundbreaking for what we
would call the disclosure movement. movement.
And as you say, it's nothing new and kind of.
Pattern we might see throughout history in some ways i
think it's also been a pattern perhaps even in the uap movement for

(14:02):
many years and who are some
of the players involved for the
gutting and what did they gut what do you think
the result of that gutting and is there is there an opportunity or talk about
un-gutting what was gutted or bringing something else in you have a sense of
that yeah i don't think it's too specific just because if i mess up a name it's

(14:24):
gonna look bad But there were politicians who represent districts where, for instance,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is the center of a lot of the mythology of the UFO cover-up.
Those politicians who are known to take significant donations from the military-industrial complex.

(14:44):
And all of this sort of happened behind closed doors, so we don't know specifically
or for sure exactly what happened.
But there's a negotiation process between the Senate and the House where once
the bill is agreed upon in both, they have to sort of reconcile the various
things that they added or took away.
And in that negotiation process, the fullness of that amendment was gutted and was taken out.

(15:10):
Whether there's a sense of it being re-added, there is.
From what I am aware, there is basically them trying to pass the same exact
amendment, just not attached to the spending bill.
And the there is an ongoing movement within the House and the Senate to continue
this investigation, continue trying to work towards whatever this form of disclosure

(15:34):
is that they have been working towards.
Okay. Wow. Good. Yeah, that's that's helpful. All right.
And what is the status of some of the whistleblowers that came up that were
that light that lit the world back in June?
Like, where are they at now and how are they being received and perceived? received?

(15:55):
Yeah. So the primary whistleblower, the one that sparked my attention was David Grush.
He's a former Air Force intelligence officer.
And at the point of his involvement with UFOs and UAP, he worked for various
intelligence agencies, including the NRO, National Reconnaissance Agency,

(16:16):
and the Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
I can't remember the specific specific alphabet agency behind
that but essentially they're agencies that would have some of the most stock
and knowing about UFOs they are very interested in intelligence in terms of
what goes on in our skies and monitoring earth from space and you know what's

(16:37):
the movements of things in the sky and in space he was he.
To summarize what happened, he was tasked with investigating UFOs from what
was called the UAP Task Force, sort of mandated from Congress.
And in that process, he came to find out that there were programs that he was
not able to get access to that he should have been able to get access to because

(16:59):
he had basically the top clearance that he needed to get access to them.
He had the need to know, as they call it, because he was given this mandate
by Congress to investigate them, but he was denied. And in that process,
learned that Congress was not being briefed or informed upon these programs.
These are such classified programs that even the people who should be able to

(17:23):
learn about them in Congress and oversee them don't even know about their existence.
He went through the proper channels to report it.
The inspector general of the intelligence community who found his claims credible
and urgent referred him to Congress.
He experienced backlash and
retribution for attempting to blow the whistle. So then he went public.

(17:43):
That's what happened in June. That's what sparked me. He had a hearing,
a public hearing afterwards, just a couple months after he came public.
And since then he's been sort of
he's been making some appearances been
talking a little bit but primarily working behind
the scenes as far as we know he there
has been more movements in congress related

(18:05):
to his testimony senators like in
the intelligence committee in the senate have talked about
other whistleblowers who have come to them saying the exact same thing that
he's saying that did not go public and then sort of more recently there was
a classified briefing hearing with the inspector general of the intelligence

(18:26):
community the one that david brush went to and said that.
His claims were credible and urgent and the members of the house who were present
came out of that saying that you know what david grush said there's a lot of what he's saying that,
seems very credible we need to keep pushing for this we need to investigate
it and david Grush, he's got some things in the works that we don't know about.

(18:47):
He joined the committee of actually one thing that's really relevant to sort
of the bigger discussion we're talking about called the Sol Foundation,
which is founded by a professor out of Stanford University, Gary Nolan.
And it is sort of this attempt to legitimize the UFO discussion.
On their board is a bunch of people from either military backgrounds or primarily academic backgrounds.

(19:12):
And David Grusher was involved in getting that off the ground.
He spoke at their conference.
And so he's been sort of working primarily in the background,
doing some public appearances to try to keep the momentum going.
But at this point, there have been no more whistleblowers, which I think is a little concerning.
And the narrative feels like it might be moving a bit slower than a lot of people would hope.

(19:35):
And, you know, the barriers are being thrown up by,
Whether it's the gatekeepers or our perceptions of the gatekeepers that are
throwing up these barriers, I'm not sure.
But there hasn't been much movement in the past few months besides just little
things that go around the background that you wouldn't notice unless you're
really paying attention.
There was a recent article I remember looking at that the person in charge of

(20:02):
the governmental group that was supposed to look at all these things, he resigned, I think.
I can't remember his name, but he resigned, stating that he was getting a lot
of threats from UFO fanatics, say,
that just wouldn't believe what I guess that office publicly said,

(20:23):
which is there was no evidence,
I think, of any black ops or anything like that.
Do you know about that story? Okay.
Yeah. That person you're referring to is Sean Kirkpatrick. He was head of the
AERO office in the Pentagon.
That's the anomalous, there's so many acronyms, AERIAL, All Domain Anomalous

(20:49):
Phenomenon Resolution Office.
Basically, a complicated way to talk about a Pentagon office dedicated to investigating
UFOs and resolving them, essentially.
Figuring out what they are. Sure. And so he resigned and he has had sort of

(21:11):
a media blitz, which has been a bit strange and confusing,
but basically saying that there's been this movement that particularly David
Grush and the politicians have been pushing for is very ill-informed.
It's not necessarily logical.
And, you know, he's slinging a lot of dirt, I think, doing so in a very science

(21:32):
sort of kind way, but slinging a lot of dirt and really triggering sort of that
thing that we've been talking about, especially within the UFO disclosure community,
the warfare mentality. He's become...
Very strong target for people to project their anger and hatred and sense of lack of control onto.

(21:54):
In my perspective, it's kind of impossible to know just how deep he is and what
would be the cover-up versus whether he's just a good-natured scientist who
is really sticking to his guns in terms of how he interprets the phenomenon.
I think both are possible, but to the UFO community, he is number one enemy for the most part.

(22:14):
The way that he approaches it, the things that he says, and the way he dismisses
the whistleblowers and the politicians really grinds the gears of people in the UFO community.
And I think it is another example of sort of this myth playing out and how these
things that get energized are really indicative of how the disclosure movement

(22:35):
is attempting to reflect things to us.
Well said and the bellicosity that exists in all of us this this sense of looking
at life already on the defensive you know and ready to be offensive.
And it's really I think in the purview of earlier ego states you know younger

(22:55):
ego states in all of us I think it from a chakra standpoint it would be maybe
the lower chakras it's not informed by green ray or the low in understanding so much and I think that,
the byproduct of a lot of UFO enthusiasts who are projecting their anger towards him.

(23:16):
I think concretize or seal the skeptics' thoughts of, see, these guys are crazy, they're fanatics.
No matter what you say, they're going to believe what they're going to believe.
And so it's yeah it's not a good look for those who are advocating disclosure.

(23:39):
Yeah, I think that's a really good point. It's related to something I said a
little bit earlier about whether or not the barriers coming up are intentionally
constructed or whether we construct them ourselves.
Because when I think about something like that, depending on how sophisticated
the cover-up is, the disinformation, the misinformation, it could be,

(23:59):
I think we acknowledge, it could be incredibly sophisticated.
And if that is the case, then somebody like Sean Kirkpatrick could know exactly
what he's doing and knowing the right buttons to push to inflame the UFO disclosure
community in order to make them look very easily discreditable.
Essentially what you're saying, it really entrenches the skeptics to make them,

(24:23):
you know, they want to come to the defense of their scientist who seems very reasonable.
And the scientist is being attacked by what looks like a horde to them,
you know, from within the horde, it looks like you're sort of a righteous army.
Me and so it really entrenches that divide
and so you know it's possible that's
all constructed I think you know if there is a sophisticated cover-up they probably

(24:45):
know exactly what they're doing it's also possible that either and or that this
is a naturally occurring mythology that has popped up because that's what it
wants us to look at it wants us to look at this horde that has developed in
response to this and how that,
causes this interaction between these two what we would consider two two factions
from this very simplified point of view, the skeptics and the believers,

(25:08):
and how the bellicosity, the warfare mentality between them keeps us from seeing
what is actually happening underneath it.
Okay, that is so brilliantly stated.
Let's jump right into that, because I feel like that's where your heart is,
is to look at this whole phenomena from the myth.

(25:29):
I know you've been playing around with that a little bit and looking at it from.
Collective, a Jungian thing. And I know from our past conversations,
private conversations, that you're being informed here not only by the Law of
One Material and not only by maybe other,
investigations, but also I think your own experience, particularly spiritual

(25:51):
experiences where you've been given a numinous look at reality as a unified fabric,
a wholeness, where we're given
mirrors throughout our collective and individual lives and to what degree that

(26:12):
we are able to take what we see and embrace it with the energy that we're bringing
to looking into the mirror.
In other words, if we're looking at it with anger, we're going to see anger,
project anger, and receive anger.
If we're looking at it with curiosity and acceptance, we're going to project

(26:34):
that, we're going to see that, and we're going to receive it back.
So yeah, let's move right into this mythos.
Yeah, that sounds great to me. I think the way that you've described it is definitely,
how I've been approaching it, sort of my thing.
And in addition to everything you just said, I've also just been informed by
looking at things, like I said, outside the law of one perspective,

(26:56):
I've been interested in how academic religious studies
have been looking at UFOs recently and academic
philosophy have they been looking at ufos which you know
there's various perspectives but i do think they're all sort of
converging on the sort of thing that where you just said yes okay you and i
listened to a couple of podcasts that were put out that talked about some of

(27:21):
the academic stuff so do you want to give a little bit of your review on that
or what is are your thoughts about that?
Yeah, that podcast we listened to, I don't know if I could necessarily reference
specifically what came out of that, you know, that integral.
They were looking at it from a very integral standpoint, which I think is still
a little bit beyond where academics is right now.

(27:43):
You know, academia, I don't think has reached the integral standpoint.
So, my primary influence, my primary influences have been a professor of religious studies called,
named Diana Walsh She's written two books about relating UFO phenomenon and
particularly UFO experiences with religious experiences and an author named Jeffrey Kripal,

(28:07):
he is also professor of religion, professor of religions, chair of the.
Department of Religion and Philosophy at Rice University there in Texas,
and sort of involved in the UFO and paranormal, supernatural kind of world for a long time.
And he has, I think, a really sophisticated view of how UFOs relate to religions and philosophy.

(28:30):
And then academic philosophers, particularly a man named James Madden,
wrote a book recently called Unidentified Flying Hyperobject.
And so what I view as sort of all of them approaching it is sort of wanting
to take a step back from the narrative of disclosure, the narrative of UFOs as we see it.
Diana Walsh-Basulka has written a lot about how we are influenced by particularly

(28:54):
the media and how we view UFOs and view people who have UFO experiences and
how if you remove that layer and look at people who look at UFOs and UFO experiences.
They're much different than how we as a collective understand them. them.
And I think to you and me and the people who know about the law of one or sort

(29:15):
of already accept that UFOs are a significant thing beyond beings and spacecraft
visiting us, that's not that crazy of a thing to accept.
But for society and for academia in general, it's a pretty significant step,
I think, to sort of unpack the way that we look at UFOs.
And so, you know, her and James James Madden and Jeffrey Kripal,

(29:39):
they all sort of like want to take a step back from that enculturation of UFOs
and influenced by also older thinkers like Jacques Vallée.
He's been writing about UFOs since like the 60s.
And so that's been my primary angle is sort of.
Reading them, seeing how they unpack and unfold the cultural overlay of UFOs

(30:01):
and aliens and what we might think they are, and trying to get to the phenomenon itself.
Do like the phenomenological reduction to figure out what is happening when
people have these experiences, what it means to us as a species,
as individuals, and what kind of influence does that have on us as a society?
Because what we as a society think ufos

(30:22):
are even if we believe the real or not
the impact and the significance and the
reality of what they are is so far outside of what people
sort of generally think about them okay now you've
got my curiosity as to what you're thinking about when you're pointing out this
under layer of meaning and that structures their involvement if you will in

(30:47):
whatever phenomena they are, their involvement in humanity.
So yeah, talk to me more about that.
Yeah, so this is one area where it coincides really well with the Law of One,
but it's been very useful for me to remove the Law of One lens to try to look
at it from the lens that these people are looking at it more particularly.

(31:09):
So imagining the Law of One is not a lens that we can use to interpret it.
We talked a little bit last time, I think, about Jacques Vallée interpreting
UFO experiences as what he calls a control system.
And he's came to that conclusion by a lot of investigation of UFO experiences specifically.

(31:29):
And essentially, that's a pushback against what they call the extraterrestrial
hypothesis, that these are beings that built a spaceship on another planet,
got in it, and flew here, and they're appearing in our skies,
abducting people, doing experiments on them, stuff like that.
And he came to this conclusion by, one,
looking at modern experiences and the specific information underlying a lot

(31:51):
of these modern experiences and how the specific information doesn't always make sense.
You know, a big abduction case that is easy to reference is the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill.
And Betty Hill received a lot of specific information in her hypnotic regression about what she saw.
There's a star map, who she was talking to, etc., etc.

(32:15):
And, you know, once you sort of investigate that, it makes no sense that this is actually who it was.
There seemed to be a layer of sci-fi on top of what she was experiencing that
informed what she experienced.
And that's true of a lot of things. And then he also looked at other experiences,
religious and folklore sort of things from more distant past and found more

(32:37):
underlying correlations that didn't rely on the specifics of what these people were experiencing,
but sort of the themes and the symbols and the trajectory of how it influenced people.
And he came to the conclusion, taking all of this in, that whatever UFO experiences
are and how they relate to older religious experiences or folklores,

(32:58):
fairy tales that people may have actually experienced,
that there is something happening that is attempting to influence us in some way.
Calls a control system, I would call it an influence system,
essentially, which I think does correlate to the law of one.
You know, if we think about the two factions necessarily, they're both trying
to influence in certain ways that they can't do so directly.

(33:19):
And so they can provide these experiences to us in certain ways to influence us.
And so that is sort of this base fundamental aspect of how a lot of these other thinkers, I think,
approach the UFO phenomenon and UFO experiences is that there is something there
that is attempting to influence us in some way,

(33:42):
attempting to interact with us in some way.
But that the way that people experience it is not the thing itself.
There are a lot of experiences, whether it's just seeing a craft,
but I think some of the most informative experiences
come from what people call abductions or other types
of like very direct experiences there's a

(34:02):
lot of information contained in in those
experiences but to take the information
for itself as it is on the surface is
baffling and confusing and absurd and it doesn't match it doesn't make sense
a lot of the experiences don't correlate so there's something underneath it
sometimes negative sometimes positive in my perception that is causing these

(34:24):
things to manifest with these specific images and specific symbols and specific
themes present throughout history.
And I think sort of the main point of what you're asking about is this,
the way that it manifests is also reflective of our current state of being.
You know, even just the idea that the UFOs are appearing as technology,
as craft, that beings are flying and very like futuristic advanced technology

(34:50):
could itself, especially outside of a law of one perspective,
just be an image meant to instill something within us and is reflecting something
within us or pulling something out of us or attempting to pull us up towards something.
Showing us the way that we perceive something outside of us.
And it's not necessarily what it is itself, if that makes sense.

(35:13):
It's as if what I'm hearing, I think what I'm hearing you say,
and please elaborate or correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm hearing you say that
there's some sense of, there's some kind of phenomena,
transcendent as well as imminent here, that is luring.
There's like this divine lure to try to get our attention in some ways.

(35:39):
And it is as if it were an external phenomenon coming and breaking into our
reality to get us to look maybe in one direction or point the compass in one direction.
Perfection but it in so
doing this layer that's doing

(36:00):
it this whatever this is is utilizing all kinds of ways that humans that to
get humans attention and it seems to be going and looking at our subconscious
or coming from our subconscious collective subconscious conscious,
individual subconscious in kind of the way dreams work.

(36:21):
I mean, if we look at Jungian dream interpretation,
we know that the different figures that we might dream about,
even if we just saw a friend that day and then we dream about that person,
it doesn't mean that that dream is about that person.
It's as if the unconscious wants to get our attention and wants us to remember

(36:42):
that. So, we'll emerge in our conscious mind as that friend or something like that.
So, we remember, but it's always to look at the message that the underlying
layer of meaning that's being given through the surface level imagery.
And most of us just get infatuated with a surface level imagery as what Whitehead,

(37:07):
a very famous philosopher that I love,
said, it's called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
Isn't that great? eight, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,
where we elevate some kind of abstraction from the whole and call that universal.

(37:30):
And I'm also right now thinking about,
If I could talk about the Law of One just for a second as an example,
where the source of the Law of One mentions that the book Awaspe,
is that how we pronounce it?
Awaspe? Yeah, Awaspe, I think. Awaspe, okay.

(37:52):
Yeah. 100% sure. Yeah, they, Ra said that that was a confederation of origins
from the confederation channeled in a way that used the history in our religious
systems known at that time.
Now, notice that they're not saying it was fact or fiction.
It was just what we humans thought was true, given our history at that time,

(38:18):
to both veil and unveil secondary layers of meaning. meaning.
And Ra says that basically all of the facts and the names and the dates and
all of this were just surface level.
And that's the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, because we see a whole bunch

(38:40):
of people, and I've had people reach out to me and say, well,
what do you think this means when they said, you know, a wasp said this?
And how do do you understand is like actually raw themselves
say it's meant to package if
you will to use a common word traffic a layer
deeper of archetypal mythos
that is absolutely real but it needed to be seeded into our consciousness given

(39:06):
where we were at is that is that all of that what i'm saying is that what you're
trying to say too yeah absolutely that's a great correlation you know and And
I don't necessarily want to
dismiss the law of one completely because it's still, you know, my lens.
Yeah. And so it's impossible for me to let go of the law of one as I'm interpreting this.
But just finding it useful to try to set aside that lens to look how these people,

(39:29):
the, you know, sort of modern academics, philosophers, how they look at it.
That's exactly sort of, I think...
Way or a sort of correlation to what they're saying that the manifestation of this phenomenon,
is very much like how Rob presented OWASP
there are things that sort of veil its reality but

(39:50):
also reveal the deeper reality that it
wants to reveal to us and you sort
of the earlier part of what you were saying is also really interesting
and how sort of how I think the modern academics and
philosophers are looking at it because they are not necessarily sold
on any particular hypothesis of who or
what this phenomenon is whether it is

(40:13):
coming from outside or whether it is coming from
our own consciousness and or even
if it's not coming from our own consciousness even just
an inbuilt aspect of reality itself from sort of mental reality you know if
reality isn't just matter but there is something in reality itself where we

(40:33):
are reflecting our evolution through reality reality is coming in and attempting
to fill in the gaps balance and imbalance.
Sort of figure out how to or it is
just simply reacting necessarily that's something james madden
kind of talks about and another philosopher bernardo castrop
it could just be a reactionary thing to

(40:55):
how we are perceiving reality reality is then
responding in a way that calls us
to a different perception and i
think there's another example in the
law of one that talks about just sort of this the fact that like the surface
level is not necessarily what it is and it's something that i could cuddle on
on a lot because if we do think about the law of one and there is a confederation

(41:19):
and they want to influence us influence us in a positive way it seems almost
almost deceptive that they would,
you know, present things veiled in a certain way.
But they do that, and they have some sort of leeway in being able to present mythologies.
And they did so in what would be considered a more direct, not really abduction,
but an experience, a UFO experience.

(41:40):
And Dan Fry, who they said was taken by thought form by the Confederation and shown certain things.
If you look at the details of Dan Fry's experience, he thought he was on a craft
and doing something very specific. But it was just an experience they were giving
to him for a purpose, attempting to give him an opportunity or influence him in some way.

(42:01):
And so to me, that's sort of one of the primary questions that comes up in my mind,
but also I see in the sort of modern discussion is this could be something outside
of us like the Confederation or the Orion Empire attempting to influence us through this thing.
Or it could be fully contained within our own mental configuration and how we

(42:24):
perceive reality or in whatever way reality is related to our mental perception of it.
Just a natural reaction and there's not like an intelligence
behind it attempting to do something it seems
natural to me that there could be a high
likelihood that there's intelligence behind it doing it but i think from the
philosophical point of view that's not necessarily a necessity and also i think

(42:47):
from personal evolution point of view it's not a necessity you know these the
catalyst is what it is and provides to us what it provides to us regardless
of what's behind it necessarily.
I have been playing around with a term, and I hope I'm not getting in trouble
with saying this that maybe other people have been saying this for a long time,
but I've been playing around with the term of functional efficacy.

(43:11):
This idea of if it's working, if a narrative gets you you and I,
into embodying the thisness of our life, the immediacy of our life,
and seeing other people as not other than ourselves,

(43:33):
and then reaching out in service in some way and not othering other people,
not scapegoating other people, but walking with other people.
If that is the result of whatever experience that we experience,
then that is functional efficacy.

(43:55):
It's effective, it's efficacious, whatever ritual or belief system that works.
Now, on the other hand, a lot of people
with that fallacy of misplaced concreteness, as the law of one says,
it's not the specificity of information that is sought that makes a difference,

(44:15):
but rather the importance placed upon it.
You know, seeing my identity tied with this particular worldview or something like that.
I've seen belief systems certainly entrap people, entrap people so that in the
name of ascension or in the name of love,

(44:36):
there's actually an increase of bellicosity, an increase of scapegoating and othering.
In the name of freedom, we have to gather our weapons and really buckle down
and circle the wagons here, which further entraps us, to be honest.
So, I think that what you're saying is there's a freedom for the researchers

(44:59):
that you're looking at that are fairly ensconced in the modern.
They're not postmodern. Maybe some of them are dipping their toe in postmodernity.
They're certainly not integral. integral but even from
a modernity standpoint looking at it with a
curiosity of we don't know what it is but
there is a phenomenon and we're looking at it from all different sides that

(45:21):
that in of itself is a kind of freedom that we
should celebrate and if it's resulting in
a functional capacity to
engage with our lives with more agency then it
doesn't matter really the origins here
is that how does that sit with you yeah

(45:44):
i i think for the most part i would say in terms of my understanding of modernity
and post-modernity i do think that there is a lot of post-modern modern approach
in terms of deconstructing the things and looking at cultural contexts,
looking at the context of the individual, and specifically sort of trying to

(46:09):
honor the individual experience versus dismissing it from, I guess,
the more modern scientific perspective.
Okay. Well, that's a great corrective. Yeah. Good. So I do think,
you know, modernity is still.
Lot of ways has the stranglehold on academics and and
i think that's actually really related to what

(46:29):
some of these philosophers particularly bernardo castrop
thinks that the ufo phenomenon is related to modernity but particularly materialism
and physicalism is a reaction to our sort of with how strongly materialism has
taken hold as our overriding mythology of reality reality,

(46:51):
he thinks the UFO phenomenon is sort of a direct response to that,
or at least that's my interpretation of his understanding.
So I would definitely say that there are those influences.
And then there's another thing where I think you and I are particularly predisposed
to seeing that there is some kind of usefulness to our experiences in terms of personal evolution.

(47:14):
That I think is kind of absent from a lot of these other modern philosophers.
First okay they wouldn't necessarily ascribe the sort of efficacy you're talking about.
Except for in terms of that there is something here attempting
to do something okay i guess it's pretty vague
but you know i certainly believe that it is

(47:34):
in an effort to pull us up at least in terms of the positive experiences and
some of them i think believe that but since they're academics they want to remove
their beliefs from their writings and i think maybe most of them believe that
there is something very positive that can come of this and it's intentional,
that that potential is there.

(47:55):
But it's kind of absent from a lot of the more academic stuff that I've seen.
Okay. But I think the exciting thing is is that it's being actually talked about
in academic circles and those that are doing it are not being immediately ostracized.
Right. They have their jobs still, which is amazing.

(48:15):
Okay, good. So what are some of the things that is filling you with hope or
joy or question marks or something when you are delving into more recently this phenomenon?
Yeah, I think the hope is kind of everything we've just talked about.
The fact that this discussion is allowed within academics, within less of the fringe society.

(48:42):
Society, because I think you and I have talked about this a bit in our personal conversations,
and it's at least something that I think about a lot, is that institutions like
academics or government,
you know, they have different roles that they play, and some of them,
they can be very oppressive, but they also provide this very stabilizing influence
on us as a society and as a culture.

(49:04):
And academics in particular, you know, for decades has ridiculed the UFO phenomenon
and has caused a lot of pain and harm and damage to people who have had direct experiences.
And to take an example of what we're just talking about, Professor John Mack,
he was the head of the Harvard School of Psychiatry, and he took an intense

(49:25):
interest in experiencers or really abductees.
And the way that he treated them was to not immediately diagnose them as having
delusions or like having some sort of mental illness that caused them to experience what they did.
Instead, he treated the trauma of what they experienced because they were all

(49:45):
traumatized by their experiences.
And in doing so, he got wrapped up in this world where he didn't necessarily
believe that there were aliens abducting people, but he believed there was something
legitimate happening here.
And for the first time ever in Harvard's history, they tried to remove his tenure.
They tried to fire him. And they failed, thankfully.

(50:08):
But there was this immediate reaction from the institution that he is doing something harmful.
Despite the objective fact that he was healing people, that the people that
he saw were being healed, the fact that he went against the orthodoxy of how
you're supposed to treat those people, their immediate response was, get him out of here.
And so that was, if I'm correct, in the 80s and 90s, I think maybe particularly 90s that that happened.

(50:34):
And that culture has, as far as I can tell, changed a little bit at least.
These philosophers, these professors of religions changed.
Not only are they allowed to talk about it, but they report that there is a
lot of interest in their work.
Even, I mentioned Professor Gary Nolan earlier.
He's a scientist. He's not a religion professor or a philosophy professor.

(50:59):
He's actually in biology, particularly cancer research.
And he got wrapped up into the UFO field through just the government,
supposedly wanting him to assess people who had illnesses from contact with UFOs.
And he got wrapped up in this world, and he's known for having a very sort of
hard-minded scientific approach, but he also believes in the phenomenon.

(51:21):
And he says even when he goes to his conventions that deal with medicine and
cancer, people come to him wanting to talk about UFOs.
And he has not been ostracized by this community for taking an interest in it.
And I think that is what gives me the biggest hope.
Something that you mentioned question marks I think

(51:42):
that is really sort of I wonder a lot
about is we were talking about this dynamic of
the phenomenon and the maybe intention
behind it what it is attempting to do from a
law of one perspective there are at least two factions at least two sort of
overriding influences one is wanting to have a positive evolution the one that

(52:04):
That results in harmony and love and our ability to consciously partake in our
evolution back towards unity with the creator.
The other one wants to also instill a certain type of influence that could be
personal evolution upon the negative path.
But failing that is very happy to instill fear and control and chaos and confusion.

(52:28):
And so if the phenomenon as it manifests has both of those influences.
But it's not made explicit that there are competing influences and it's being
investigated as one phenomenon, it can be very confusing.
And I think that is maybe, I don't know how to gift to the academic or philosophical

(52:52):
community the idea without referencing the law of one specifically.
Specifically but what I see is you know if you
take away the idea that there are is even intelligence
behind it that opens up the door to even more confusion that might even be more
stifling in the end obviously catalyst is presented to us whether it's from
the negative or the positive side and is available for personal evolution but

(53:16):
some is designed specifically for that,
and some is designed to try to confuse us.
Yeah, I have had some difficulty,
I think, in gaining some access maybe to people that I would love to talk about
the law of one particularly in relationship to the process thought crowd,

(53:42):
the Whiteheadian process philosophy or process theology.
And I'm trying to dialogue occasionally with a philosopher, a theologian from
here and there in that realm, because from my mind,
they're the cutting edge, the process thought folks are sometimes called the

(54:05):
open relational theology folks.
Folks, they're the cutting edge of theology and philosophy that can really mirror
the philosophy that I'm seeing from the law of one.
And they're coming up with things that are in the law of one.
And they're doing it completely adjacent, absent any of exposure to that.

(54:30):
Because when I talk to these people, I might say, have you heard of the law
of one? And they'll say, no.
Or maybe I have, But you know, it's not taken seriously, which is fine. I mean, that's fine.
I wouldn't either if I hadn't been led to it in some ways.
But the thing that I would love to just throw out there and get their perspective

(54:51):
on is to look at what the law of one says metaphysically on things like polarity
that we're talking about here,
the negative and the positive, the moral realm, say.
But also, what does it look like for humanity to move into the fourth density?
You know, this is all talked about in some ways in the process theology crowd.

(55:18):
They talk about the actual occasion and as a person or even as a small moment,
a quantum of time, that an actual occasion goes through a process.
That everything is, there's no being as much as there is becoming.
And that every moment is an event. And they're called actual occasions.

(55:40):
And that every moment, every quantum moment that you and I are experiencing as you,
as me, is actually these series of processes that are all in relationship to
each other and ingressing and prehending the past into the present,
pulling in things from what we would call intelligent infinity.

(56:04):
From a law of one perspective, they call the eternal objects, the eternal things.
Realm, say the quantum continuum or something like that, but pulling it into
this moment and then congressing into a kind of what's called a superject,
which is like a moment of subjective aim that's realized,

(56:26):
you know, the, the congressance of a moment realized and then gives itself into
the next moment of becoming.
And you can see this as almost a whole on
what's true at the the quantum level is true
at the bigger levels and bigger levels so that the individual that's made up
of what's called in the process world societies bounded by perceptive bonds

(56:51):
a unit a unity and a society of all of these going through at the same time
so so that they become one.
Moment of progression like a human being is one actual occasion writ large well
you can see this then as humans, our actual occasion is an actual occasion writ large,

(57:12):
and we're in a movement towards concrescing into our subjective aim,
which is the conclusion of third density moving into the fourth density.
And I would love to talk to somebody at that level about these,
but mostly, I don't have my stuff together yet.
I'm still trying to integrate the law of one metaphysics with process theology.

(57:34):
And so I guess that's a pet project I'm working on. But I get what you're saying.
It's like, you just want to say, hey, you want to have an interesting conversation.
Let's look at this, you know, get over the idea of Ra and Egypt and,
you know, just, you know, put that on suspension of belief for a second.
But let's look at the philosophy that's being laid out here and see how it might

(57:56):
track with what people are already thinking.
Do you have any thoughts on what I'm saying there? Yeah, absolutely,
especially just the, excuse me.
The general sentiment, I think a lot of my current interest has come from a
realization and partial acceptance that the law of one is going to remain out

(58:19):
of reach for a lot of society in terms of offering any kind of insight into the UFO phenomenon,
let alone reality at large.
Philosophy and how our
ontology how we view the world how we view ourselves the ufos
i think being a catalyst that will heavily impact
all of those fields and coming to this realization that most people who are

(58:44):
struck by the lightning bolt of ufos whether it's through direct experience
or through just coming to a realization that there is a phenomenon even if they
haven't experienced it directly, the evidence is overwhelming,
the way that people experience it is overwhelming.
They never make it to anything like the law of one.
They never get to the point where the law of one is an acceptable thing to look

(59:06):
at even, let alone believe in.
And so coming to that realization, which I think I always knew,
you know, the law of one's always been obscure.
I always knew that just the first words being I am raw were going to be a barrier
to most of the population.
Trying to figure out, I guess, if the law of one isn't that stabilizing influence,

(59:29):
what is there to be a stabilizing influence?
What can cohere this catalyst into something positive, into a way that we can
relate to it, and that will reveal a deeper layer of ourselves and reality?
And that's sort of where I've been. And
I guess also wanting to take part in that
world because knowing that the law of one has such

(59:50):
a rich contribution to make but since
that barrier is there then maybe i can be an interface
to filter out what they can't
accept but bring in the influence of something that they might not saying that
like that's my job to do that necessarily but at least being curious about how
that could happen well you're a bridge builder you know building bridges there

(01:00:11):
that may not even be understood or yet needed by society at this moment,
but you're building bridges for when that time comes in some ways.
I'm going to read this out loud from the Law of One material,
but I'm struck by 16.6, so session 16,
question 6, and the questioner

(01:00:32):
had asked about the influence of
negative and positive information that's coming from the
confederation and or orion and what
you know what prevents like how do how does this algorithm that seems to be
functioning allow for the information to come in to our particular planetary

(01:00:57):
say collective consciousness and the The answer is interesting,
and I didn't get it on the first many times that I read it.
It was only recently that it kind of stuck to me.
So the answer is, in effect, the balancing allows an equal amount of positive and negative influx.

(01:01:19):
This balanced by the mind-body-spirit distortions of the social complex,
so that's our collective unconscious. conscious.
Thus, in your particular planetary sphere, Earth,
less negative, as you would call it, information or stimulus is necessary rather
than positive due to the somewhat negative orientation of your social complex distortion.

(01:01:45):
And how I'm taking that is.
If you took our collective conscious and unconscious as an entity,
as one entity, we are all cells in this one corpus, this one body.
This one body is not yet psycho-spiritually ready or mature,

(01:02:09):
if you will, to handle or understand or integrate a higher level of positive or wholeness,
you might say wholeness, information that would propel us or keep us moving,
affirming the positivity or the wholeness.

(01:02:31):
Sense-making, and then propelling us to complete more out, you know,
the more of the plenum, the more of the wholeness, you know,
do more wholeness-making.
We're not ready yet because our overall mentality is somewhat negative yet.
It's, or at least back in the day, but I would argue it's probably still the

(01:02:52):
same or close, that we still have a preference for the separation, separation,
maybe undergirded by the materialist point of view, looking at the parts and
seeing them as their own things as opposed to holons in a greater unity.
And so, the somewhat negative orientation that we have, all that can be given

(01:03:16):
to us because of this collective conscious and because there's free will here at stake,
the prime directive of free will and all of this and karma, and all of it goes
into this massive cosmic algorithm,
what can be given to us is, quote.
Let's see, sorry, less negative information or stimulus, like just less negative

(01:03:41):
than where we're at, as opposed to more positive or wholeness.
I thought that's interesting. And so it makes sense that where we're at right
now is what and what is being given what is being affirmed in the act the academy
and and all of the stuff is exactly where we need as a collective matching where we are at.

(01:04:05):
You think yeah that's i love that
you pulled up that quote i never directly referenced
that quote and anything i've been thinking about but i think that
really sort of highlights a lot of what we've
been talking about in terms of not just where we
are specifically but in demonstrating

(01:04:26):
how whatever this influence is whether it's
exactly as raw describes here where there are
these influences and there's something allowed to
come in based on where we are that it is reflective
of where we are there is a seed of
where we are and who we are and what we're able to
comprehend and grasp and the way that

(01:04:46):
we grasp it determines the what raw
calls information or stimulus you know and so
it's so fascinating to me that you know
raw has a narrative behind how that happens there's the
confederation and they relate to the creator in a
certain way there's the orion empire they relate
to the creator in a certain way and there's this whole almost sci-fi

(01:05:10):
mythology that goes into how information or
stimulus is allowed to manifest especially stimulus as i would understand it
that appears to be coming from outside of our world and that's like the exact
same place that these other ufo researchers have landed on but just eliminating all of the mythology.

(01:05:31):
They're using their philosophy as their mythology to get to that point.
And it's like the exact same thing. It's so fascinating to me.
That to me gives credence that there is some kind of lure towards wholeness or integration,
that there's something there that's bringing different, even at surface level,

(01:05:53):
opposing opposing forces, but at that secondary levels, the archetypes,
the mythos is coming through for integration.
Yeah, yeah. And I think sort of maybe this is a good thing or a bad thing about
the institution of academia, like I kind of mentioned earlier.
It's the role of academics to separate their personal beliefs from what they're doing, right?

(01:06:16):
They're supposed to write about these things from an objective point of view.
And like, as particularly religious studies people, they are probably religious,
but they're not supposed to insert their religion into what they're studying.
And so I would imagine that a lot of these people people are informed by at
least an intuition that that is true, that there is a lure,

(01:06:37):
something that is pulling us, and it is pulling us towards something,
and towards something that is imbued with divine meaning, essentially.
But that they're just not allowed to insert that into their work,
and they kind of have to like continue building and building and building and
find a way to get there without inserting that intuitive understanding. Well, I agree with you.

(01:07:02):
And I think that those people are real heroes for me because they accept,
in some senses, the vocation of being an academic is to hold that tension,
to hold that paradox with a humility that they're there in the service of building bricks,

(01:07:22):
building a foundation that is helping us as a society to stand together.
On something more concrete that we can kind of accept, even as they might feel
an urgency to kind of get the work going.
They're not going to throw out babies with the bathwater. And they also seem

(01:07:43):
to have the humility, some of them do perhaps,
of whatever work I'm doing right now and whatever incongruity I feel between
my personal belief system and what I'm having the freedom to work on in research
may never be resolved in my lifetime.
And I'm actually okay with that because I'm participating in a larger corpus

(01:08:07):
and I'm doing my bit to, from a law of one standpoint,
to give the somewhat less negative contributions.
In the overall macro scheme, you know?
So, I really feel inspired by academics that are able to hold that paradox together,

(01:08:27):
that they're at once maybe very much inspired by their own personal belief system,
and they can see how everything fits in.
But on the other hand, they also are operating inside a turtle moving very slowly,
but nevertheless forward. forward.
Yeah. Yeah, me too. When I say it's both good and bad, I think primarily good,

(01:08:51):
particularly because of what you talked about.
They're building a foundation for all of us to stand on together.
And I think a lot of the approach to UFOs, especially that we've talked about,
the physics behind it, the science behind it, it is so unaccessible to those
academics that the only academics who are able to even approach it are the philosophers

(01:09:12):
and the religious studies people, but they necessarily,
if they inserted their own personal belief systems into it, it would cause more confusion.
They want to make that sort of.
The shared consensus of what we can all sort
of stand upon and you know we as a society
have not unified and you know raw talks about that

(01:09:32):
unification will be what essentially gets us to form a social memory complex
get to fourth density but we haven't unified and so attempting to insert personal
you know ontology personal ideas of what reality is of what spirituality is
I mean, not necessarily.
A lot of them do assert what reality is in various ways.

(01:09:54):
But to imbue a built-in meaning that you personally believe in behind that when
a lot of the world is going to immediately reject it because of that meaning
or might immediately accept it when they haven't done this groundwork themselves.
I think that's really the positive
benefit of having that limitation in academia and having that turtle.

(01:10:17):
And it's just frustrating because I think for people like you and me,
being able to in our personal lives to insert that meaning into it and see how
once that's done, everything starts falling into place so neatly and easily.
And you just want to be like, look, here it is. If you just had this one piece
here, everything would make sense.

(01:10:39):
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, scientist.
Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you. This has been a fantastic conversation.
And do you feel that this gives you some good outline or a way to flesh a little
bit the outline that you want to present further in your own life?

(01:11:03):
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, like we said, my own,
whatever I'm doing with this interest that I have, I'm attempting to express it in some way.
And organizing my thoughts has been difficult.
And organizing some way to express it has been difficult.
So having the opportunity to have reflective conversations like this is very

(01:11:25):
helpful to help identify how to organize it, how to relate to it,
and how to express it in a way that makes sense.
So I definitely feel like this has helped a lot. Thank you. Yeah.
And just from a way, like from the outside perspective,
the way that you put your thoughts together is just that sweet spot between

(01:11:46):
good pacing, being informed, like real strong, intelligent information.
I mean, you've done the research.
Processing it through lots of different lenses, certainly a social lens,
and it's well-formed thoughts that we're getting from you.
So thanks for putting all that synthesis together.

(01:12:07):
And I think you're doing a great job being a bridge.
Any way that I can help you lay down your bridge is my honor.
Yeah. Thank you so much, Doug. You too. I really appreciate it.
You know, a lot of the way that we are able to reflect together is unique and
the ability to even think about this stuff in particular has been,

(01:12:29):
you've been really valuable in that process.
So I really, really appreciate it. Awesome.
Well, let's keep the dialogue going, obviously in our private life,
but in terms of the podcast and maybe in a few months we can maybe just have
these every six months or so and just check in and see where things are at.
But I hopefully at that point will have had some more groundwork done on marrying

(01:12:54):
the process thought with the law of one thought, at least in some kind of cohesive manner.
And I would love to be able to present that to you and see what your thoughts are.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Everything that you've shared about process thought
not only feels very in alignment with the Law of One to me,
but also it seems in alignment to a lot of the sort of philosophical groundwork

(01:13:15):
that people are doing in the UFO field, unrelated to the Law of One.
So it'd be really cool to get a synthesis of that. Yeah, awesome.