[ExI] Sovereignty and the UFO

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Comments? It looks like it might just be people spinning their wheels.

It is.

> UFOs have never been
> systematically investigated by science or the state

Except for all the times it has, and kept turning up bogus.
"Weather balloons" may be a trope, but the evidence says it
really was weather balloons much of the time.  Those who
doubt it are free to provide counter-evidence.  Those who doubt
it *only because they can not accept that nothing mysterious
or spooky or alien was going on*, well...when one side has
evidence, and the other doesn't, even if the other side has the
most passionate belief, the other side is in fact usually wrong.

> the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty,
> which cannot decide a UFO exception to anthropocentrism while preserving the
> ability to make such a decision.

Actually, no, it can.  If there were sentient extraterrestrials on
Earth, they could be considered "people" - albeit people who
originally belong to no nation, though perhaps they could
immigrate just like any human being who winds up a member
of no nation, or perhaps they could be foreigners just like any
human being who belongs to another nation.  Either way, ETs
could be readily incorporated if they existed; the only reason
that no non-humans are part of nations is because there are
no sentient non-humans on Earth.  To claim that, just because
ETs aren't included, means they can't be included and that
sovereignty requires assuming they don't exist, is pure circular
reasoning.

> The UFO can be “known” only by not asking
> what it is.

This style of language seals it.  There is no
similar-to-known-but-not-actually-known concept that quoting
"known"  implies - or at least, no such concept that is useful
in making any sort of practical decision.  Further, the
implication that data can only be gathered by not seeking it
(not just "don't actively seek it or do certain experiments", but
rejecting even such things as passive data gathering or
considering the design of experiments) is utterly false.