Let us examine the fundamentals of Ufology. The received view is that we have been visited at least periodically by an ancient federation of space-faring cultures utilizing incredibly advanced technologies. It is quite probable that they have intervened extensively in the evolution of life on this planet. We are now on the threshold of induction into this galactic civilization.

Many people have considerable difficulty accepting this view. The main source of difficulty lies in not understanding the possible motivation for the expected transition from clandestine contact to open contact. Why should there be such a unique and dramatic episode in an otherwise very gradual and long-term process of biological and cultural engineering? The other side of this question is why would the space culture engage in such a program to begin with?

Convincing arguments have not been forthcoming. There is a fundamental inconsistency in any scenario involving ET contact. If open contact is possible, why has it not already occurred? The best answer is that we have not been ready. But if we never have been ready, why should we ever expect to be?

All life forms on this planet have evolved as a single ecosystem. Isolation of species is the exception rather than the rule. The biggest exception may have been the absence of Homo sapiens from the Western Hemisphere. However, once the contact was made it became robust, in the sense that cultural disparity between hemispheres never greatly exceeded the disparity within each hemisphere. Ufologists are suggesting a very different and ad hoc model for cosmic evolution, and it does not fit anything we know or can readily imagine.

But even the notion of any sort of cosmic evolution leads to great difficulty according to modern science. The concept of evolution was the essential concept of modern science. It is what allowed us to set aside the idea of creation and design. With ufology, scientists correctly surmise that religion is sneaking in the back door, despite the protests of ufologists.

That there might be a robust mechanism for cosmic evolution, rather than just sporadic planetary ecosystems, would apparently push the already strained mechanics of evolution well beyond the breaking point. Mind you, I do not object to this development, but let us consider the consequences.

My own thinking along these lines was greatly stimulated by the development of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle back in the '60's. Most observers agree that this principle arising out of science poses a serious challenge to the modern scientific worldview by raising the specter of design. For this reason scientists continue to ignore it. Ufology just pushes that challenge a good deal further.

There is a very strong tendency to try to keep problems separate. It is the modern way to take a piecemeal approach to understanding and solving problems. But those of us also concerned with the shifting of paradigms realize that there are limits to analysis and that we may already be well beyond the stage where the costs of the old paradigm begin to outweigh its benefits.

Besides the challenge of Anthropics, there is also the apparently intractable mind-body problem. Most students of that problem agree that its solution does not lie within the grasp of the scientific paradigm. The conundrum of consciousness ought to be giving us a big push in the direction where any new paradigm must lie.

The problems posed by anthropics, consciousness and ufology all suggest that life and mind must comprise a fundamental aspect of reality. They are not just an accident of chemistry. At the very least we must reconsider the problem of cosmic design.

That there is a hidden plan or design is our most ancient belief, now being painfully resurrected. The proponents of design must acknowledge that it has been well hidden. The world has every appearance of being natural rather than 'supernatural.' Yet when one probes the mysteries of nature with an open mind, one must consider that Nature might have an Author, an author who chose a strange method of concealment.

The mystagogues will let the matter rest as an ineffable mystery. Is that not a failure of imagination and nerve? There is a fairly obvious path to understanding. Simply suppose that mind is the fundamental aspect of reality. This is not an easy concept for those of us weaned on Darwinism. But consider that the mere existence of either mind or matter is highly improbable. We should first ask why there should be anything at all? Why not nothing?

But does nothing make any more sense than something? To prevent anything there would have to be prohibition on everything. Nothing is then not really nothing, but rather a universal prohibition, which is a rather mentalistic something at that. As they say, any law is meant to be broken, the act of which would also be mental. Mind can hardly prohibit mind. Already we are well on the way to a self-creating and self-manifesting cosmic imagination, and where are the laws of physics? If we suppose that physics arose as a separate realty, we are right back with the mind-body problem. But aren't we missing the First Cause? Not really. Time is an aspect of imagination beyond which there can be no first or last. The Alpha and the Omega are bound together in 'eternity.' They are the cosmic bootstrap. Is all of this any less rational than the 'Big Bang?' Only for those who are hopelessly trapped in an old paradigm.

What does this excursion into metaphysics have to say to ufology? It says that ufology is operating on the cusp between two paradigms, and ignoring that fact will result in the confusion we have been seeing. Very few ufologists follow the path of rocket science. ET's ignore the barriers of our space and time as easily as they ignore the walls of our buildings. Does this not very strongly suggest that we are dealing with parallel realities, neither of which can be absolutely objective? Around these phenomena the walls of our own 'reality' are thinner. We begin to see through the veil and back into the cosmic imagination.

The remaining question is what can we do about all this. Well, plenty!

.

rev. 3/22/98