The question of Reptilians

An ancient cultural and mythological 'meme' is the association of particular species of life with ‘evil’ – for example snakes or other reptiles. Most recently this meme came to renewed and ferociously vivid expression through the Alien movies - which picture a ruthless exta-terrestrial but also clearly neo-reptilian species.  One might suggest a new term here in addition to such terms as ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’  – ‘speciesism’. The branding of an entire species – whether an earthly  animal species or an extra-terrestrial one – as evil, is essentially no less perverse than the tarring of an entire race or ethnic group with the same brush. In this context too, however, there are much deeper questions and issues to be raised than merely whether or not one can accept or agree with David Ickes’s ideas about an evil, extra-terrestrial ‘Reptilian Alliance’ – or even whether or not all ‘reptilians’ are evil. Perhaps the most basic question of all is: what actually constitutes ‘a species’ – any species?  For as the zoologist Jakob von Uexküll argued, what we perceive, through our specifically human sense organs and patterns of perception,  as ‘a snake’, ‘a shark’, ‘a cat’, ‘a spider’, ‘a jellyfish’-  or any species of life – can in no way be the same as how other species besides our own (with their different sense organs and patterns of perception) perceive either members of their own species or those of others. Thus a snake’s or spider’s perception of a cat or human being – or of another snake or spider - would probably bear no relation at all to how we human beings perceive snakes, spiders cats - or other human beings.  

The question raised by this understanding has even deeper implications however, as Uexküll recognised from the start. Thus whilst for us human beings, cats and dogs, like us are just different species of ‘mammal’ – and the word ‘mammal’ is merely a generic concept - for a species such as the tick, it is different species rather than ‘genera’ such as ‘mammals’ that would be mere ‘abstractions’ if it could think in words    for what it actually senses is principally ‘mammal-ness’, i.e. any life form that is warm-blooded. The word ‘reptile’ denotes a genera rather than a species. In this sense we can no more ‘see’ a ‘a reptile’ than we can see ‘a mammal’ – we can only see or perceive a particular species of reptile or mammal – and we can only do that in our own highly species-specific way. Thus even what human beings perceive as a particular species of reptile is, in itself, a uniquely anthropomorphic and anthropocentric perception, and in this sense also a ‘this-worldly’ perception.  

It is my understanding, that I am sure David Icke would fundamentally concur with, that all species are fundamentally species of consciousness – defined not by their outer form as we or other species might perceive it, but rather by a specific field-pattern of awareness. It is their own unique field-pattern of awareness that configures each species sensory perception of the world - and of all other species within it. Understood in this light, there is no essential difference between so-called terrestrial and extra-terrestrial species – for both are essentially species of consciousness. I am equally sure that David Icke would concur with me in understanding all species and all beings as essentially inter-dimensional and multi-dimensional – each capable of manifesting in different forms in or in-between different planes or dimensions of Awareness, and each being a unique manifestation of that infinite and universal Awareness that is the source of all All That Is. This being the case however, the question arises: ‘what is a reptile?’ – both in the ordinary sense and also in the specific sense given to the term ‘reptile’ and ‘reptilian’ by David. If the  extra-terrestrial reptilians he refers to are, like all species, essentially species of consciousness, did they choose to manifest in a form that our human species perceives as reptilian, or is their reptilian appearance  purely a product of our own highly species specific and specifically human and terrestrial mode of perception? 

A related question - do they shape-shift into human form or do we shape-shift them – this other species of consciousness – into a reptilian form familiar to us from the animal world. This would be understandable given not only the species-specific nature of human perception but also through the  long human association of reptile species such as snakes with evil or at least with danger. Here facts, historical evidence, mythological stories or even direct ‘experiences’ do not and cannot suffice to answer what are fundamentally philosophical questions. Thus if someone perceives Bush senior as a humanoid type of reptile, this is certainly an experience that cannot be invalidated – any more than can any subjective experience. No one can invalidate, deny or disprove what we perceive or experience subjectively in our dreams for example. Moreover all experiencing is essentially subjective, and therefore no dimension or instance of subjective experiencing  - whether in waking or dream life, or in altered states of consciousness can be invalidated, denied or disproved. 

It is through this fundamental philosophical understanding however that we come to the main issue.  For it is precisely through recognising the fundamentally subjective character of all experiencing in all planes of awareness that we are safeguarded from seeking to objectivise those experiences – to assume for example, that just because one or more individuals from a given species of consciousness, or even an  entire species,  experience another species of consciousness in a very particular way - for example as ‘reptilian’ – that therefore this other species exists ‘objectively’ in this way. To make this leap from the subjective to the objective  would require not only that all individuals of the same species (for example the human species) but also that the entire spectrum of different species perceive other species in the same way. And that, as Uexküll demonstrated long ago through the example of the simple tick, simply cannot be the case and is not the case.  

Indeed the very need or attempt to prove that something exists ‘objectively’ completely misses the point. For it is based on a deep but wholly false ‘scientific’  identification of ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ as such with ‘objects’ and ‘objectivity’ –  rather than with Awareness and its expression in the form of countless species of consciousness, i.e. with subjectivity. To someone with  awakened awareness therefore, there simply are no such things as ‘objects’ at all - ‘physical’ or otherwise. There are simply patterns and shapes, tones and textures of awareness – each and all of which can and do appear in different forms to different individuals and species of consciousness, and do so differently in different planes and dimensions of the one Universal and Infinite Awareness.  For as Uexküll  already understood, the environment or experienced world of all living organisms – I would go so far as to say all beings – can be compared to a type of subjective perceptual ‘bubble’. What we perceive as other beings, life forms or ‘species of consciousness’ within the ‘bubble’ of our own subjectively perceived environment therefore is nothing physical or objective but rather a pseudo-physical body image – one shaped by our own highly individual and species-specific mode of subjective perception and experiencing.  

As regards the notion of an ‘extra-terrestrial’ species of reptilian form, the key question therefore is not whether such a species exists ‘objectively’, but how it exists subjectively. By this I mean whether not just the human species but the species in question, as a species of consciousness or subjectivity, perceives itself and its own kind in reptilian form.  For put in more general terms, when we speak of something existing ‘objectivity’ we are really speaking of a common inter-subjective way of perceiving it - as in the way human beings inter-subjectively construct an agreed and jointly  perceived world of apparent objects, albeit one whose appearance can completely change (as can our own appearance to others) when our consciousness changes or alters - and with it our conventional and consensual mode of perception.  As for another non-human species of consciousness having shape-shifting capacities, I am sure that David would agree that all human beings too, are innately capable of shape-shifting. I know this not just from subjective experiences of my own but from inter-subjectively validated experience –  for others have seen me shape-shift on countless occasions and in countless ways – in this way embodying some of the infinite forms, qualities and ‘wavelengths’ of awareness latent within us all. 

It is without doubt that the members of ruling elites, global and national, that David Icke describes are characterised by a type of ‘cold-bloodedly’ calculated cynicism and genocidal criminality of such extremity that it can only be described as inhuman - and to which anyone with human feeling can only react with absolute disgust and repugnance. But to lack human empathy and feeling is, paradoxically, a unique potentiality of human beings. Therefore - and despite many human being’s bearing a similar repugnance towards cold-blooded  reptiles such as snakes – we should be wary of projecting this in-humanity on any other non-human species, whether cold-blooded or not, terrestrial or not. There is and can be nothing evil about a crocodile – or lion – however rapacious. So to describe any non-human species as ‘inhuman’ or ‘evil’ is to project essentially human features on it -  in other words to anthropomorphise that species. 

Anthropomorphic images and perceptions of non-human species of consciousness have a long history in human culture and mythology. For there have always been and still are  species of consciousness – even on this planet – that are invisible to most human beings, not in the ‘frequency range’ of their perception. For those that can or used to be able to perceive such species, their specifically human mode or ‘field patterns’ of perception invariably made them appear in either quasi-human or animal form – whether as humanoid or animal-headed gods, as quasi-human or beastly giants or as fairies, angels or horned demons. And when it comes down to it, the essence of the human being is – as David Icke himself bravely recognises – not itself anything essentially human or even a ‘being’, but rather that Infinite Awareness that is the source of all beings and of which they are all a unique portion, expression and embodiment – each capable of taking of countless possible shapes and forms, whether pre-human, human or trans-human. In our essence we are all  shape-shifting beings – portions of a Universal Awareness capable of taking on infinitely diverse forms, and hailing, like Icke’s Reptilians – and all species of consciousness - from other, non-physical planes of Awareness.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Peter,
    At last! Someone to help me make sense of Mr Icke. I've been reading him for years and have always felt an overall resonance with what he has to say, but with many caveats regarding the details. I've just discovered this site and look forward to reading and deliberating upon what you have to say.