|
|
|
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Now, I’d like to present the reader with a very strange conversation, that has taken place between one of the W56’s and a German gentleman; as usual, talks have been in German, I had translated them into Russian, then into Italian, now into English. In the following transcription, the German’s sentences will be written in italics.
How many pieces are contained within a box of matches? One, one thousand, a million?
I believe one hundred, when the box is full.
Why not one million?
They could not fit into. Moreover, they would cost much more than the usual price of a box.
But could you find a million of matches in a box you have bought believing that it contained only one hundred of them?
They could not fit into it.
You might also fill a matchbox with billions of pieces, had you the necessary technology.
The ones who actually manufacture matchboxes aren’t able to put inside them more than a hundred pieces.
You get always limited by your environment: do please imagine that it may be possible to put a billion of matches inside a 100-pieces box.
OK. So what?
Should you get astonished in finding so many?
No, should I be aware that’s possible. Of course I’d do, as I am sure that it is not possible.
But I ensure you that it may be done. So, should you get astonished?
I would any way, because such a thing has never happened to me.
Limitations as usual. If it never happened to you, that doesn’t imply that it’s impossible.
At least, it’s very improbable. I smoke a pipe, so I’m used to open matchboxes, and I never chanced to find one with a billion matches inside.
So, you should get astonished.
But the universe is made up with anomalous situations; it’s them which carry information (Author: That’s the Shannon’s Theorem); if all the matchboxes were to hold one hundred pieces, nothing new could ever take place.
Were my company to build transmission equipment whose main frequencies were not constant, we should quickly face bankruptcy.
Not really, it would be enough to build peripheral systems able to adapt to single frequencies, just as it should be enough if you were able not to get astonished in front of a billion of matches within a single box.
In my country, the people that do not worry in such situations are usually called lunatics.
That’s why you’re not able to receive messages from reality.
Of course, because I’m sure I’m not. It would be a logical absurdity.
I’m not a match: my reality can’t be that of an information carrier toward myself.
I’d be an information carrier, not its target.
It’s not the actual figure, it’s the diversity: so many matches more than usual.
A very mysterious message.
One must be able to understand the nature of things.
Going on this way, it’s very probable that one ends up attributing fancy meanings to random phenomena.
And so, according to you, may it happen that a billion matches fit a matchbox?.
Why, then, are you speaking about random phenomena?
Should I try to understand why very rare phenomena, but possible one, may take place, for instance an Aurora borealis at our latitudes, I’d look for the most plausible explanation, and may be I’d get wrong. Should I try to understand impossible phenomena, then I’d get mad.
So, because of us, you’ve got mad.
Quite near to that.
But do you see how the very concept of possibility may get changed?
Life is a heap of successive experiences, through which a congruent reality may be looked for; to the ones who have never met you, you are a pure lunacy, and according to them is insane the one who speaks about extra-terrestrials.
And so you’ve got mad just because you’ve met us.
May be I’m mad, and what I believe to be true is actually just a creation of my brain; you could not actually exist to other people.
But is your brain able to imagine a matchbox with a billion of matches inside?
(Author: For evident reasons, let’s stop here!)
Years ago, I’ve met, in Novosibirsk, one of the German engineers that had been involved in this story; he was then happily married with Galina, a wonderful Siberian woman, both in her mind and in her body. My German friend has presented me with a transcription of a conversation between his wife and one of the W56’s; I enclose it here, without asking a permission from Galina, in this moment rather difficult to find, in the centre of Sibir! The original talk has been in Russian, and I have translated it into English, leaving aside some passages (now, italic will be used for the alien entity):
What do you think of Relativity?
It’s an obvious conception, even if Einstein’s formulae are but a particular case, a very particular one. Then, Einstein entered a cul-de-sac while looking for the unified field, that actually doesn’t exist.
You mean that there’s not a single field, from which, according to instances, electrical, magnetic, and so on, fields are generated?
Here Einstein went astray from the very concept of relativity: the way we perceive the nature of a field is strongly relative: according to instances, I may perceive it as an electric one, and you as a gravitational field. One of the absurdities within the Relativity is that absolute qualities are given as granted, far from reality.
But every technology, on out planet, is based upon a few fundamental fields.
That’s because you never tried to explore extreme situations, where a field may commute (Author: The Russian verb переключать has a stronger meaning, it means switching from a state to another as in a flip-flop) from a look to another.
. . . . . . . . . . .
So, you mean that an unified field does exist.
Of course yes, but not in the way Einstein was looking for it: you’ll never be able to see a single field, whence electricity, magnetism, and so on come from, simply because such a field cannot be perceived directly. On the contrary, you always see it disguised under different masks, according to the way you are in front of it.
And how may I switch (Author: Again the same verb) from one mask to another one?
You have to get into extreme conditions, put your tensors into a critical situation. If in a tensor matrix the functions within the two main diagonals tend to be identically zero, what happens?
The matrix loses any meaning.
Well, do explore situations very near to this one.
But very high energies should be needed.
Not at all: remember that all you have to do is to take some functions to be almost identically null, not so much is required. In a similar way, you may behave so that the resulting determinant is in every moment almost null.
We enter an indeterminate condition.
Whence you may switch (Author: again the same verb) from a mask to another one: the second derivatives with respect to qast (24) of the value of the determinant will permit to you to decide which direction you’ll like to follow.
Although I haven’t presented here the whole text, I believe that just these few lines could allow some open-minded physicist (or mathematician, or engineer) to find a totally new way to look at the reality.
To end this section, I present a conversation held with one of these gentlemen, in the Zanarini coffee-house in Bologna, in May, 1967. Here I appear to explain mathematics to my interlocutor (actually, just from a formal point of view). I was believing that this conversation had remained concealed, but, after having given a copy to a friend of mine, another to another one, and so on and so forth, I’ve discovered that nowadays it has got to be a public knowledge, therefore I can’t but worry any longer. As usual, I’m any way going to cut away some sentences:
Alberto was actually right when he said that he had been eating lamb and fried potatoes together with your people. Who would have expected to see an extraterrestrial drinking a whisky?
What’s strange in that? It’s worthwhile to accept the positive aspects in the worlds we are visiting.
Is it so long a time that you have been wandering from a place to another?
I’d say so. Any way, one never gets tired to learn new things.
But aren’t you homesick? Where are you from?
Well, my home is wherever I am. I do not have a stable home, in the sense you’re meaning. I’ve been born in a place very far away from your Earth. I can’t tell you the name of the star my planet is orbiting, because I’m not familiar with your names system. It is a yellow star, a bit larger than your sun. My planet is the fifth one in the system, it is, it too, a bit larger than your Earth. The most important difference consists in that there is more oxygen and less nitrogen in its atmosphere.
And haven’t you got any trouble from that?
Very little, and only in the very first days I have spent here. By the way, before we start to stay in a new environment, our biologists do their best to adapt our bodies to it, if differences are not so marked.
How long have you been here?
Some thirty years. At first I have been in China (you wouldn’t have expected that, would you?), then in Australia, then in Germany, and at the end in Italy. When I have entered Germany, I have taken a German identity, that I have kept here in Italy. My job, importing German goods, allows me a rather good freedom. Moreover, I remain a German citizen, and I believe I’ll keep this status up to the end of my staying here.
When are you going to get away?
I don’t know; by sure, within a few years.
Have you stable bases also in China and Australia?
We have been keeping bases on this planet since centuries, I’d say even millennia. Stability is a stupid concept: everything is evolving. At times we shut a base down, other times we open a new one. It depends.
Have you bases also on other planets in our solar system?
A few of them. Actually, they do not make too much sense, because our true bases are some mother ships orbiting inside the system. Only on your Earth, not to be noticed, we have to build concealed facilities, under the ground, under the seas, or in inaccessible areas.
Any way, you are quite free to do whatever you like.
Only if one takes the care to get inserted within your environment, as I have done. Secrecy would present a lot of problems.
Why do you stay in the shadow? Why don’t you let yourselves evident to everybody?
First than all, we are not interested at. What could we gain from that? And, moreover, what would be the good for you? In this moment you do not really need spiritual guides, you have to dig your own road by yourselves, because you are able to. Mainly we are here to study, and, by the way, to protect you against possible hostile behaviour from the part of the CTR’s. Obviously, in this second activity, we find it convenient to have some support by someone among you.
How do you select Earth persons to get in touch with?
First than all, we look for persons with a good mental stability, gifted with quietness, and the ability of self-control.
Bruno Sammaciccia, therefore.
Yes, but not only him.
And what may you tell me about a phantom “cosmic police”? Someone, I do not remember who, has told me something about that.
It’s a structure similar to yours, in some ways, at a higher level, and it is controlled by my companions, at a higher level. It is them that actually control the activity of the ones you call CTR’s.
Yeah, all these silly initials. What about W56?
I really do not know. I believe that 56 refers to 1956, although I do not have the faintest idea of anything so important having taken place in that year. About the W, I again haven’t the least idea. It is not an initial: were it so, it would refer to the name Weiros, the ones you call CTR’s.
What about CTR’s?
The same. I can’t understand the meaning of these initials, nor do I know who has invented this name.
How many Earth languages are you fluent in?
German, English, Italian, Chinese, Hindi, Russian, Latin, Sanskrit.
Even Latin and Sanskrit?
Sanskrit is a wonderful language, as Latin is.
Swasti Uttara Devadam?
Your pronunciation is awful. You do not know how Sanskrit was actually spoken.
Any way it should have been similar to that.
Yes, I was joking. Any way, if you’re interested at, I may try to find for you some recordings from those times; I should before discover who is in charge of them.
Probably, in this moment, I’d be more interested in recordings of classic Egyptian.
I’ll look for them, but I’m not able to promise you anything.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Well, your technology is a rather simple one. Once it’s clear that any required amount of energy may be obtained through your mother cells, no real problem may be encountered in understanding the way your hardware operates.
Care, things are not as easy as you have been shown. Any way I believe that, had you enough money and enough technicians available, within ten years or so you should be able to build a bell, may be just by trials. Moreover, our bells are really ancient devices, from the point of view of technical design. (Author: A flying saucer was usually named a “bell”, or a “scout”).
How is it possible that bells cannot be detected by radar?
Because, as usual, your technicians have a restricted view. A radar works fine for the purposes it has been built for, but that doesn’t imply that it may be able to detect a bell. When the pilot of one of your planes decides to make a specific manoeuvre, he has only one fixed sequence of operations available. On the other side, the computer driving one of our bells has, in every moment, to choose at random among an almost infinite number of different possibilities, all of them equivalent in front of the required result. That does mean that the distribution of the fields around the bell cannot be forecast, and it changes continuously. Think about what optical lighting does mean. The light from your Sun has an almost flat spectrum, but an object getting light from the sun gives back only some frequencies, and therefore it looks to be colored, and the reflected light has no longer a flat spectrum. In our case, things get more complicated than that, because there is a powerful electromagnetic activity, with relevant exchanges of energy. Moreover, both the emission spectrum and the reflection function are changing in every moment. From a purely theoretical point of view, it may be that these two entities remain roughly constant during a certain period of time. Then, your radar would be able to make a temporal convolution, and so to detect a bell near by. But most of times things do not go that way. There is also a de facto invisibility. During the time a radar needs to look back at the same area in the sky, the bell may have moved far away, and a single echo generates no target. Or, may be, the bell has moved not so far, but two successive echoes cannot be correlated, even if their spectra remain roughly the same. In a certain sense, this is a passive way, that means that the bell does nothing to get invisible. On the contrary, if we decide to do so, we may order our computer to change at random emission and reflection spectra, so that in every moment a closed convolution is simply impossible.
That means that at times you are visible, and at times you are not?
Even worse than that. At times we may be invisible, at times visible, at times visible only in part, at times things may be visible that are not our bell, for instance some of the generated fields. The eye of man, just like a radar, pretends to be an intelligent instrument. It does not convey to the brain an image that appears for one tenth of a second only (or, if you prefer, it’s the brain that does not take such an information in any care). When one of your photographers, while developing a film, finds a “flying disc” in a picture, an object that nobody had seen when the picture had been taken, he may say that he has been lucky. The disc was not invisible at all, but the brains of bystanders had not been able to perceive it. The photographic camera is a stupid device, it doesn’t try to correlate. If at a certain moment an object is visible, it gets recorded. We do not care so much, because we will no longer be in the area, when the film will be developed. At the end, there is a kind of environmental invisibility. Just like the pilots of your submarine ships are used to, if we stop the resonance, then the bell no longer emits. This way it becomes automatically invisible if it rests within the shadow cone of your planet, on the ground, or in the space.
. . . . . . . . . . .
The pilots of your planes have to take care of such things, because their speed and range are limited. To such people a course mistake may mean not to be able to get to the desired airport. And, any way, changes in speed and in course usually reflect increments in the flight time. On the contrary, with our bells, should we even bounce from the right to the left of the course, and back, like the teeth of a comb, we would face no problem in keeping our schedule. By the way, keeping exactly a course is of no particular use: a bell is just a vehicle to get from one place to another one; The way it does so is rather meaningless. Should I be interested to fly over a peculiar point, all I should have to do would consist in placing an anchor over there (Author: An anchor is a kind of VOR, a device that may be detected by the bell’s computer, so that it may decide its course in relation to it; from a physical point of view, it may be a small sphere, just 3 millimeters in diameter, but it may also be a “virtual” thing, a kind of “property” attached to a specific point in the space).
. . . . . . . . . . .
Very often terrestrials have inquired me about the “Hyperspace”, that actually does not exist, because it is an invention from your part. Actually, the space is an entity with a very high number of dimensions, and in every moment we may perceive from two to four of them. Selecting them with care, one may enter into very complex situations. It would be unfair to say that a bell is just a kind of vehicle; situations may take place, where the set of the totality of the points within the universe is such that each one of them has a distance from every other point exactly equal to zero. In such instances, you cannot speak about displacements, and so the bell becomes just a container, not a vehicle (Author: This is General Relativity, stressed up to a point we have not been able to reach by ourselves; from a mathematical point of view, this really extreme idea looks to be sustainable).
What do you mean?
It would be better, were I able to speak correctly your mathematical terms. Think that the whole space sits over Earth surface, with a reference system based upon latitudes and longitudes. If you put up a geometry over this space, everything will work fine until you stay near to the equator, and if the dimensions of your objects will be small with respect to the radius of Earth. But, if you get near to a pole, dimensions along the parallels will be getting smaller and smaller, and points will gather together. In such a situation, you get an universe of zero length. Do you understand?
Sure.
How would you state that, in your mathematical terms?
This happens when one tries to use an Euclidean geometry inside a Riemann space, where conditions are of quasi-Euclidean geometry, and they stand only locally. It’s like when applying geodetic equations (the variation of the infinitesimal length is nil), and one finds a simple infinity of solutions, each different from one another.
Fine, what do you mean with variation?
With variation we mean the change of a function, keeping still contour conditions. If I think of all the possible trajectories from one point to another one, on a plane, each one of them may be identified through a function that represents them all. For instance, the function will be a two-variables one. If this function is continuous, its variation is the derivative within the spectrum of the represented functions, with respect to the two independent variables of the representative function.
And so, when the variation is zero, it means that, around a certain value, the functions are identical to each other.
Better to say, that differences between two functions whatever, belonging to a small entourage around it, are of a lower order with respect to the values of the independent variables of the representative function.
And geodesy?
If I put each trajectory in connection with its length, I get a condition of geodesy when the infinitesimal value of its length does not change when the function varies within a sufficiently small entourage. It’s a bit like the concept of derivatives, this time expressed as an infinite set of functions, and a single function that represents them all.
Fine, we use a rather similar system, that operates through parametrical representations: a function of functions, at the end.
I’d say that it is the very same thing. Parametry derives from the use of a representative function that, in your words, looks to be just the function of the parameters. Another question: does the word “clacteem” mean anything to you? Williamson was writing that you call your bells with this name.
Not at all. Any way, it’s names, may be someone is using the one you’ve quoted. You too call the same thing with many different names, and may be do not even know all of them, in this moment I’m not able to find an example for that.
May be the hundreds of different names Englishmen call a street.
That’s right. If you like, call them Clacteem, or flying saucers. Actually I do not like so much “flying saucers”: from one side it’s highly reductive, then it makes one thinking of a vegetable soup.
A soup?
Yeah, because of the “saucer”.
I do not like too much the term UFO.
Indeed I do, if nothing else, because we have our own UFO’s. As one of your writers was used to say, there are much more things than what man may be able to imagine. At times, really seldom, we chance to meet very large objects, in all evidence artificial objects because they do not move within the space in the way natural bodies do. But we have never been able to understand who they are, nor if they are sending messages. Our attempts to communicate with them always failed.
And didn’t you try to get near?
It’s a paradox: rocket driven vehicles should be necessary, because non inertial devices are repelled.
Why don’t you try to follow them?
The Night wanderers (what a poetical name, isn’t it?) often change their dimensional environment, so that they escape in an unrecoverable way. May be, one day or another, we’ll meet them
Tell me something about the quarrel between you and the CTR’s.
You are right in not using the word “war”, as Bruno does, because actually there has never been a true war, although many among our friends have died. The name “CTR” has been invented I don’t know by whom, in a terrestrial language. These robots have started evolving in a place that I do not know how it is named by your astronomers; it’s a star among the ones that constitute the Centaurus constellation.
Proxima Centauri?
No, it is not one of the stars nearest to you; on the contrary, it’s rather far away. By the way, your astronomers are not aware that there is a star nearer to you than Proxima Centaury.
Our sun.
How witty are you. Any way, the CTR’s are the result of an experiment that has run out of control. They are robots, in the full meaning of this word, even if centuries ago they have started an activity of biological reproduction. To you, at this point, it’s no longer possible to discriminate between a natural being and a biological robot.
What do you mean?
Probably you would agree in stating that a synthetized human body, with a conscience and a will impressed from outside upon a pre-existing amorphous structure might be called a robot. But, according to you, its grand-grand-grandsons may still be considered robots?
About us all, are we pre-programmed robots, or aren’t we?
Well, according to our biological and – I do not know a correct word in your language – let’s say animistic knowledge, it is possible to distinguish natural beings from the descendants from robots; speaking with Bruno, I’ve found out that a trace exists of this concept within a branch of Yoga, but I do not remember its name.
The Raja Yoga, and, before it, the Bhagavad Gita.
I do not know the names, so I can’t confirm you. Any way, it’s evident that, in a sense, we all have been originated in the beginning as programmed robots. In a certain sense it’s evident that it has been us to program ourselves, because we share God’s essence. The CTR’s (and, by the way, not them only) are on the contrary artificial creatures, and they remain as such, even if nobody among your physicians would be able to discriminate; actually, there is nothing physical that may allow to state whether an organism is a descendant from artificial robots, or not. The CTR’s, also named Weiros, are therefore an artificial race, and their main goal consists in trying to fill up the gap between them and natural races, and therefore they are studying. As far as I know, up to now they have only been able to ascertain that the problem exists, but have not been able to understand it, in its full details.
And why do they fight against you?
Indeed, we do not fight, we do not consider this situation as a war, because no war may issue between natural creatures.
How fine if some of our top brass were able to listen to you.
Any way, getting back to the CTR’s, their mission consists in trying to solve a problem, whose proposition they do not know in detail. To them it’s a matter of vital importance, and therefore they do not surrender to any difficulty. Nowadays they have got an extremely high culture in biology, much superior to your own; hopefully, we remain in advance, at least because it has been us to create the CTR’s.
What do you mean?
The experiment that has given birth to these robots has been made by a natural man, who, unfortunately, has died while trying to stop the process. Therefore the CTR’s are “sons of man”, as your Bible states.
And man is son of God.
Not at all, man is God. Man is part of God, who is not even in his smallest part foreign to man. There is no feature of God that is alien to human nature, at least not at a physical level.
The Raja Yoga again.
Yes, it, or something like that. To schematize, let’s remain with God, men, and CTR’s. The biologic know-how of the CTR’s would be astonishing to you; just think of Hydras (Author: We’ll be speaking later on about this “hot” subject), and you’ll realize that, in a certain sense, their biology goes beyond physical death, the point where your medical knowledge stops. But they are not able to understand what they’re missing in order to fill the final gap. And to them the only way to try to understand consists in studying. And men are the object of their research. In practice they try to experiment on the men who are so weak to be unable to defend themselves, or not even to realize that they are in danger, you for instance. The men who are able to realize that such a problem exists, we and our friends, try to prevent other men from being damaged. That’s what the so-called war consists of; actually it’s like when you fill the air around you with vaporized poisons to kill insects. Think of insects with technological capabilities well beyond yours, and you’ll get an idea of the situation. Hopefully, our culture is greatly more advanced that theirs, therefore we are able to stand foremost. But, at our levels, even a small gap results into something really huge, compared to your situation, and any way the weakest party is extremely more powerful than you.
Our forefathers had already got in touch with yours; many of your religious teachings have been originated by us. The fight between good and evil is in the way your friars are depicting it, not as your priests say. It is not bad, in itself, to kill a man. It becomes a sin if this action consists in a deviation from the theoretic humanity level, and in indulging towards the CTR’s way of thinking. The evil your priests speak about actually does not exist, because it is foreign to human nature; only when a man tries to give up, even only in part, his nature, then he acquires part of the features of the CTR’s and of people like them, and that is evil; the dualism exists between who is human and who is not; you have named good the first and evil the second one, and that’s all.
Yes, that’s rather well what the texts I mention maintain. Any way, a couple of times you have hinted that there are not only the CTR’s.
Quite true. Or, if you prefer, we must agree on names. If with CTR’s we mean the people we are struggling with in this moment, the ones who have killed the daughter of your friend, fine, they are not alone. If we refer to the whole of non-natural races, well, in a way or another, we may name CTR’s them all.
And what about natural races?
There are many kinds of them, although the human one is by far the most frequent. There are, for instance, the Wan people (Author: Beings whose flesh is almost transparent) who, as far as we know, have been this way since ever. Then, there are races totally different, from a physiologic point of view. You would be surprised to know that on your Earth there’s a race of beings you’ve never noticed.
Who are they?
You maintain that curiosity is feminine.
Well, you’ll understand that one gets a bit curious, at this point.
Latin is one of the languages of yours that I like most. There’s a Latin sentence that could represent a very good answer, but now I do not remember it. Aside joking, these two races have lived in the same place for so long a time, without interfering with one another, probably because it would be very difficult for you to get in touch with them. There’s no reason to alter this situation, it could even be dangerous.
Are they aware of us?
Yes, but they do nothing. Don’t care, it was just some kind of a joke from my part. As there isn’t any interference, you may think that they do not exist.
Roger, I’m able to recognize when it’s useless to go on. Then?
Then, there are races, still human ones, that live in dimensional levels different from yours, and so, once again, to you they do not exist.
May you propose me an example of a non-human race?
The monsters circus, isn’t it? You’d be surprised, because non-human implies a totally non-comparable physiology. Think of a rock: could you classify it as a race?
Yes, because I’m able to classify it. I’m able to state that an object is a rock, and another one isn’t.
But I’m speaking of races, not of names. A rock may be an individual within a race if it is aware of itself, if it has a will. By themselves, rocks are not a race, although races exist, whose individuals are rocks, from every point of view.
They get born and die?
To achieve an individuality, an internal cohesion is required, one based upon loneliness, or a plurality. If you cut a nail of yours, you afford a loss in your individuality that you may rightly neglect. Were your nervous system be cut in halves, even if your organism were able to survive, you’d be destroyed as a reasoning entity. That’s the very same with these pebbles.
Who are not the non-human race you were speaking of before.
No, quite a different thing. What I’m naming pebbles are to be found in the open space, near to a big red star.
Aldebaran in the Taurus constellation?
I don’t know. In which direction the star you named is lying?
I don’t know. We ought to look into a stellar atlas.
Well, any way I can’t see why you care. If I remember rightly, it should be a star some 200 light years away, some fifteen degrees above your ecliptic.
I do not remember how far Aldebaran is, but the direction should be right.
You’re always incoherent: you have tired me (Author: Here my interlocutor uses a very coarse Italian word) speaking about Relativity, then you do not conform to your habits. What could you care with pebbles being near Aldebaran, or anywhere else?
That’s right. Just a bit of curiosity. Changing subjects, what are silicon webs?
What?
They have named them silicon webs: sometimes, after a saucer has flown over, from the sky long filaments slowly fall down; they are some metres long, and they tend to sublime in a rather short time.
What do they do?
They change from a solid state to a gaseous one, without getting liquid in between, and so they disappear.
I don’t have the slightest idea, it’s a totally new phenomenon to me. May be the fields the bell generates may gather together molecules from the air. Why do you say silicon?
Because, analyzing this substance, it has been found to be composed by boron, silicon, magnesium, a fourth element that now I do not remember, plus an organic volatile component.
By organic you mean long molecules?
Yes, in a certain sense. In chemistry we call organic carbon-based molecules, that are typical of living organisms.
And you don’t even know what life is. I repeat that I haven’t the list idea about it, but if the substances are what you say, they must come from the atmosphere: our bells do not go around spreading magnesium and silicon. Unless…
Unless what?
Have you any idea about the organic matter?
No. As far as I know, nobody has been quick enough to analyze it.
As usual, probably you haven’t understood anything. You tend to frame everything within your mental schemes, without asking yourselves whether there might be a different answer, outside them. I can’t be sure that I’m going to give you the right answer, but by sure you would never have thought this way.
Go on.
Any way, it’s possible that I’m going to say silly things, because I do not know the details. One of the external groups coming to your Earth is very interested at insects.
Insects?
Actually so. Insects are really rare within the universe. Usually, when they are found, this means that the planet is a young one, because insects are among the first races to appear, and among the first ones to disappear, I don’t know why.
Their structure is rather rudimental, they have serious problems in breathing.
Well. On Earth it’s different. I’m not sure, because this is not my field of interest, but yours is the only mother-planet to be breeding an insect population. It may be that the silicon you speak about is the by-product of an operation of an environmental analysis conducted by these people. Magnesium, as usual you aren’t aware of that, is a powerful catalyst, in insects populations.
What do you mean?
It strikes heavily, both their behaviour and their actual survival. It’s the best destroyer of insects. Within a few generations, insects develop a mutation that destroys them.
Something like our cancer.
Not really so, at least because you cancer is induced by yourselves, with environmental contamination, while in this case the mutation gets induced from outside. Any way, the final result is the destruction of their race. It is also possible to make measurements saturating environment with magnesium, in a way I do not know. Any way, it’s just an hypothesis, and I can’t tell you any more. It’s strange that it’s a phenomenon I’ve never heard of.
It is not so frequent.
Then, probably, I’m right.
Let’s change subject once again. What is your life? What do you do, what are your aspirations, which problems are you facing?
Well, I may understand your interest, and will try to answer your questions, if then you are going to answer the same questions. To us science is not an important goal. We believe that what we already know is enough by large, therefore our scientists have a secondary role in our society. In a certain way, we are like the CTR’s, willing to make a jump in our existence. We still have too many links to the physical world, much more than what we’d like. That’s true with ourselves: other people are beyond us, and other behind, you among them. We are sure that man is not so much made of matter, therefore we are trying to get rid of this useless appendix, encouraged by the fact that others have already succeeded. Man’s ultimate goal is God, and that looks like the serpent in you sagas, who is biting its own tail.
Ourubus, or something like that.
It’s not the name to have importance. Obviously, while tending to God man finds himself. And that’s what we’re trying to do. You may see that we and the CTR’s have similar problems, but there’s a big difference: we do not have at our disposal a herd to use in our experiments. Therefore we try to understand how human societies are organized, looking for a common sub-structure, that actually is still escaping our efforts. For instance, we haven’t yet understood how it may be that you, a relatively primitive people, exhibit parapsychical attitudes that we need dedicated hardware to grasp. We haven’t understood where is the difference, if there’s any, and that’s one of the subjects we’re studying. In this moment, I’m studying you much more that your studying me.
I’m well aware of that. Any way, I trust you, so there is no problem.
Now it’s your turn to answer your own question.
From my own point of view, or from the whole of earthlings?
Do you feel confident to speak in the name of you all?
Of course I don’t, so I’ll speak in my name only. I believe that two significant moments may be identified: looking for a satisfying knowledge and life style, and to get to be able to reach them. Let me explain. I believe that a reasonable way of life is near to what you’ve been saying, and that I name Bhagavad Gita. But of course, to be able to behave that way, to us it is necessary to have found a job that allows us to have a sufficient free time, and allows a sufficiently high cultural environment. I’ve studied dead tongues, religions, philosophy, in order to try to understand something. After all, the point I have reached allows me to consider this talk just as a mean to satisfy an years-long curiosity, but do not believe that I’ll get significant operational results from it.
I’d be rather surprised of the contrary. From a petty point of view, it’s fine to be looked at as if gods, but, after all, such a talk in front of a whisky glass is much more constructive.
To me the problem consists in that our society is not oriented this way. My aims consist in acquiring culture, first than all from within myself, then at a technological level. But technology is a secondary aspect. If my environment would allow it, I’d be an ascetic, on the top of a mountain.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Your society is based upon money, and this forces to undesirable compromises.
There have been attempts to overcome this problem, or at least to reduce its implications. Unfortunately, they didn’t look to work.
That’s because you are tied to individual property. I’ve found that people here think I’m lucky because I own an aeroplane, that’s beyond what most of them may hope. What should happen if I’d leave the plane on the runway, available to anybody?
First than all, if a child gets into it, takes off, and kills himself, it would be your fault, both under our laws and according to my opinion. Then, as it is not a so common object, it is necessary to put up a system to manage the attempts to access it. In our case, such a mechanism is money.
To us there’s no need for it, because we may have plenty of them. But societies like yours tend obviously to exalt money for itself, instead of considering it just as an access manager.
That’s true, it has always been so during the whole history of our civilization. Since a century ago other systems have been proposed, i.e. communism and the like, but in practice they wouldn’t work. But it means that there is an unconscious need to change things.
Would you like to enter our federation?
Whom are you addressing? From my own part, probably so, but I’d need to reflect. All earthlings? I don’t think so, probably mainly because of fear. Were they to know that a war exists, or, if you prefer, a stormy condition exists between those strange objects that fly over our heads, probably they’d like to listen to both parties, in order to choose the best offering.
Are you so materialist?
Probably in this moment I’m more pessimistic than usual, but I fear that things go this way on our planet. From your side, who is in charge to take decisions?
I asked Bruno, and he told me that our system is called an oligarchic one: a group of people decide in the name of everybody, and everybody decide who is to decide.
Again the serpent biting its tail.
Not at all. You would be right in a selfish environment. With us, the single person is worth nothing, and is aware of that.
Well, may be you’re right. Any way, it looks that we must stop here, because the cafeteria is closing.
What are you going to do with your recording?
Nothing peculiar. I’ll translate it into Russian as usual, then I’ll file it.
I don’t understand to what purpose.
None at all. As I’m used to say, it’s a collection of stamps.
19/12/2024 ... 05:59:16
Totale pagina, n° 1433
Pag. totali oggi, n°
17
Online,
n°
1
