THE EVOLUTION OF PARADIGM AS CONFIRMATION EMERGES

THE EVOLUTION OF PARADIGM AS CONFIRMATION EMERGES

December 2012

Mankind at the dawn of extraterrestrial contact is akin to pre-Socratic thinkers which were termed natural philosophers.  Like them, our entire attention has been focused on our immediate world and its vicinity.  It is a limited view of reality that has consisted only of ourselves relative to the known living species in this world.  And we have sought to understand the origins of our world and the meaning of our lives in this limited context.  Our explorations have largely consisted of science, philosophy, and the spiritual constructions of religion.  So far we have rejected the seemingly naive imaginings of science fiction and fantastic tales of experiences involving highly sentient and developed beings not of our own kind.  We have looked for understanding not in the broader universe with its tangible construct of reality, but rather in our own anthropological view of reality where all concerns, needs, and conclusions revolve around our own.  Like Heraclitus of ancient Greece, we have "sought for myself!"  Yet while we have reached beyond the limits of these crafted paradigms we still cling to these manufactured perspectives, religion, and myth.  More work yet lays ahead of us to establish a more holistic independence of reason and perspectives upon which sciences, doctrines, and everyday living might ponder and build.

We move today with a similar detached curiosity to identify previously unknown elements in our primordial adventure.  But that detached curiosity is not sufficient and far from satisfying.  We fail to reach agreement among our various investigators who are becoming increasingly segregated as they champion primary material toward isolated event patterns and their causes.  We also face a secondary problem arising naturally out of these preoccupations with the material substances; the problem of change.  As so long ago in ancient Greece, some of our number deny the emerging reality of change, while others hide from the reality of Being -- existing -- expressing our selves as a singular people within a wider context which is not closed from the greater community.  This controversy leads to a further problem: the problem of knowledge!  How can something be knowable if it changes from moment to moment?  How can something be knowable when our established bureaucracies have become so introverted that they support an aversion to truth, knowingly or unknowingly, for the sake of their own survival rather than the greater good?  Once again as in ancient Greece the methods of finding Truth has been called into question.  We move from evidence of the senses, to an appeal to reason, and then followed by a "great emphasis" upon deductive logic as a technique for disclosing and and proving this new evolution in mankind's fringe awareness as a means to embrace the change on the more holistic scale.  But these proofs are NOT satisfying!  The cumulative effects of over 60 years of experiencing, seeking, speculating, deducing, and attempting to communicate in such a way as to illicit an affirmative response from our societal hierarchies, exercising control over the masses and its governing systems, has only resulted in a growing conviction that neither experience nor human reason can establish Truths which should be universally accepted.

Pondering ancient Greece, "individualism and skepticism in thought coincided with the economic and political crisis that produced the Peloponnesian War, and the interaction of these various factors brought Greek thought to the dead end represented by the teachings" of their day, likewise in our time does collectivism and skepticism in thought coincide with the economic and political crisis which produces endless terminal wars in the seemingly more penurious areas of our world.  Among our masses rise various groups of highly critical thinkers largely tuned to man and society and who shun what they believe are fruitless speculations about the broader paradigm beyond age old human perspectives.  We observe with horror, all religious, ethical, and political values fall before the onslaughts of their attacks -- attacks utilized as forms of social engineering to create a niche within human perception more harmonious to their various purposes.  In their intent 'grounded being' is a controllable certainty, "a clever devise" of sociological statesmen as a means of preventing thought deviance, maintaining stability, and providing for the masses whose unconcern facilitates malleable intellectual regression.  Among these trans-paradigmic statesmen "justice is simply the interest of the stronger."   We are experiencing a peculiar synchronicity with the pre-Socratic thinkers of ancient Greece who agreed in interpreting the famous dictum of Protagoras, "man is the measure of all things," to mean that  truth and morality were relative and individual matters.  And many go on to accept the extreme skepticism regarding Truth formulated by Gorgias:  "Nothing exists; if anything did exist, it could not be known; if a man should chance to apprehend it, it would still be a secret: he would be unable to communicate it to his fellows."  This is the situation we find ourselves in today regarding extraterrestrial contact as unambiguous contact looms.

My fellow man, into this "intellectual and spirited vacuum" each of you must step.  Your place in history lies in great jeopardy.  It is your immediate destiny to reverse the destructive trend in our planetary human thinking and construct a viable foundation upon which our children may build a world fit for open participation in the greater community.  Your first task is to build an ethical, moral, and philosophical system for the masses to abide, in the face of unambiguous contact discovered, confirmed, and acclimated to, rather than disclosed prior to experience.  The investigating is done!  Like the Sophists, it is your lot to refuse to spend time without introspection.  Socrates explained this step in the following manner, "I have no leisure for such inquiries; shall I tell you why?  I must first know myself, as the inscription at Delphi says; it would be absurd to be curious about what is no business of mine, while I don't know my own self."  In other words, because man has reasoned all Truth and traditional values out of existence the resulting void of meaning demands your attention.  It is therefore the world within you; your behavior before the enigma, through the enigma, and in conjunction with the enigma experienced which must concern you and consume you in this time.  You must attend to the care of the soul and bear yourself anew as a broadened paradigm emerges and establishes itself.  Only you can prevent implosion.  In this it matters not how you identify the soul or the mind of man.  You can only know it is the seat of reason and capable of finding ethical truths, behavioral responsibility, and intrinsic excellence which can and will restore the meaning and value of life.  Like Socrates you must not doubt such things can be found and that they will be universally accepted as good.  Socrates believed if people would place themselves under the rule of reason, they would recognize and desire what is good and true, for the nature of goodness and truth is such that all who recognize it will want it; all evil and error are the products of ignorance.  This is the meaning of his well-known statements that "virtue is knowledge" and "nobody errs willingly".

I ask you, are you satisfied with the beliefs of being a singular presence in this universe?  Are you satisfied with the absences of Others contradictory to experiential evidence by so many of your peers?  It is said in sociology that it requires only 3% of a population to tip the scales of understanding.  Far greater than that percentage has encountered the enigma in varying degrees.  How much for you is enough to accept and live by this new scope of awareness, rather than by dialectical inconsistencies in what you have been taught systemically -- a false truth of your reality?  When will you exhort what you have come to understand?  Why do you cling to skepticism, whether by belief or by shield, when you accept and express so many other myths with less proof in hand?

The ground has been prepared.  Those who have experienced the enigma both within the system of governance and outside the system of governance have a great seed planted in common.  That seed is to grow into fruition a tree of life; a tree of change from subversive secrecy, fear, and self-servancy to a paradigm of optimism, commonality, exhortation, and an embrasure of an eternal truth both about reality and ourselves.  This achievement is yours to attain and bequeath to your children and associates.  The solution to the problem is you; knowing your time; knowing to speak and express an excellence of being, come what may.

Cyrellys Geibhendach

Compass Morainn

An Association of Exopolitical Mediators and Facilitators

Montana, USA December 2012

http://compassmorainn.webs.com/  

**Three reasons for speaking come what may:  for instruction against ignorance, council against strife, and Truth against harmful Falsehood.

***Three words of counsel from an old teacher:  know thy power, know thy wisdom, and know thy time.

--
Three followers of wisdom:  imagination, purpose, and endeavor. -- Irish Triad

FiOs ~ "Vision, Memory, Dream" Berla Feini (old Irish), "Knowledge" Modern Irish.

In singing, in exploring our connection to our Spirit and the Creative Source, then turning to examine our Reality, what we thought was only Imagination or only a Dream is revealed to be the most powerful Truth of all...

A Response To Your Captain's Speech

Hi Marty

I appreciate the content of your message. However. The catalogue of events is not something we are oblivious to. America is becoming far more focused on a far greater condition. One which also developed while her people slept. This one has insinuated itself into every facet of the federal government from the transnational private sector and also in much of several state governments.

This problem utilizes the ‘terrorist’ fear conditioning and physical threat to its own ends because it is useful for obtaining a variety of means which ‘transform’ this country into something it is not. Chasing ‘terrorists’ is the ‘band-aid’ solution when there is a cancer in the cupboard. That realization has dawned on ‘little-brother’ (the public).

We are in the last days of peaceful attempts at checking the destruction of a constitutional republic. The Navy knows this. The Navy knows the health condition of the Federal Gov. as it too has experienced plenty of heartburn during the various phases of ‘transformation’. And they have been duly informed of other conditions which with reason would prevent the use of ‘glass-factory’ type options as a solution anywhere on the board.

And they have also been duly informed that the biological/genetic manipulations of food sources & in vaccines as weapons of war by the same seemingly ‘civilized, socially acceptably established parties’ also endanger the future of humanity and fall under the category of what needs to cease by our own choice as condition of civilized advancement into other venues.

Add to that list the endless undeclared wars, etc. The Navy as a relatively independent organization is caught quite literally between a rock and a hard place. Shoals behind and shoals ahead with little relief to be found from the slowly educated and stubbornly ignorant public and media.

Each party, enured in their own little world and either unwilling or unable to step out of the proverbial box with strength of purpose and permanence to spend time in other worlds to find ways to bridge the gaps! The Navy has come the closest of all by their individual participation in a variety of unconventional activities.

Berrating the public or the Navy is not helpful. What is needed is full disclosure of the human circumstance in a way which no party on this planet can escape acknowledging….an attempt at such a disclosure; an exploration of attempt by a conglomeration of persons considering risking it, was burnt to the ground by observers these two years past. We are now on our own.

Who will the public side with? How ignorant shall the public choose to continue to be? Ignorance is very dangerous and the public wields more power than any ‘terrorist’. That is why the Fed Gov is bent on instituting severe controls upon ‘little-brother’. It is why it has deemed Liberty & Justice & the Pursuit of Happiness expendable. It is why history is being rewritten. It is why the foundation of every staple in American society is being modified frantically behind our backs but beneath our noses. Any living complex system will turn and fight for survival when threatened. America fell decades ago.

Question is, just what replaced her and how shall we the public deal with it? We are not equipped with the appropriate information about either the present nor the future to make properly soliuble decisions. The public communicated that it would rather remain either close-minded or seek retribution for past mistakes and transgressions. And there are none who know the score who will suicide or martyr themselves for the sake of a mean-spirited, vindictive (above-board) people.

Cyrellys

From
Marty

Subject: A Captains Speech

This is not very long, but very
informative. You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then,
ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring
our troops home from Iraq, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one
will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in
November 1979...

US Navy Captain Ouimette is
the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy
of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so
much trouble today and why this action is so necessary:

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard
on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and
maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, the
alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze
button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through
a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and
seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on
American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country
hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy
set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America
was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious
threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something.
He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission
ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with
terrorism

America's military had been decimated and down sized
since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly
organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed
from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans
began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East . America could do
little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US
soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high
explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes,
it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button
once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck
heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of
the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed.
America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two
months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven
into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her
slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was
driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America
slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb
explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid

Then
in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate
of the US Air Force Base at Rheine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is
buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually
attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille
Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out
of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their
tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of
1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

The wake up alarm is
getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight
to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter
CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia

The following month,
February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed
with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade
Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still
this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed
again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military
complex in Riyadh Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and
women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb
explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring
over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America
does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks
in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These
attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise
missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in
the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft
pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a
US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and
went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11
September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil
or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack
since
1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to
sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing
from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't
know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can
see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the
National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since
1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it
will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to
'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We
have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of
life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and
again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl
Harbor , Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a
sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around
the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an
election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the
Freedom of our children in years to come.

If you believe in this
please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people
and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest
such a necessary military action.

If you don't believe it, just
delete it and go back to sleep.

Testing and Attending to Group Coherency In Exopolitical Mediation

Testing and Attending to Group Coherency In Exopolitical Mediation
By Cyrellys Geibhendach
06/12/09
Copy & Distribute Freely
Compass Morainn
Compass Morainn Journal

The exopolitical mediator closely observes participant coherency or group coherency in mediation situations. The observations are used to manage the group communication perspective. A litmus test for evaluating the dialog compares and applies the most useful communication questions to the trends or events within each revolution of the discussion or communication event. This allows the mediator to recognize the development of new levels of stress associated with unfulfilled needs, and the subsequent trends transcending fair reason in participant expectations.

“Taking a communication perspective, the most useful questions are not "can you hear me?" or even "do you understand me?" They are "what are we making together?" or, referring to specific events or objects such as a person, an organization, or a culture, "how is it being made in the process of interaction?" or, "how can we make better social worlds?"” ~ W. Barnett Pearce (1)

W. Barnett Pearce discerns and illustrates the root intent of modern group communication. These questions being descriptive of the effort embodied in exopolitical communications regarding the contact paradigm can then be applied in the evaluation of the following exopolitical trend issue: would exopolitical researchers be reasonable in expecting or demanding that Insider disclosers of the Contact Paradigm violate national security in order to produce a proof of paradigm along with their communication event in order for the event to be seriously receivable by the exopolitical community? It has been suggested that due to past disinformation campaigns, information obscuring, the use of exit strategies, the preponderance of unverifiable stories, and the heaps of community conjecture thrown upon every event which researchers must wade through, that the future of insider communications is in severe jeopardy. Rather than engage in the formulation of an equitable solution such as an Amnesty for insiders or the contact control structure itself as has been requested repeatedly by insiders, some participants in the exopolitical community have agreed with the following in regards to unproven communications (communication events without verifiable proof of paradigm claimed), “If they are intending to obscure, then they have. For now, we are no further in knowing the truth. Perhaps we should put a sign out in the front: "Proof, or no entry".” (2)

The individuals who would consider this constriction are indeed asking, "what are we making together?" In their perception the Insiders communication events fail to fulfill (with 50 years of routine consistency) the expectation of working together; producing clear forward movement. However, asserting such restrictions upon the communication event, without first providing an avenue for them to legally produce and release that level of expected proof (without undue risk to personal self-injury), is certainly unreasonable. It is an example of failure to partake in a team effort or the outright withdrawal from group coherency. In promoting such restrictions they may be asking "what are we making together” but they are not allowing an equitable joint effort to occur. Therefore their response becomes self-defeating for their particular needs.

Of serious concern, when participants retreat from group coherency, they open themselves to follow with even greater emotional responses, exerting their personal power of self-assertion and aggression in order to cut through barriers, penetrating the consciousness of the other participants, such as considering more extreme requirements or actions which violate the sovereignty of other participants. An example in this manner of a further reach for proof and power can be found in the suggestion that abductees, contactees, and MILAB victims relinquish their sovereignty by allowing themselves to be chipped with a device like the RFID tag made by Verichip which can then be tracked via GPS. According to this suggestion, such a device would be formatted to output a minute by minute log of where the device has been and could even be networked into Google Maps to track its movements in real-time. Verichip’s human implant device has been almost wholly rejected by the major public whereas in contrast it has been toyed and experimented with on a small scale by elites and their high security facilities. It’s blatant violation of human rights and privacy has largely restricted its use despite international governments plans to implement it as a data gathering, security and control staple in human society. Allowance of this suggestion to manifest into real use could carry consequences which legally impact a population subgroup of unknown size around the globe and then traverse the scope of application to enact itself upon a determinedly unwilling global population which creates a spiral of conflict outside of the contact paradigm. Such a conflict would be a detriment to both the Disclosure process and the secrecy maintenance proponents.

In exopolitical mediation, the participants are struggling for their legitimate rights to power and affirmation. We tend to look on power in a negative way and associate it with abuse. Rollo May, however has a different take on it. Mr. May, a psychologist of distinguished career, “whose contributions to the humanistic movement are highly significant, contended that power is a fundamental aspect of the life process. Indeed, he believed that powerlessness corrupts the human personality by robbing the individual of a sense of meaning and significance…He argued that power occurs in an individuals life in five functional forms.” (4)

Those forms are the ‘power to be’, ‘power as self-affirmation’, ‘power as self-assertion’, ‘power as aggression’, and ‘power as violence’. A legitimate use of power can include actualizing one’s own self in a perceived hostile environment. Many in the public, and the exopolitical/ufology community view the secrecy paradigm as a hostile environment. Therefore a leap to the destructive use of power occurs when tolerance to powerlessness is exceeded. This can be seen when exopoliticians leave the group coherency in aggression to inflict injury, unjust restrictions, or the taking of power simply to increase the range of their control. In the personal experience of these exopoliticians the sense of meaning and significance they gain through the mediation event has been lost.

The application of the communication perspective questions, open the door to an extended depth of dialog regarding what limitations or extent should be applied to the pursuit of truth and participant expectations, in order to maintain human liberties and ethical conduct on all sides. In the evolution of the contact paradigm, wide ranging impacts and consequences to participant approaches, touch everyone on the planet. It has the potential to set disconcerting precedents that can be applied even beyond the management of the paradigm’s direct influence. It is therefore highly important for Exopolitical Mediators to be very conscious of the directions communications among participants take.

An exopolitical mediator may choose, upon perception of these trends, to intervene with a directional comment or open the floor to a discussion of the larger picture where the consequences of the limits or extents of the pursuit of truth are addressed. If the participants can discover for themselves through topic interaction, an understanding of how their expectations and efforts impact the other participant members or the wider global scope then a reformulation of group coherency may evolve with positive results.

“that which is utopian is not that which is unattainable; it is not idealism; it is a dialectic process of denouncing and announcing; denouncing the dehumanizing structure, and announcing the humanizing structure.” ~ Paulo Freire (3)



Notes:
___________

1. 
   Toward Communicative Virtuosity: A Meditation On Modernity And Other Forms Of Communication; page 3 © W. Barnett Pearce, 2005, School of Human and Organization Development Fielding Graduate University http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/PearceCommunicativeVirtuosity.pdf
2. Fore - Reply #1864, Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III; Open Minds Forum, http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=unitednations&action=display&thread=4806&page=125#186977
3. Communication for Social Change Anthology: Historical and Contemporary Readings, A Farewell to Aristotle “Horizontal Communication”, Lewis Ramiro Beltrain, © 1979, pg 157 http://books.google.com/books?id=85WbPmx9QlcC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=percieving+communication,&source=bl&ots=6BGLQatRbP&sig=krL_ZSeeX344i9EmJSmtNLcl9QE&hl=en&ei=ATwUSunGBKCc8QTl-5CKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA158,M1
4. Power and Society, Thomas R Dye & Brigid C Harrison; © 2005 Wadsworth – A Division of Thomsan Learning Inc. page 159
   

A Discussion on Active Exopolitical Mediation & Extreme Participant Negotiation Styles

A Discussion on Active Exopolitical Mediation & Extreme Participant Negotiation Styles
By Cyrellys Geibhendach
05/26/09
Copy & Distribute Freely
My Website: Compass Morainn

In this article I will discuss an aspect of the active exopolitical mediation in which the mediator’s emersion in toxic mediation environments characterizes some of the difficulty in this branch of mediation. The active exopolitical mediator will experience toxic mediation environments in this field. That is a fact. These environments are the result of extreme participant negotiation styles. When I use the term negotiation, I use it in such a broad sense to include the various displayed communication styles and the needs which propel their use. In both traditional and exopolitical mediation, these styles are known as forms of negotiating which are used by the participants to communicate their particular needs and goals.

Just as there are individualistic personality types so too are there differences in participant negotiation (communication) styles. There is a variety of materials available on mediation approaches for working with extreme ‘negotiating styles’ in the traditional field of mediation. It is helpful for the exopolitical mediator to familiarize himself with them. Understanding styles in negotiation which participants use, gives the mediator an understanding of the levels of extent to which participants may resort in managing their needs and objectives at the mediation table.

Stephen Marsh of ADR Resources has provided an outline of Negotiation Styles in Mediation [1]. This outline describes the five methods of negotiation that participants bring to the table as:

1. Attack or fight. This type of negotiator is often called an aggressive
negotiator.

2. Appease or attempt to convert. This type of negotiator is often
called a cooperative negotiator.

3. Flee or attempt to evade the problem.
This kind of negotiator is often called a distractor.

4. Displace or analyze the problem. When a man is told not to come in
to the office today because it has burned down and responds by analyzing the
changes in traffic patterns the fire trucks will have made, he is engaging in
displacement. This kind of negotiator is often called an analyst.

5. Truth seeking. This kind of negotiator is often called an idealist.

He goes into a brief description of the basic understanding of each style which is helpful for use as a reference or introduction tool. Each style is designed to achieve different goals. Mr. Marsh says, “Often, the various styles need a mediator to buffer the interactions and turn a toxic negotiating atmosphere into a successful mediation. “ [1]. An effective mediator is a flexible and aware individual who assesses every situation and keeps at his disposal a variety of methods to achieve their intended results. Exopolitical Mediation is notorious for containing toxic communications and atmospheres. The effective exopolitical mediator has to be prepared to be a more stable and facilitative individual than the other participants often are capable of being.

In the example of an active Mediator working below, you may note that the Exopolitical Mediator, Ed Komarek uses a basic publicly understood fact to describe an element of toxicity inherent in one group involved in the Contact Paradigm to another group involved. He says the group referred to “is usually anything but civil. I need to explain to the Pickering brothers that while uncivil with all the petty bickering, joking, insults and squabbling this bickering and squabbling is more a form of entertainment than anything else.” [2]

This is an example of what Mr Marsh described about the Mediator acting as a buffer between the interactions. In this example there is no direct contact between the participants, only a limited indirect contact, between five parties in the mediation. The four parties are:

1. The Dan & Ron Pandolfi
2. The Pickering brothers, Clay and
Shawn Pickering & UFO Working Group
3. And the Sarfatti Group
4. The Exopolitics Community
5. The General Public

There are two specific toxic styles at work in this mediation example. One, I described above, and the other is the approach taken by Dan Smith & Ron Pandolfi in which the mediator has determined there is some unethical communications going on to achieve personal goals held by them. The method Ed Komarek as the active mediator is using, is to bring to public light and the participants’ attention, the behavior and calling for an explanation of the backdoor accusations involved and requesting any pertinent proof if there is any.

Live Example [2]:

From: edkomarek@yahoo.com
Subject: Suggested Source A Hoaxing
To: "Ronald Pandolfi"
Cc: "Dan Smith" , sarfatti@.......
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 7:12 AM

Hi Ron:

For quite awhile Dan has been suggesting that you have been telling him that Source A has been hoaxing the UFO community. Now I have heard that you are unambiguously and directly telling others in the Sarfatti Group that Source A is nuts and that he is committing a hoax. Is this true? If so are you also saying the Pickering brothers are involved in this hoax you are alleging or have they simply been deceived by Source A?

I am sure you are aware that Source A met with Dr. Bruce Maccabee in Bruce’s Navy office in full uniform and that Bruce verified Source A’s credentials. This was before Bruce retired. Other researchers have verified Source A’s credentials as well. I am sure you are also aware that others have verified that the UN meetings that Source A, broke to the public, did in fact occur.

If it is true that you are in fact telling others that Source A is nuts and that he is committing a hoax on us in the UFO community don’t you think that you should give some evidence backing up this claim. Such a claim not only impinges on the credibility of Source A but the Pickering Brothers as well? Is your claim based on confidential information? If the claim of hoaxing is based on confidential information then is it even remotely possible that you yourself have been deceived?

Under the present circumstances if Source A is legit then you seem to be attempting do drive a wedge between any attempts to connect the UFO Working Group network with the Sarfatti Network. It seems that your claims of hoaxing have recently become more pronounced as I have attempted to assist in networking between the two groups. This gets me to wondering why you would be doing this.

As I am sure you realize creating nodes of communication is not easy between the two groups because the Pickering brothers believe in civil communication and conversation while on the other hand the Sarfatti Group is usually anything but civil. I need to explain to the Pickering brothers that while uncivil with all the petty bickering, joking, insults and squabbling this bickering and squabbling is more a form of entertainment than anything else.

Rarely does this entertainment become mean spirited and when it does it does not usually last long. I mean what would one expect from a band of egotistical rogues anyhow? At the very least the uncivil conversation is honest and upfront. That’s what I like about it I guess. Very often so called civil conversations can be contrived and dishonest and it is refreshing to just let it all hang out sometimes.

Dan, while I did not mean the other conversation to be publicized it was my fault because I did not say confidential on the email. Still the information was not specific and I must keep that confidential. I think Jack needs to try harder and do a much better job of kissing ass if he wants more of that money steered his way. The ass kissing is getting pretty competitive lately with more real money coming to the table all the time as disclosure progresses.

This email I don’t mind being publicized of course as it is meant to stimulate public conversation, just xxx out Ron’s email address as before. I think Ron has some explaining to do.

Ed

This communication reprinted with express permission from Ed Komarek for public education purposes.

In exopolitical mediation, some of the current forms of mediation take place in the public arena. This example presented above is one of those. It is a common difficulty of such mediations that additional backdoor sniping or cold treatment between participants occurs while the mediation is in progress. A mediator in this field needs to be aware that this is typical and be prepared to work under these conditions.

Ed Komarek uses his years of experience in the exopolitical/ufology field and his development of private and pubic source networks to be aware of such backdoor shenanigans. Not all exopolitical mediators will have the same length of experience within the field of the Contact Paradigm, so awareness will need to be utilized and new mediation support tools developed to work under these and other conditions unique to this paradigm and the mediation tables available to it.

Zena Zumeta, who is a professional traditional mediator, has written an excellent description of traditional mediation style methods used by mediators. In her description she lists the following styles available [3]:

1. Facilitative Mediation
2. Evaluative Mediation
3. Transformative Mediation

The last one in the list, Transformative Mediation, is the one most often used in exopolitical mediation. She describes it as, “Transformative mediation is based on the values of "empowerment" of each of the parties as much as possible, and "recognition" by each of the parties of the other parties' needs, interests, values and points of view. The potential for transformative mediation is that any or all parties or their relationships may be transformed during the mediation. Transformative mediators meet with parties together, since only they can give each other "recognition".”[3]

There are differences however in this definition of the traditional form and that used in exopolitical mediation. Primarily that difference is that the mediators meet with parties together. In exopolitical mediation, direct communication between all parties in the holistic mediation scenario has not yet fully manifest itself. The sixty plus years of secrecy has placed many road-blocks to direct face to face communication of the Contact Paradigm. As these road blocks break down, more instances of communication are occurring and in the current state of the paradigm, these communications are occurring on the Internet in forums and specialty communities like Facebook. In this sense they are almost ‘in the same room’ together. But this still entails the mediator ferrying back and forth among the parties who are scattered throughout the broad realm of internet addresses. In this sense the Internet is showing its ability to be the representation of the human global village.

Additional information on Exopolitical Mediation can be found at: Compass Morainn Journal. Additional resources for traditional mediation to be adapted to exopolitical mediation may be found at Mediate.com and ADR Resources.

Notes:

---------------------------

[1] Negotiation Styles in Mediation, article by Stephen R Marsh, ADR Resources, Stephen R Marsh copyright 2000.

[2] “Suggested Source A Hoaxing”, by Ed Komarek, email communications material source May 26, 2009, reprinted with express permission of author.

[3] Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation, article by Zena Zumeta, Mediate.com – Everything Mediation copyright 2000.

Sacrificing 60 Years of Human Experience for Disclosure

Sacrificing 60 Years of Human Experience for Disclosure
By Cyrellys Geibhendach
05/23/09
Copy and Distribute Freely
My Website: Compass Morainn

An acquaintance recently suggested that humanity use the mainstream gift of legitimacy which lies upon Seth Shostak and SETI to initiate an opening to a human disclosure of extra-terrestrial intelligence existence by using them to present evidence that ETs are real. He said, “While it would be nice if governments disclosed what they know, i always thought SETI evidence would be the best way to confirm ET's are real, because all the evidence we present always gets rejected, if SETI catches a signal, everyone will then believe.” [1] In his frustration for achieving a disclosure he is willing to sacrifice the history of human contact up to that point in time.

But, such a means to disclosure would be a lie, and for all that is known out here beyond the realm of pride and fear, a furtherance of lies puts on additional layers of ill repute, distrust, and feelings of animosity demanding retribution....more lies compounds the problem of disclosure, not help it. It widens the rift and would be encouraging the contextual infrastructure which is built by lies and proscribed a freedom by lies to do as it pleases....that is because such an infrastructure creates a sort of personality complex buried within our collective human psyche which is then picked up and mirrored across the board exponentially as the wave of it ripples outward. No. No more lies....I advocate instead, for all participants to find the courage to be different....be truthful....any possible harshness and horrors of some truths is still not comparable to that which lies inherently generate within us.

By choosing Truths we promote the conceptual communications [2] which we would prefer to enact since promoting them causes the same mirroring effects. If we wish to live in a positive world then we must will the strength of steel into acting it out in every possible way....even if it means some initial discomfort.

When we ask ourselves, "What can we do just to make it through the day?" then we are exhibiting living under a seige mentality....when we ask ourselves, "What is my life about? How can I apply the purpose and principles that my life is about," then we have made a powerful intervention...because we get our security through our own integrity to our personal value system, rather than from outside reinforcement. " ~ paraphrased, Stephen Covey - Principle-Centered Leadership[3]

It occurred to me shortly after writing the above if my acquaintance really intended to advocate approval of lies to achieve a chip in the block of human disclosure? I don't believe he did. I think it was ego speaking.

Egos are interlopers in our states of being. They are personal constructs which each individual builds in life. How that construct is applied is up to the individual. Many people apply them subconsciously out of the construct's persistence of intense 'needs'. In a recent article regarding the Purpose and Reason in Conceptual Communications, I said the following: Our egos tend to be, "wrapped up in our social perception of societal expectations which are both extrinsic, concerning relationships of our social groups, and intrinsic, concerning our own behavior, opinions, issues, values, and goals as expected by ourselves or of us by our social groups. The ego is a construct of all these things and does not always adhere to what we really believe or value in ourselves or others."

When we become aware of ego's insertions within our personal experiences, we are empowered to more closely examine our contribution to the existential construct which we residing in. This lends opportunity to make adjustments or to reconsider positions for the additional influx of information.

In the reference to SETI which was made above, it illustrated an example of SETI as a potential Mediator of a human disclosure. In this type of mediation, information or data regarding a signal found would be used as evidence or to present evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence clearly existing. This is (irregardless of its truthfulness) an example of a mediation because of the bridge between two realities they would be providing to at least two group participants identified as knowledgeable insiders and the public.

In regards to the ego involved in advocating a modification to truth, I believe we must tread very carefully in allowing it to dictate to us a course of action which we ourselves or our future posterity may well find paying for in unintended ways.

Michael A Melton, M.S. Psy D., just released (05/23/09), an examination of the function and positioning of ego in an exopolitical mediator, in his article: The Proper Mindset and Attitude for Successful Mediation . He concludes that the mediator's ego must remain neutral or be restrained in order for the mediator to be effective and that to be effective a mediator must be truthful. Now while he primarily refers to actual potential mediation events between humanity and ETs with a human mediator, I think the same importance of neutrality, restraint, and dogged adherence to truth is just as important when the mediation occurring is between knowledgeable insiders and the earth-bound, human public.

Mr. Melton said that mediators will be ‘counted on’, which I interpret to mean that in the face of so many initial unknowns, whoever takes position as mediator(s) in the blooming of contact awareness will hold 'interpersonal linkage-power'. In exopolitical mediation I hold this power to mean, "the mediators ability based on their perceived influence with people who control psychological or social resources within a participatory group. This power is necessary to developing a group culture among participants where a collective personality and point of view or understanding is negotiated by the members (participants) of the mediation group; in whatever way those participants are defined in the mediation process." [4]

Additionally Mr. Melton went on to suggest just how important is is and why we mediators should portray "what eminent psychologist Carl Rogers calls “Unconditional Positive Regard.” The brilliant Carl Rogers explains that unconditional positive regard is accepting the other person, or entity, in the current moment, regardless of status, crime, or temperament, or culture, beliefs, and attitude, as a good person, or entity, at face value, as long as the current moment lasts. Maintaining this attitude causes the mind of the caregiver, or in this case, the mediator, to remain neutral. If you embrace the other with unconditional positive regard, then any discriminating feelings, thoughts or behavior would, logically, be incompatible with that mindset. Maintaining that attitude will increase the chances of successful mediation, because you will treat all involved in the same way – equally fairly, and with positive intention." [5]

Now, if humanity initiates a mediation, deliberately using mediators in originating and enacting a disclosure oriented mediation, for the purpose of pure untruths or wholesale modifications of truths then what have we just done?

In doing such a thing, how have we further damaged humanity's ability to believe another or trust another or interact with others or co-exist with others? How would any ET reciprocate in the face of such behavior? How would we, when the lie was discovered? What have we done when we have corrupted the individuals or groups who should be instilled with the ability to be Truthful no matter the circumstances, that they might initiate Mutual Respect, and Mutual Civilized Behavioral Reaction in the face of Contact?

When a global sociological mirror is allowing duplication of dishonesty where do lies stop?

Notes:
---------------------------
[1] Open Minds Forum, Re: Disclosure by Governments, darkassasin post #99, May 22 2009,

[2] “Purpose and Reason in Conceptual Communications”, Cyrellys Geibhendach, Compass Morainn Journal 2009

[3] Principle-Centered Leadership, Stephen R. Covey, Simon & Schuster 1990.

[4] Creating Competent Communication, Second Edition; Yoder, Hugenberg, Wallace; Kendal/Hunt Publishing 1996, page 326.

[5] “The Proper Mindset and Attitude for Successful Mediation”, Michael Austin Melton M.S Psy D, Compass Morainn Journal 2009.

Purpose and Reason in Conceptual Communications

Communication examination on the subject of extraterrestrials and contact has been and still is a critical need in current human reality. When we pause to consider that in the last hundred years our population explosion, our use of electricity and mechanical devices, including nuclear technology, as well as our many forms of broadcast communications, we have literally ‘lit up’ our world. It is akin to setting up a digital billboard in your front yard advertising your presence. Therefore it can be theorized that the matter of Extra-terrestrial Contact is a subject which if we don’t go to the trouble of immersing ourselves in before-hand, it will come home to roost literally over our heads eventually, unexpected, into a population unsettled by its complete surprise to the event.

Beyond the obvious discussions engaged in the subject matter within Exopolitics, Ufology, and Science Fiction Literature, who else has made early efforts at broaching this topic? And what is its importance to Exopolitical Mediation? A recent article from a website in the exopolitical field specializing in exopsychology has examined the sparse address of the subject and notes the following:

“Theologians take the prize for being first off the mark, for having had lengthy discussions about the existence of extraterrestrials, and possible contact scenarios. Their work has been so extensive that it deserves a separate entry,” [1} – Michael Gintowt.

Mr. Gintowt, a notable psychologist delving into exopsychology, has published another remarkable article on his blog: Exopsychology In the article titled “Exoisms: foreshadowing of a New Age, or macro-egoism?” he examines the “trailblazers who have considered the implications of contact with an Intelligent Extraterrestrial Race (ET).” He explores his interest in the meaning and relevance of visionary extensions into an uncertain future and considers how the strength of our collective vanity as a race may hinder us in our conceptual explorations of contact scenarios. For all those interested in the mechanics involved in exopolitical mediation, I highly recommend this article for it gives due consideration to the baggage which all participants, including the Mediator, his or herself, can and will bring to the communications table.

Our examinations of contact scenarios are forms of conceptual communications or if you prefer, preparations for experiential communications in which the concepts or abstract notions and mental impressions of contact scenarios are played out in practice. These surface from our collective understanding of reality, incorporating endless ideas of what ET life might exist as, and then are experimented with for their logic and potentialities. Within these scenarios are enmeshed contact mythologies and sometimes even the asserted Contact Experience. Michael rightly explores our psychological reasonings, aspirations, and pursuit of “uncertain patterns”.

After relating a number of examples, he goes on to say, “that the evidence (for contact) is not crystal clear, unambiguous, and simple to behold. It is fuzzy, vague, incomplete, and a perfect backdrop for the projection of our mental contents.”

Now how do these explorations benefit exopolitical mediation? What does this understanding of evidence for contact as ambiguous or incomplete, bring to the communication table or the application of a mediator skills? Of what use is conceptual communications on the subject of Contact to exopolitical mediation? This is where I think we revitalize how we look at communication. ”Looking at communication, not just through it to see how it affects other things, gives us a way of thinking about the events and objects of the social world that differs substantially from the modernistic way of thinking. Our attention is drawn to wholes rather than parts; to dynamics rather than substances; to reflectivity rather than linear relations; and to interactions rather than single actions,” [2] W. Barnett Pearce, School of Human and Organization Development, Fielding Graduate University.

The conceptual communications within the dynamics of Exopolitics or those built during mediation or even others presented complete through the direct contact experiencer, gives us the ability to closely examine the root context within which the information originates for the purpose of deep understanding of the communications and participants involved. It will likely be a conglomeration of the participants and experiencer’s interpretations and the source intent of their experience. Context in exopolitical mediation includes but is not limited to, the experiencer’s and participants’ culture, their psychological state, their educational and life experience level, and their personal mythos of individual existence…so too will it also include the level of ability, type and style of communication, and intents on the part of the extra-terrestrial contacting party, as well as a whole series of contextual ranges on the part of the receiving public who is without doubt a theoretical if not actual participant in the mediation circle. An in-depth examination of context is very important to facilitating the mediator’s understanding of the participants involved in the mediation. This examination of context allows us to delineate the actual identity of participants in the mediation circle.

It is in my mind to suggest that it may be worthy for exopolitical mediators to look, within the context, at the instigator of both our own ‘mental contents’ and that of our participants various ‘mental contents’, the oh so infamous ego, as another participant to the mediation circle. The ego inserts its own purposes and needs and therefore may transcend or overtake the communication process, intent, or specific content. By placing the ego within its own category as a participant we give ourselves awareness of its presence and It, its own voice, so that we can therefore gain an opportunity to separate it from the originating source of individual communications.

What is ego? Is it a true representation of us? When we stop to consider ego in our lives, most of us would say no, that is not truly us, not deep down because we have separated what we tend to fall into existentially from what we think of ourselves as mentally, and what we expect or strive for ourselves to be. The pressure to conform to our human ego is very great. Our egos are wrapped up in our social perception of societal expectations which are both extrinsic, concerning relationships of our social groups, and intrinsic, concerning our own behavior, opinions, issues, values, and goals as expected by ourselves or of us by our social groups. The ego is a construct of all these things and does not always adhere to what we really believe or value in ourselves or others.

The exopolitical mediator can use the delineation and identification of ego in the scope of examining conceptual communications and their contexts to increase his or her ‘interpersonal linkage power [3]. This power is the mediators ability based on their perceived influence with people who control psychological or social resources within a participatory group. This power is necessary to developing a group culture among participants where a collective personality and point of view or understanding is negotiated by the members (participants) of the mediation group; in whatever way those participants are defined in the mediation process.

In closing I offer a reference to conceptual communications, in which Michael Gintowt refers to speculation about ETs, giving it a definition as, “about attempting to lead the way into the future, to break new ground, to innovate, to find meaning in work, and contribute by asking questions, as opposed to furnishing answers – which is a good thing, because excellent science is based on asking the right questions.”

Congratulations go to the theologians for taking the initiative to be among the trail-blazers, those who dove in first.


Notes:
-----------------------

[1] Exopsychology, “Exoisms: foreshadowing of a New Age, or macro-egoism?”, Michael Gintowt, 2009

[2] TOWARD COMMUNICATIVE VIRTUOSITY: A MEDITATION ON MODERNITY AND OTHER FORMS OF COMMUNICATION© W. Barnett Pearce, 2005, School of Human and Organization Development, Fielding Graduate University

[3] Creating Competent Communications, Yoder, Hugenberg, Wallace, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1996, page 326.