h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Aha

Entry: Renaissance Aliens: Fazio Cardano's 1491 Close Encounter - A87823100
Author: Dmitri Gheorgheni - U1590784

page turner

GB

Nice entry, Dmitri.

There's one thing that bothers me, and it's the linkage to the modern view of an alien as an extraterrestrial intelligent being. What you have described is more in the realms of the supernatural.

That's true. I started out reading CCyrano de Bergerac's book on going to the moon. He referred to this experience as a visit from men on the moon. When I checked it out, it looked like Cyrano's memory was faulty - they didn't say the moon. But they did behave in the account as if the aliens were from somewhere else - just unspecified. So I decided to leave it at that.

Personally, I suspect UFo encounters and these old 'supernatural' contacts are one and the same.But I wouldn't want to insist on it - even though it was obvious that CG Jung thou8ght pretty much the same thing.

I'd be more comfortable if you made that a little clearer in your entry.

Hm, I'll have to thikn about how. Let me look it over.

Okay, I added another paragraph to the introduction, in which I pointed ou the discrepancies between Cyrano's idea - remember, he was writing science fiction - and the original in De subtitilitate rerum.

Does that add anything to your comfort level?

The sentence which grates is " Cardano claimed – many times, according to his son – to have had a three-hour gab session once with some very bright aliens". Maybe it's the A-word that does it.

Okay, now I don't understand.

The visitors, according to the Cardanos, were not from Milan. That alone would have made the aliens.

In addition, they were not from planet Earth. So they were aliens in that sense, as well. I don't see why the word 'aliens' is a problem.

The 21st Century does not have a lien on the word, and it doesn't mean 'little green men'. So why not call them aliens?

I could call them 'visitors from another world', but as I said, I don't see why that word is a problem.

I agree with Dmitri, I wouldn't change the word 'alien', it just fits.

Maybe it's me, then.

"I'm an alien, I'm a legal alien, I'm an Englishman in New York."

Well, not me actually, but Sting was.


Geggs

Why do we? - I get the impression you've asked a question but meant the complete opposite.

Leonardo - there were many Leonardos. Was this the famous one?

You say that the debate about the existence of aliens has been going on a long time. But you then go on to describe an early encounter in which there was no such debate: Cardano stated he'd met them and nobody denied it.

Averroes - I'd heard of him but had to look him up. Can you add "the 12th century Moorish philosopher"?

I can label Averroes as a phlosopher/ >s,o;eu?

I heave no idea what you mean by the 'why do we?' remark. I'm not sure what the passage is, what your problem with it is, or what you think I should do with it.

Yes, it is true that I baldly stated that there has been a controversy about alien encounters for donkeys' years,and then pointed out an example where people seemed to take it for granted. If this is deeply disturbing, I can go back and reword this in order to make it clearer what I meant - namely,t hat SOME people accepted the idea in the past.

I added '12th-century' in front of 'philosopher', which I think takes care of Averroes.

I removed the word 'controversial' and replaced it with 'question', which is value-neutral.

Sorry my comments were so brief as to be cryptic. I was posting them from a mobile phone, where long postings are not possinle. I was not deeply disturbed, I just saw a contradiction in the entry and pointed it out. I thought was one of the purposes of peer review.

Why did the people of the past have so little problem with this? Why do we (have so little problem with it)?

Aha, NOW I see what you mean.

I don't mind cryptic - or critical. I just can't fix what I can't find.

Thanks, I'll fix that.