Like most of us, I've been hearing these phrases repeated for the last 3–5 years like a broken record. At this point, the term "ontological shock" has become almost as tiresome as hearing "unprecedented times" during COVID. That said, I think the repeated use of these phrases may actually provide a clue about what is going on behind the scenes when viewed through the lens of basic human nature. My hypothesis is this: if there is going to be a truly destabilizing "ontological shock," it is more likely to come from the reality of what people have done to protect national security interests than from the existence of NHI itself. Consider the circumstances. We have a growing list of names from the UFO community, the military, government circles, and other members of the broader "upper echelon" all making some variation of the same claim: the general public is not ready for this. They all say the same thing "I heard it from a very reliable source." If we take these claims seriously, then one of two things must be true: The truth about NHI is more ontologically shocking and profound than the reality of the human cover-up. The reality of the human cover-up is more ontologically shocking and profound than the truth about NHI We are looking at a large group of people who supposedly have access to this "ontologically shocking" information, yet nobody appears to be losing their minds. The evidence is fragmented and compartmentalized, sure, but if you spend enough time looking into it, it starts to become very compelling. This leads to my first point: plenty of people seem to have at least partial access to this information, and they are still functioning just fine. Intelligence officials, military personnel, politicians, researchers, and other “insiders” have all encountered pieces of the puzzle. Whatever they know may be profound, but it clearly is not rendering people incapable of carrying on with their lives. Coulthart and Corbell are doing just fine. If exposure to the truth were inherently psychologically devastating, I would expect to see far more evidence of that. Point 2 concerns religion. I frankly refuse to believe that religion would be the main source of this ontological shock. Many major religious institutions have already demonstrated an ability to accommodate the possibility of non-human intelligence. The Catholic Church, for example, has made statements suggesting that the existence of extraterrestrial life would not necessarily conflict with Catholic doctrine. In general modern societies are far less religious than they once were, and many people just do not organize their worldview around religious authority in the first place. It is difficult to imagine global disclosure causing the collapse of religion on a scale that would justify decades of secrecy. Finally, on human nature. Whoever is keeping this secret has a vested interest in keeping it. People generally do not devote enormous amounts of time, money, and effort to spare strangers from uncomfortable truths. If stories about intimidation, suppression, scientists dissapearing, or worse, contain any truth at all, the coverup makes far more sense as an act of self-preservation than act of compassion. Going to extraordinary lengths to maintain secrecy suggests that the people responsible believe they have something significant to lose. Taken together, this leaves what I think is the most plausible possibility. The NHI phenomenon may be profound, but not fundamentally indigestible. Perhaps the reality is simply that non-human intelligences exist, have been here for a long time, and are above us on the food chain. Governments may know more than they admit, but the truly explosive issue is not the phenomenon itself. The real issue is what may have been done in response to it. If major powers have spent decades hiding information, misleading the public, breaking laws, silencing witnesses, or committing other abuses in the name of national security, then disclosure becomes far more complicated. Admitting the existence of the phenomenon would raise questions about the actions taken to conceal it. Credibility would be destroyed, accountability would be demanded, and people would begin connecting the dots. So when talking heads repeat "ontological shock" over and over, the shock may be real, but it may not come from learning something new about the universe. It think it’s more likely to come from learning what powerful institutions have been willing to do in order to keep that knowledge hidden. submitted by /u/TeaNo6668 [link] [comments]