Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

2:40pm EST

White Smoke 30 min ago.... Watching it live... awaiting the New Pope to walk out on the balcony. Vatican Guards and Italian Naval Soldiers marching on the steps of St.Peters Basilica, to the music of the Marching Band.




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

edit notice: This thread is the Part Two continuation from the original thread - last post here -

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t6p990-hello-cy-hello-omf-ii#2215

Dan

Perhaps you can humor my insignificance to this very significant topic of discussion you and Cy have been engaged, minus the thorium.

In the last week or so – I have had a broken record repeating deep within me. This record seems to have what Cy calls the ‘Source’ and we call ‘God’ hands all over it. Never does this presence EVER tell you what to do, but yet hints at the directions we might consider going.

The echoes of question:

How do men or women who are in possession of the ‘disturbing truth’ regarding this enigma - and not the newest fighter jet technology the Chinese already have stolen - who have given vows of secrecy to a nation wrestle with the nature of secrecy within their very souls when some projects seem to be against Gods will? How do these people, many likely in the latter years of their lives, redeem themselves from such nature when weighed against the notion that God would not (most likely) approve of such maliciousness by the leaders of man?

I understand the need for secrecy, in the defense of one’s enemies, but when the oaths of the dreaded NDE’s (non-disclosures agreements) bind and blind those chosen people to a design later deemed to be of UN-Godly nature how and where do those afflicted find absolution? There is enough evidence that the nature of this secrecy is limiting the awakening of human potential by threats, violence, and punitive damages and therefore insulating projects rubber stamped with National Security to propagate another generation of lies, most likely now stemming from ‘it’s the way it’s always been done and you’re not going to change it’ theory I heard repeatedly while in the Armed forces or for that of Greed.

If this ‘disturbing message’ be so bad – why is it that a few men ‘believe’ they have the power to blind man from discovering/hearing the message in the bottle – likely from God himself? It is my belief that these men/women who claim to be of God and from God bear a great shame, but should be given a path of redemption. How do we, in this little nest on the net, with not even a one hundred at our side and even fewer with a voice, shake all of the babes off the wolf spiders back? How do we get them to aid in such a way as to redeem themselves and work towards such change?

Is the challenge of this message so great? Those claiming to be of God need to consider that they may have placed into such dark recesses to ‘intentionally’ to garner its wisdom and were to be teaching of its design instead of fleeing from it? Fear and the ineptitude of man seemed to be root cause primarily responsible for the onion that grew around it. Where are all the roots? Are there any left? How many have not withered away by time. Will the 1st Army Division really be required to end the nonsense? Can I place them on standby or at least encourage the next POTUS to grab his manhood (or herhood) and jump? It doesn’t need to come to such – but that is the path and the course – I see occurring if there be no course correction.

How many of us would choose to live with a truth we cannot bear vs a lie the limits our potential introspection!?

MD02,

I thank you for this thoughful post. It does seem that you have a personal struggle with a burden of official secrecy. I am fortunate to have been spared such a burden. I am in no position to advise on such matters, if advice you seek. But do go easy on yourself, if you possibly can. The only God I know of is extremely tolerant of our shortcomings, and in no way revels in our guilt or anguish. We are here to learn, much more than to perform. Life is not a competition, although too many suppose it to be such. Please, rest assured that things will work out for the best, despite all appearances to the contrary. Whatever blessing I have to give, is yours.

dan wrote:MD02,

I thank you for this thoughful post. It does seem that you have a personal struggle with a burden of official secrecy. I am fortunate to have been spared such a burden. I am in no position to advise on such matters, if advice you seek. But do go easy on yourself, if you possibly can. The only God I know of is extremely tolerant of our shortcomings, and in no way revels in our guilt or anguish. We are here to learn, much more than to perform. Life is not a competition, although too many suppose it to be such. Please, rest assured that things will work out for the best, despite all appearances to the contrary. Whatever blessing I have to give, is yours.

I am only trying to understand the nature of those 'in the know' and the burdens they keep. I bear no personal secrecy of which I wrote - other than my desire to understand them on a deeper level.

There must be a silver cord of which they all have in common - I am only attempting to rationalize it.

Well, that's a relief......

There may be some such, however, within the sound of our voices. I would only say to them what I have just said to you. Our God, TBMK, is the God of Revelation and, so also, the God of concealment. We should therefor allow God to assume those burdens, and I think that they are not actually such a burden.

How then might I sometimes pose as a spirit of truth? I do it merely as what seems to come naturally. I wrestle only with the content, with which I can only be honest to myself. When a new thought comes to me, I do not anguish over the old thoughts. They never belonged to me, in the first place. Am I just a messenger? No. I am simply one who enjoys a puzzle. If it were a cross-word puzzle, I might take it more personally, heaven forbid!

I can only speak for myself. If I ever happen to speak on behalf of a cosmic self, so be it, but it is not for me or anyone to second guess the process itself. I only ever try to go toward the light. That is the most we need ever do.

Rest assured those questions were not of any personal suffering on my part. All is well.

I was only vexing on the issue of roots and how they could be reached without reaching in - disturbing the soil in which they rest. A gardener must know the root, or the problems the roots face, in order to foster its end result. The poor roots, always buried in the environment that sustains it, just trying to break free into the light. Imagery at its finest?

I agree with most of what you said regarding concealment and revelation.

I’ve been passing time in the strangest of ways. While taking a hint from Matthew 18:3 - I recently picked up a book my youngest brought home to read, out of some ‘strange’ curiosity. Oddly enough, I never have done so before. It was a good read, I must say. It was surprisingly poignant to some questions I had been pondering. One must wonder is it better to seek and then find or not to be seeking and become found......

Reading past the contents will spoil the read. I will allow wiki to do it some justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver

It’s time for another book – any suggestions from the readers here?
What meta-physician inspired some of your early readings, Dan? I do tend to follow the wind and I'm nearly finished with:

The Wisdom of Insecurity - a Message for an Age of Anxiety

An OM guest has sent the following.......

The Secret Life of Uri Geller - Psychic Spy? http://m.sheffdocfest.com/films/show/5407

This appears to be what Jack was talking about. It does not have the markings of a game-changer, IMHO.


MD02,

It seems that Matthew 18 does present the answer to the problem of roots....... we don't have to uproot the outworn ideas, we simply plant new seeds.

Well, Jack recommends Lee Smolin's Time Reborn, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0547511728 , which I've just downloaded. It seems geared to a general audience. Lee speaks to the uprooting of physics, based on absolute time, in favor of the physics of Presence, a notion that lies at the heart of the BPWH, wherein Presence and Eternity dwell in harmony.



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: May 31, 2013, 5:45:13 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Paul, David, Chris, Gary, Jake, Cy

Subject: Re: Homework Assignment

Jack,

Yes, this appears to be an important book, which I'm just getting into.

1.) He points to the possibility that mathematics may not be as anti-human as is generally supposed, in the scientific worldview.

2.) God help him, but Lee appears to be verging back towards revisiting the Sokal Affair.

3.) He also seems to be waffling on his support of the Multiverse.

If any of the above is correct, then, yes, we have our work cut out for us........


On May 31, 2013, at 11:24 AM, JackSarfatti wrote:

Get lee smolin time reborn on kindle
Very relevant!
Topic to discuss on video you tube

From: Dan
Date: May 31, 2013, 6:05:56 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Homework Assignment

Paul and David,

Not to further alarm Jack, but Lee's next publication is slated to be a joint effort with Roberto Unger, a major player in the future of religion.

This is not a time for us to fall asleep at the switch.

Sam and I had dinner last night, mainly to discuss my thorium miscalculation. The upshot is that the best possible world just got quite a bit better.

But what does this say about my precious little MoAPS? Is it going to be delayed by another millennium? And what about my prophesied 144 million within 200 years?

Well, should I be chagrined to admit that my prophesy has failed, all becuse of a misplaced decimal? Or should we praise the Lord and pass the thorium? I'd opt for the latter.

What next.......?

Well I do need to work on an updated logistics for the KC/Rapture event. It seemed that I had achieved a fairly stable reflective equilibrium with the previous 200 yr logistic. Now, the island of stability has not yet emerged out of the ocean of possibilities.

What I have to do is start by recalculating the extreme possibilities, and don't hesitate to jump into this brave new BPWH.........


Even if perpetual progress is still not in the cards, what about perpetual sustainability? Short of some sort of Kurtzweilian technological singularity, sustainability is the main alternative to the BPWH Rapture.

Now, given our suddenly 100X expanded thorium cushion, we now have a ~1000 yr window to build up a solar-energy infrastructure to supply 10^10 of us in a moderately comfortable life-style. Yes?

And there is no particular technical reason why this solar grid could not be maintained in perpetuity. In the meantime, we would have plenty of time to perfect fusion devices, to generate electricity out of seawater, at least to serve as a backup to the solar power.

Last night, Sam made the point that it would be pushing the odds to suppose that any civilaization could survive even a thousand years. Civilizations have always collapsed in the past, but just not on a global scale, and certainly not from such a lofty height as much of the world is seems poised to achieve.

The higher we rise, the further we fall? A WWIII, it is oft suggested, would send us right back to the stoneage, and a very polluted and denuded stoneage, at that. Recovery would be problematic, to say the least. The insects and reptiles might decide they'd had quite enough of us, mammals, thank you very much!

If we manage to get another millennium of advanced civilization, we should praise the Lord and pack our bags.


(cont.)

Some great posts here Mike, Dan, Jake.

Dan, I do understand MD's questions. They are very valid. I don't however have any answers for any of them. I have many of my own questions.

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t138-secret-space-war-2#3042

Dan, I'm very happy to see you grasp one of the facets of this story which have been neglected yet hold alternatives. This is an excellent example of why the NWO is fundamentally flawed - that there are innumerable facets which the planners and decision makers are unaware, barely aware, or just simply discount. As Jake rightly points out THE CRISIS WE FACE HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT ENERGY.

There is a simple truth which can be translated across conceptual boundaries into our paradigm. And this simple truth is that where ever there is a toxic plant growing, there is also a plant which can soothe its effects. This means that where there is a problem, the Source leaves for us one or more possible solutions. Therefore the real crisis is never what we think it is. It is only us and the reach of our sight.

If our reach is short then how do we approach seeking the solution? It is never by assuming there is no solution.

From: Dan
Date: June 3, 2013, 7:23:33 AM EDT
To: Princess Aliyah
Cc: Ron, Sam, Jack, Jake, Cy and five others

Subject: Snow Leopards and Thorium......

Aliyah,

Some progress has been made in getting Skype and IDJConsole talking to each other under linux, but it probably won't be ready to fly for your next broadcast of Leopards on the Prowl, on Tuesday, when we will be doing Maker Spaces and 3D-printing.

I'm assuming that we can rely on WolfSpirit to continue to provide technical support for your next show. If it is an emergency, however, I could probably arrange for a local linux consultant to patch something together.

In the meantime, my priority is to continue to focus on the Thorium issue. I did discuss this with Ron a couple of years ago, and, as I recall, he was somewhat dismissive, as is often his wont.

At present, however, I'm leaning to the opinion that Thorium energy ought to be a national and global priority.

With Thorium we are going to have to make a pact with the devil. We will be selling our soul. IOW, Thorium will provide us with enough of an energy cushion for us to make a graceful exodus from the Earth, that's all. Well, this is an option we need to seriously consider.

The Thorium issue might play well on your LotP show. We could discuss this tomorrow.

12:50---------

Cy and Jake,

Energy galore.......? Abiogenic/abiotic fuel, etc......? Perpetual civilization.....?

Has the Eschaton been cancelled.....?

Can we live with the eschaton? Can we live without it?

This last pair of questions is presently my first priority, in light of my recalculation of the thorium energy reserves.

It has always been a leading assumption of the BPWH that modern civilization owes its existence to the Eschaton. Without the Eschaton, the BPWH is dead in the water.

Now thorium, with the help of Cy and Jake, seems intent on robbing me of my precious, Chicken Little, eschaton. How dare they?!

Has Sunfish/SoT finally met his Waterloo (Abba)?

The answer depends largely upon the attractiveness of Heaven vs. Earth. But is that not apples and oranges?

But we should keep in mind that I don't take the eschaton all that seriously. What is most serious about the BPWH is that Creation is finite. See, modernism, IMHO, is closely linked with the idea that since we only go around once, we should go with gusto. Wasn't this from a beer commercial? This is where theism and pantheism are at loggerheads.

Why is Creation finite? It was assumed to be so, up until Copernicus, but why? A related question has to be the close connection between prophecy and theism.

This question has always been in the back of my mind, but I don't believe that I have articulated it previously. I'm struggling.......

It must have to with the connection between monotheism and mono-creationism. Yes?

And this antipathy toward infinitude goes back to the Greek abhorence of the Apeiron, as something anti-rational. IOW, theism and rationalism are more closely related than is usually credited. Theism, and especially trinitarianism, is usually just assumed to be anti-rational.

And what about Islam and Judaism? Are they also committed to finitude? Rather less so, it would seem. The creator God is a jealous god. It brooks no rival, with the possible exception of Satan, bless his heart.

With theism, there must be a beginning of the world, and that beginning must be historical in nature. Yes?

And, yes, the Creator cannot lose control, and the creatures must remain in the orbit of the Creator. There must be a resolution. Oh? Are the first and final causes logical cognates? There ought to be a principle, but there isn't, yet.



(cont.)

Of course, with the BPW, it is not embedded in time, it contains time, and, otherwise it is eternal.

If it is eternal, how can there be a Creator? Well, there isn't, in a technical sense, but that does not prevent its having that imprint. It is a bootstrap operation, bootstrapped out of eternity. That explains its temporal paradoxes. This accomplishes, among many other things, our being the co-Creators. We have one foot on the Earth, and the other foot in Heaven.

What comes to an end is our local illusion of time.

But, yes, there is containment of Creation within Eternity. It is, somehow, Self-contained. This latter notion needs to be fleshed out.

There must be a coherence to Creation, as an essential component of its self-conatinment. This requires a quantitative finitude. Any transcendental component necessarily includes the dimension of agape.

This is all there is to it. QED? Well, it is getting close. But is the BPW open to amendment within its unbounded qualitative dimensions? Perhaps this question will have to be dealt with later.


12:20-------

I now have to prepare for the Princess' radio show, LotP/WolfSpirit-radio. It is a call-in show, with chat-room and email, etc.......

http://www.alkareemfoundation.org/protect-snow-leopards.html

http://www.wolfspiritradio.com/princessaliyah.htm

.

After the show, last night, I got up my nerve to press Ron on the energy issue(s).......

What then came up was climate change. On both issues he, seemingly reluctantly, defended the 'science'. According to Ron, the climate change debate is ruled by politics, but the science does not support the notion that the changes are mostly of human origin.

He is looking at the longer term trend, which is toward less solar and less carbon, going back 500 million years to the so-called 'carbonaceous era'.

Carbonaceous-era is an orphaned term. There is no wiki entry. The first couple pages of google hits are from church publications. This is a bit strange.

Yet, Ron has a point. What was the atmosphere before the oxygen-era? I'm going to have to try to find out. It would be N2 and CO2, yes?


11:20---------

Well, it seems that Ron misspoke. It should have been the carboniferous era, from 360 to 300 mya.




(cont.)

Hey Dan,

the climate change business is entirely political and part of a huge cover up.

We're facing a near perfect storm that ranges from the mundane economic stability issues to the cyclic passage of celestial body which causes at the best of times some minor chaos in the way of weather/climate changes and disturbance of materials in the asteroid belt etc, and electrical discharges between large in system bodies. Additionally due to passage through a certain area of space we have Paul LaViollete's "Galactic Superwave". The last time we encountered this the energy from it affected our sun enough to shut down the last ice age and upset the apple cart of the planet's balance enough to cause a mass extinction.


13

Just in January of this year, 20 years after the Starburst Foundationmade an effort to alert of the dangers of an unexpected superwavearrival, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and National ResearchCouncil issued a report entitled
Severe space weather events:Understanding societal and economic impacts
[6] See the article in
NewScientist
at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?full=true

Current effects not only include the climatic changes but are accentuated by the fact the pole has shifted 161 miles in the last 6 months. A big question is how far of a shift can occur before the stress causes release in the weakening magnetic field and a pole reversal occurs?

These things singularly have a history of causing changes in our magnetic and physical pole positions. Neptune was once a victim and we know how funny it moves now. But in this passage we have a synchronized collection of everything more or less happening at once, including a Solar maximum.

Not very concerting if you are a technological civilization with a dependency on electricity. And other social difficulties like animosities between western christian civilization and muslim philosophies? To achieve balance and equity could philsophically help in surviving the passage, especially since the high elites are well aware of the natural cataclysms of the last passage and the corresponding global war between societal factions of that time. So some societal factions of our time are through social engineering practices and economic redistribution of wealth and power are decreased to match the lesser powers in a NWO.

And thus the concerns that our current population cannot be sustained through the passage because they fully expect the grid to go down. Military might is being distributed across the globe including into the US to be able to maintain against implosion.

And the icing on the cake is an unambiguous contact the "System Lords" don't control.

Small wonder they're paranoid.

Paul A. LaViolette. A galactic superwave hazard alert update. Nexus Magazine, August 2009.

Paul A. LaViolette. Galactic explosions, cosmic dust invasions and climactic change. Ph.D dissertation, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, August 1983.

Paul A. LaViolette. Evidence of high cosmic dust concentrations in LatePleistocene polar ice. Meteoritics 20(1985): 545.

Cy,

Thanks for this additional information, but better hold on to it 'til I've had a chance to digest Ron's information.

Let us keep in mind that Ron often postures as a contrarian. The agency should make a point of coddling contrarians as part of it's effort to keep from being blind-sided by the 'enemy' or by any other untoward events, all with mixed results, of course.

Were he not a contrarian, I would not count amongst his coterie, now would I?!



(cont.)

dan wrote:After the show, last night, I got up my nerve to press Ron on the energy issue(s).......

What then came up was climate change. On both issues he, seemingly reluctantly, defended the 'science'. According to Ron, the climate change debate is ruled by politics, but the science does not support the notion that the changes are mostly of human origin.

He is looking at the longer term trend, which is toward less solar and less carbon, going back 500 million years to the so-called 'carbonaceous era'.

Carbonaceous-era is an orphaned term. There is no wiki entry. The first couple pages of google hits are from church publications. This is a bit strange.

Yet, Ron has a point. What was the atmosphere before the oxygen-era? I'm going to have to try to find out. It would be N2 and CO2, yes?



(cont.)

Ron is talking about the Phanerozoi Eon/Paleozoic Era/Cambrian Period? Basically just after the breakup of the super continent Pannotia at the end of a global ice age. The waters of the period were widespread and shallow and the continental drift rates were high which equates to unstable climate and lots of earthquakes.

550 million years ago began the emergence of complex animals and 500 million years ago was the essentially an age dominated by bony fish and proto-amphibians. 475 million years ago see the establishment of land plants.

Land plants and algaes developed the ability to convert electromagnetic energy from the sun into energy-rich organic molecules, which fuel the biosphere. Within photosynthetic organisms specific biochemical pathways carry out this energy conversion. C3, C4, and CAM photosynthesis. This process is commonly called "carbon fixation" which refers to the reactions in which CO2 becomes incorporated into a carbon containing acid. In the photosynthetic pathway used by most plants and all algae, the CO2 first combines with a five-carbon compound called ribulose bisphosphate or RuBP. The product of this initial reaction, which is catalyzed by the enzyme RuBP carboxylase, is phosphoglyceric acid. Therefore this photosynthetic pathway is usually called C3 photosynthesis and the plants that employ it are called C3 plants.

To fix carbon, plants must open their stomata to let CO2 into their leaves, but as CO2 enters, water exits. Water vapor flows out faster than CO2 flows in. The movement of water more rapid because the gradient in water concentration from the leaf to the atmosphere is much steeper than the gradient in CO2 concentration from the atmosphere to the leaf.

Part of the concern is that in cool moist conditions high rates of water loss are not a problem but in hot dry climates high rates of water loss can close the stomata and shut down photosynthesis. This is typically why modern climate change philosophers are paranoid. Ron is pointing out that with current snow melts and addition of fresh water to the current system we are more likely to establish a transitory warm, very wet shallow water environment with extreme weather and high rates of continental movement as a planet in flux from a variety of influences, some of which I mentioned in my last post create a dynamic geological and biological metamorphosis.

In that respect I would tend to agree.

Generally when you add more moisture from planetary warming to a biosphere like we currently have you end up with only temporary warming and then a sudden temperature drop as the saturation point in the atmosphere is reached and cloud cover becomes extensive. That sudden drop takes you typically into the next ice age. But he's insinuating that between controlling energy inputs to the biosphere and the control of cloud cover through things like the chem-trailing that they're thinking the planet can and should be taken back to the Cambrian period which would be compatible with the list of "influences" and maintenance of biospheric life.

The term he uses is actually CARBONIFEROUS and refers to:

a geologic period and system that extends from the end of the Devonian Period, about 359.2 million years ago, to the beginning of the Permian Period, about 299.0 ± 0.8 Ma (ICS, 2004[5]). The name Carboniferous means "coal-bearing" and derives from the Latin words carbo (coal) and ferre (to carry), and was coined by geologists William Conybeare and William Phillips in 1822.[6] Based on a study of the British rock succession, it was the first of the modern 'system' names to be employed, and reflects the fact that many coal beds were formed globally during this time.[7] The Carboniferous is often treated in North America as two geological periods, the earlier Mississippian and the later Pennsylvanian.[8]
Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system. A minor marine and terrestrial extinction event occurred in the middle of the period, caused by a change in climate.[9] The latter half of the period experienced glaciations, low sea level, and mountain building as the continents collided to form Pangaea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

and more from same source:

Climate [edit]

The early part of the Carboniferous was mostly warm; in the later part of the Carboniferous, the climate cooled. Glaciations in Gondwana, triggered by Gondwana's southward movement, continued into the Permian and because of the lack of clear markers and breaks, the deposits of this glacial period are often referred to as Permo-Carboniferous in age.
The cooling and drying of the climate led to the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse (CRC). Tropical rainforests fragmented and then were eventually devastated by climate change.[9]

He's a little off in his timeline unless he's suggesting the "leading minds" are thinking of some sort of mix of the two. The waters of the carboniferous period were low. With lower sea levels and a profusion of thick barked trees containing lignin which contributed to coal deposits. Coal being a renewable resource in a tree rich environment. But that would mean that giant forests would have to become predominant and those forests would have to go through the natural life and death processes that does not include harvest of the wood for things like lumber and paper products. Thus making substantially lower human populations a necessity of the plan.

Here's a in your face problem with this idea:

Based on a genetic analysis of mushroom fungi, David Hibbett and colleagues proposed that large quantities of wood were buried during this period because animals and decomposing bacteria had not yet evolved that could effectively digest the tough lignin. It is assumed that fungi that could break it down did not arise before the end of the period, making future coal formation much more rare.[13][14] The Carboniferous trees made extensive use of lignin. They had bark to wood ratios of 8 to 1, and even as high as 20 to 1. This compares to modern values less than 1 to 4. This bark, which must have been used as support as well as protection, probably had 38% to 58% lignin. Lignin is insoluble, too large to pass through cell walls, too heterogeneous for specific enzymes, and toxic, so that few organisms other than Basidiomycetes fungi can degrade it. It can not be oxidized in an atmosphere of less than 5% oxygen. It can linger in soil for thousands of years and inhibits decay of other substances.[15]

I'd like to know how they think they're going to get around the organisms in the soils that have evolved to break down such substances so that formation of coal is rare now.

They planning on destroying these organisms like the proposed plans to depopulate humanity?

We're talking wholesale terra-forming here.

Cy

dan wrote:Cy,

Thanks for this additional information, but better hold on to it 'til I've had a chance to digest Ron's information.

Let us keep in mind that Ron often postures as a contrarian. The agency should make a point of coddling contrarians as part of it's effort to keep from being blind-sided by the 'enemy' or by any other untoward events, all with mixed results, of course.

Were he not a contrarian, I would not count amongst his coterie, now would I?!



(cont.)

specifically in what manner was he being "contrary" about the comment involving "Carboniferous" and "500 million years"? was it along the lines I mentioned in my last post on the Carboniferous period? or something else?

Just Fyi for anyone interested ... I have posted an updated version of the NSA psychic spy chapter from my "Quantum of Strangeness" book (based upon the earlier article first published in "Eight Martinis" magazine) that reviews CIA and Ron Pandolfi and NSA and Tom Drake and their role in the post-9/11 outreach effort to psychic sources (including Uri Geller and Chris Robinson). Of course all of the unusual suspects also appear in this rather lengthy look into the spy games surrounding paranormal activities.

http://www.starpod.us/2013/06/03/is-nsa-in-the-psychic-spy-business/

Turns out both "Ron" and Tom Drake showed up in London shortly after 9/11.

Cy,

Wrt Ron's contrariness.........

This does cover a wide range of topics, of which climate and energy are just a portion. Marrying a muslim woman is another aspect. He is not concerned about keeping a low profile, online or off. It does not fit the usual spook mold.

But, yes, you and he seem to be on about the same page wrt to both climate and energy.

I am attempting to keep my options open, whilst I review the eschatological implications, wherein I need, now, to get back to Paul Z wrt his review of the CTC issue.

He points out that when I speak of eternity, I am speaking also of the implicate order. I had not verbalized that fairly obvious connection.


Gary,

Thank you for that update. No indication that Ron wants to divulge. Drones seem to hold his attention, well beyond the foibles of psychics. How definite was that London sighting? He tries to stay away from the Brits and their fascination with 'witchery'. It might be contagious.


Paul is very reluctant to entertain the possibility that mind could turn the tables on matter. He is my canary in the mind-shaft.


2:20---------

And do check out this News Flash from Great Falls..... hot off the press.........

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2013/jun/03/great-falls-village-starbucks-hosts-live-radio-sho/ !!


4:10--------

Had a talk with Paul, and now need to follow up with an email to Jack.

Paul has not chickened out yet. He will spend a few more days to prepare a case for Jack, and then a decision will be made wrt another trip to North Beach.

There are really just three questions........

1.) Could God make a small world?

2.) Would God make a small world?

3.) Could our world be that world?

According to the BPWH, the answer is yes^3.

Is there any way to rule out this possibility, or to render it utterly implausible? If not, then is there not an obligation to take it seriously?


5:20---------


There is a fourth implication.........

4.) Is not the BPW necessarily a small world?

Most moderns have considerable difficulty with #4.

It's partly, or mainly, a right to life sentiment, which we all share, going way beyond the narrow issue of abortion.

If the Earth is good, then why not many earths? If one universe is good, why not many?

Should Creation necessarily be unbounded? Why limit the possibilities?

The ancients had an abhorrence of the Apeiron. We now view that mindset as quaint. It is difficult for us even to imagine.

And, yet, it was none less the Einstein who found the idea of God playing dice, to be abhorrent. But, surely, God could put many eggs in many baskets and watch every one with infinite care.

But, IMHO, this view supposes deism and precludes theism.

Yet, if small is beautiful, why is the Earth so big? And why are there so many of us?

Our plenitude would make less sense if there were many worlds. It might make a lot of sense, if this were the only one. No?

The rule of thumb is that, given one world, it would tend toward diversity and plenitude, well beyond what one might suppose, supposing a collection of worlds.

It's not just be here or be square. It's be here or be nowhere.



(cont.)

With the energy crisis now appearing to have at least a thousand year resolution.....

No, we need a better statement of the new situation wrt Energy/thorium.

There now exists a possible technical solution to the energy crisis that was brought on by peak oil. The problem, now, is the politics required to achieve that solution, which is not presently visible.

The MoAPS is still front and center, but now it can be viewed in a much more positive light. It's no longer intended just to avoid a Tribulation, but rather to enable the Millennium.

Is this good news, or what?

The shortcut to the MoAPS is through the soul. And then we have only to decide whether we are the children of God or the spawn of God. Only with the former do we obtain the BPW.


11:30-------

Then all we have to do is explain physics........ but where do we start?

We start with the recirculating soul and the level playing field. This, rather quickly, brings us to the notion of metabolism, and so to atomism.

The next step is to an Earth/Sun system. In between is the psychoanalysis of fire and light.

Where would we be without geometric optics?


And, soon, I need to follow up with Paul. Is he ready to take on the full burden of the BPWH?

How do we get the full robustness of atomic and astrophysics, just from the mind, not to mention evolutionary biology? There has to be a very strong appeal to teleology. Can the Telos manage this great burden? Where there is a will....... Necessity is the Mother....... etc.


The overriding problem is conceiving of heaven or the at-one-ment with God. How much can God differ from us? Or how does the state of at-one-ment differ from our ego-Cs?

What is the big attraction? Is God the great attractor? It is not possible to conceive of eternity or the implicate order, although we must exist with one foot in that world. Our soul is that Monad.


Logic and math....... can they account for the seeming objectivity of the world? When we knock on wood, are we knocking on logic? How is it that the visitors can walk through walls, and we cannot? Where is the logic in that? In VR, each object has to be shielded. It is very arbitrary.

How far can we get with quantum logic? It is based on projection operators. It seems more to do with math than with logic, per se. It is a kind of observational calculus. It may be a bridge.

Then we also need consider the organicity of math, itself. How objective is it, or is closer to being intersubjective?


3pm---------

The implicate order must be highly organic. There is room for disparate organs, but not for isolated worlds. The greatest division is between heaven and earth or between creator and creation.

Other worlds could entail other creators, or vice-versa, but can there be multiple implicate orders? Separation is unnatural. It is the result of artifice, such as space and time. There can, however, be multiple personalities within a single psyche, that are quite isolated. Could this not be a model for polytheism? Trinitarianism, anyone?

But there are cures for MPD, often involving hypnosis. God could be auto-suggestive, in this regard. No? There is a strong sense in which we are the multiple personalities of the monad, operating under a regime of considerable artifice.

The rapture must have much to do with mind melding. Melded is the natural state of the mind. Holism is the natural state of the world. It is the Source to which we return. But how can we come to be so isolated from the Source? It seems so unnatural? Atomism is our projection of this isolation.

There should be no reason why God cannot dream of infinity or of an infinite universe, and why we should not be entrained and enthralled by this dream. But should it not be detectable? Cannot fish detect water? They would have to be properly disposed to do so. There has to be a difference and a dividing line, something that fish lack. Only with a MoAPS can we revision our ontology.

And how can we put time in a bottle? One way is by leaving the world, temporarily, so there is a gap in time consciousness. This provides a cork in the bottle. Otherwise, the bootstrap is the natural means of self-containment. One might wonder if there is a developmental model for this bootstrap process.

In the developmental model, the cells function as the souls, and the extra-cellular matrix is something like space-time.



(cont.)

Jake Reason wrote:Great research, Cyrellys! Nature's wholism. Nothing is without a purpose. Let's not snip out our vermiform appendix.

Lol, I agree we certainly would not want to snip it out. That safe-house for symbiotic gut microbes serves an important function in preserving the necessary flora upon which all digestion and infection fighting lymphoid cells depend. It's job is to help "train" the immune system and expose the body to antigens so it can then develop antibodies to detrimental issues. Without out it we might as human become prone to an illness common in sheep, clostridium perfringens in which the flora of the gut becomes unbalanced and the individual becomes afflicted with what is coined "over-eaters disease" which results in lack of appetite, deadly bloating, dissolution of internal organs and function, and a very quick but painful death follows.

Could you imagine the social mind being so afflicted? That symbiotic biosphere which serves as a safe-house for beneficial intellectual and spiritual concepts to aid in digestion and training the embryonic immune system of the human soul? Without it we might exhibit the symptoms of over-eaters disease and lose our appetite for wonder and discovery, experience a foul bloating of the ego, dissoulution of the internal function and comprehension of BEING, and experience a bloody bursting of the life force until we bleed out in the most painful of deaths.

We still need these tools. They teach us things we too easily forget.

Cy

Dan said:

The rapture must have much to do with mind melding. Melded is the natural state of the mind. Holism is the natural state of the world. It is the Source to which we return. But how can we come to be so isolated from the Source? It seems so unnatural? Atomism is our projection of this isolation.

There should be no reason why God cannot dream of infinity or of an infinite universe, and why we should not be entrained and enthralled by this dream. But should it not be detectable? Cannot fish detect water? They would have to be properly disposed to do so. There has to be a difference and a dividing line, something that fish lack. Only with a MoAPS can we revision our ontology.

There should be no reason why God cannot dream of infinity or of an infinite universe, and why we should not be entrained and enthralled by this dream.

Agreed. In my experience it does more than dream of an infinite universe. And yes we most certainly should be entrained and enthralled by this dream and the works it produces. The universe is our classroom, in all its layers and facets.

But should it not be detectable? Cannot fish detect water? They would have to be properly disposed to do so. There has to be a difference and a dividing line, something that fish lack.

It is detectable. It is only our chosen sensitivity which is selective. We very much hold to our complex constructs and familiar interpretations. It leads us down many paths seeking that congruent synergy only to find dead ends over and over. Bend thy ear thus takes on new meaning - to listen and hear withholding judgment, bias, and easy stereotyping which alters perception often beyond what the Source would recognize as once intended.

Melded is the natural state of the mind. Holism is the natural state of the world. It is the Source to which we return. But how can we come to be so isolated from the Source? It seems so unnatural? Atomism is our projection of this isolation.

This is why I mentioned the instruction to bend thy ear. It is because the isolation from the Source is illusory. There is no such thing. And we have been told so in ways innumerable. But that does not fit the constructs we work with in this point in time and evolution. Thus the synergy is absent and we flounder in frustration, confusion, and self-created shock. That shock tends to hit home when the Source reaches out and swings the interconnect with all its synergy around to speak to us, especially if it comes from the strangest of people in the strangest of moments - like a medical facility and a very confused and surprised preacher who barely remembered consciously who and what he worked to represent in his life's work until one day he was drawn to relay a message under the most surprising of circumstances.

Epiphany given is usually based on what is needed not on what is sought.

The chosen nature is an imperative theme. That nature is the concrete foundation upon which "politics of problems & solutions" draw to succeed in attaining synergy. Doors open when the imperative is engaged.

Cy

Cy,

I'm still grappling with the possibility that our Rapture might be voluntary.

And I agree with you that our displacement from the Source is largely voluntary, to begin with.

Also, I believe that you, Jake and I agree that we are slated for an ultimate rendezvous with the Source. We disagree on the details of this Rendezvous.

But, no, I believe that Jake and I now agree on a timeline of about a thousand years between now and a rapture. This is due to my very recent re-estimation of our Thorium potential. From my previous estimate of a 200 yr Millennium, I am now back with the more conventional notion of a thousand year Millennium.

After this significant bit of new agreement, there remains a very significant gap between my BPWH, and the much more conventional cosmologies of you and Jake.

I point to the fact the we are the children of God, and that we are all one family. There are no other gods, and no other families. We are all in the same boat, which is also our 'spaceship' Earth.

Wrt the Endtimes, I adhere to the foundations of the prophetic tradition, whereas you and Jake have followed the Scientific cosmology into the notion of many worlds. I am the only person known to be such a contrarian wrt that convention. The burden of proof is entirely on me.

My 'proof', however, rests mainly upon my allegedly much more chummy relation with the Source, as if we were on a first name basis. Both you and Jake suppose the Source to be impersonal. This is also true of Islam, and somewhat less so of Judaism.

This more impersonal and less familial, familiar connection is based largely on the conventional, large-universe model that I quite emphatically reject.


Where I depart most strongly with my fellow Christians is on the notion of lost souls. On this important matter, I believe that there is significant gap between Cy and Jake. Although, on second thought, Cy seems more disposed than Jake to find fault with the PtB, who are deemed to be leading the rest of us into perdition.

Cy and I have not discussed the disparate fates of the various segments of humanity. Nor am I sure of Jake's view on this matter, but I suppose it hews closer to the traditional theistic view.

Louise, my departed sister, was quite adamant that the great bulk of humanity was not slated to graduate to the next level of existence. They had doomed themselves to repeat life's lessons, probably for many more times, and probably on a different planet, since the Earth was about to be recycled, in some strong sense.

But, yes, it now appears that the Rapture is going to be more voluntary than I had been supposing, up until my recent Thorium recalculation.

Now, instead of the Rapture driving the Revelation, it is the other way around. I have been putting very little emphasis on Heaven, and I truly don't wish to get sucked into that issue. I continue to suppose that heaven is just the vestibule for our At-one-ment with the Source. Forget the 72 virgins? Well, I would not bank on that. You are more likely to win the lottery or be struck by lightning.

This slight rearrangement happens to put more burden on our poor little Chicken, because the sky is less prone to falling, with thorium taking the role of Atlas. As long as we have Atlas, who needs Chicken Little?


3pm---------

What is CL to do......? I will need more help from Paul Z, for one thing. I need to get back to the physics end of the BPWH bargain, now that the Rapture has receeded.

But, first, there is tonight's dinner discussion group, usually related to peak energy......

From: Dan
Date: June 7, 2013, 3:22:48 PM EDT
To: Brendan
Cc: Sam, Gus and 8 others.....
Subject: Re: (1) Self-Introductions at DDG tonight

My news is a recent revelation concerning Thorium......

Well, it was a two years ago revelation, at a pervious DDG, that finally caught up with me. And I remain unsure as to how to handle this wrt the Peak Energy contingent. Keeping my mouth shut was an option, until we were urged to do otherwise.

I'll bet that if we were to take a poll, most of us would suppose that the Nuclear option is effectively dead. And it is, politically. But is it, scientifically? The answer seems to be a rather emphatic, 'no', unless I am still miscalculating.

There are two alleged reasons for this political misperception........

1.) Nukes are dirty and dangerous.

2.) Comparable with coal, nukes don't make that much of a dent in our peak-energy calculations.

It is thorium, however, that makes a big dent in both #1 and #2. This big dent turns out to be about two orders of magnitude, in each case.

Have I gone over to the dark side? Hmmm.......

From: Dan
Date: June 7, 2013, 3:52:41 PM EDT
To: Paul Z
Subject: Recap of Physics vs. the BPWH.....

The score remains 100 to 0, and we're in the bottom of the ninth......

I always try to focus on whatever seems closest to being the 'defeater' argument for the BPWH.

I am usually able to focus on the problem for a couple of hours, until the Necker cube in my mind decides to shift, usually spontaneously. How many faces of the cube are there........?

1.) Stars and, well, astrophysics/cosmology.

2.) Atoms and biological metabolism, in all its splendor.

3.) Fossils, geological strata, and all that good Old Earth stuff.

4.) Optics, of the geometrical sort......

Is that not enough to blow the BPWH right out of the water? It certainly ought to be, with just one small fly in the scientific ointment........ the soul......

Is the soul big enough to take down/shake down science?

Well, it surely is a rather large foot in the metaphysical door. No?


(cont.)

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: June 7, 2013, 4:20:32 PM EDT
To: Paul Z
Subject: Re: Recap of Physics vs. the BPWH.....

(cont.)

What does the soul bring to the BPWH vs Science? Just how big is this foot in the door?

The anthropic principle opens the door to deism. The soul opens it to theism, IMHO, and theism is a much bigger threat to science than is deism. Yes? Deism was the cradle of science, in point of historical fact.

If our only foe were scientific materialism, there would be no problem here, but......

We do also have Jack to contend with, and Jack strongly believes that he has already explained the Soul. Yes?

Jack believes that the consciousness aspect of the soul is explained by back-action and the non-linearities, non-unitarities thereby introduced into classical QM.

To me, this is a ridiculous argument, but Jack grips onto it, for dear life, which it may be, wrt scientific materialism/physicalism.


(cont......2)

From: Dan
Date: June 7, 2013, 5:04:00 PM EDT
To: Paul Z
Subject: Re: Recap of Physics vs. the BPWH.....

(cont........2)


But even just Jack's soul, which is, maybe, 1/3 of a real soul, is still a big foot in the door wrt the BPWH vs. Science.

Jack's soul is opening the door to a quantum Dualism of mind and matter. That was the first approximation to the BPWH, way back in 1977, and up until '81. That is when I finally had to bite the bullet and put dualism behind me. Dualism is, by definition, incoherent. So is materialism. That leaves monism, in all its metaphysical glory.

If one gives any benefit of the doubt to the mind, then the mind moves right in, and takes over the whole neighborhood. That has been its wont, time immemorial......

Optimistically, then, Jack's is the foot in the door for the foot in the door, something like billy-goat gruff.

But let us also look at the soul from a more socio-political perspective......

The soul, per se, barely distinguishes between deism, theism and pantheism. That is Jack's minimal foot in the door, nonetheless. It suffices for our next step. This mini-soul is missing two things, quality and memory, setting reason aside, for the nonce.



(cont........3)

(cont.)

Jake,

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t139-pathocracy

Thank you for this review of pathocracy. How could pathocracy be allowed to exist in the Best Possible World??

It must serve some sort of function.

I will think upon that whilst I continue my exposition to Paul Z.......

From: Dan
Date: June 8, 2013, 8:16:46 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: further considerations.....

In any mentalistic view of the world, there will have to be a dualism between the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind. I would take this to be a highly mitigated form of dualism, relative to the Cartesian sort. And do keep in mind that there are many and varied states of consciousness.

I am hopeful that Bohm's dualism could be viewed as being partially mitigated, in this manner.

But Bohm's quantum potential is real and objective, yet mind-like. It is not material. It just acts on material objects. It is no more material than entropy. <<

Ok, but do I have to fully ontologize Bohm's potential? I would see it more as a mathematical artifice. I suppose that atoms are emergent phenomena, reified, in no small measure, by the configuration and deployment of our experimental apparatus, for instance.

If we compare the explicate and implicate orders with the conscious and unconscious, respectively, the ontology is rather less stark.

I would appeal to Bohm mainly to better empathize with Jack's background. Are you a thorough going Bohmian? I'm not renouncing Copenhagen, if I don't have to. I'm being eclectic.

As my evangelical friends are well aware, I am an unrepentant cherry-picker. I'll take my holism from Bohm, and my subjectivism from Bohr, thank you very much!

Now, I'll get back to the soul, if I might.......


(cont....)

From: Dan
Date: June 9, 2013, 4:03:25 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Best possible soul.......

The soul or psyche is the soft underbelly of materialism. It is our metaphysical launch-pad.

There is an organizing principle that as associated with our personal identity. I suppose this to be the essence of the soul.

In materialism, personal identity is equated with bodily continuity. Both the body and the personality can undergo profound changes, and, yet, the memories of my early childhood can be just as intimate and personal to me as my memories from yesterday.

How does this compare with computer memory, wherein memory cards may be added or removed without the slightest such distinction? There is a belongingness that easily defies any sort of labeling or storage schemata.

I see nothing in Jack's back-reaction scheme that speaks to this issue.

The self is supremely organic, in the holistic sense. The is an integrity that is unsurpassed, in any natural context. Atoms come close, but only in the most generic sense, of course.

Might quantum entanglement somehow address this issue? Only as an analogy, perhaps,

Given a soul, how might that lead us to the BPWH.....?



(cont.....)

From: Dan
Date: June 9, 2013, 4:35:26 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Best possible soul.......

(cont.....)


I used to speak of memory as one aspect of an akashic record, but this does not adhere to Occam's principle, which I take to be tantamount to one or more of Leibniz'.

No, I now suppose that memory and history may be identified. One is just an aspect of the other, and keeping in mind that time is an illusion, in any case.

Reincarnational cases are just a kind of memory bleed-through. In the BPWH, the telos/omega has precedence over the Alpha. Causally speaking, time is more inclined to run backwards, if it runs at all!

The world is a construct of our memories, and vice-versa. This is just a logical extension of the principle of direct perception..... our minds are not distinct from the world. The world is a collective mental construct.

The collectivity of the world is necessarily guaranteed by the existence of a single soul. Humanity shares with God, the singular cosmic Soul.

What about the other creatures? Are they soulless? What they share are their respective archetypes. An archetype is not unlike a soul, but it is decidedly impersonal. That's all.

Where does this leave us wrt the the BPWH......?



(cont.....2)

From: Dan
Date: June 9, 2013, 5:21:42 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Best possible soul.......

(cont.......2)


I would say, with just this minimal exposition of the best possible soul, we are more than half way to the BPW. Yes?

What more do we need......?

The final step to the BPW is simply to observe that the organicity of the Soul is concomitant with the organicity of the BPW. In point of fact, there is very little to distinguish Soul and World.

At most, the world is the extra-cellular matrix of the Soul. That there appear to be 10^10 souls is the primary illusion of our bootstrapped co-Creation. An entire Tapestry may be woven from a single thread, properly prepared. How better to ensure its integrity?

That is the integrity of our BPW.

What then of Heaven? Is there a dualism between Earth and Heaven?

Heaven is the implicate order, we might suppose, as a first approximation. Heaven is the mind of the Creator. Earth is the mind of the Creation. Earth is our explication of the implicate God. No?

Heaven is our source. We return to the Source when we have finished with our explication. Yes?


(cont.......3)

Pathocracy....my turn to say "Brilliant!"

From: Dan
Date: June 10, 2013, 10:36:04 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Best possible hologram......

What I'm mainly saying is that Heaven is the implicate order and Earth is the explicate order, thereby extrapolating from Bohm.

Heaven is the hologram, and Earth is the holograph.

This is similar to the Tamara/Jack thesis of the future hologram being the mind of God. My problem with that thesis is that it places the holographic horizon some 64 billion years in our future. This time frame derives, in part, from using the plank-length on that horizon and a corresponding volume in 3-space.

The soul trajectory, recirculating > 10^10 times, as our 'silver-thread' cosmic umbilical, connects us all to the mind of God. In this sense, the future hologram is in our individual minds, as part of our collective uCs. The kingdom of heaven is within. Yes? This is what Jack struggles with. He needs help.


The allegory of the Cave.......?

Yes, this does provide another perspective. The Sun represents the eternity of God's love, which each of us strive to reflect, as we strut upon the Stage. The Earth is the 3-D moving image of the cosmic agape. That agape is partly reflected in the precision of the anthropic parameters of physics. Mathematical physics is encoded in our collective uCs, among an infinity of Archetypes.

The archetypes operate as aspects of the holographic diffraction grating. The micro- and macro-cosms are reciprocated, somehow.

Then there are the Visitors, which I suppose are UT's, rather than ET's. Depending on their disposition, the UT's may walk though our walls, as if they were holographs. We perform similar feats, when having an abduction experience or an NDE. At other times, the UT's are able to interact with our 'material' world.


(cont.....)

From: Dan
Date: June 10, 2013, 11:17:35 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Best possible hologram......

Recap........

Given any sort of reasonably robust notion of a human 'soul', it is but a brief journey to the BPWH. IMHO, there is no other coherent terminus to that sojourn,

The BPWH contradicts the scientific image of the cosmos.......?

It is the small world vs. the big world.

This brings us back to the logical necessity of the God of revelation and prophecy to, by the same token, be a self-concealing God, up until the endtimes.

There is no other place for God to hide, other than in our uCs and beyond space and time.

The BPWH is just the logical nexus or co-projection of these two realms....... the sub- and supra-conscious. No? We are the agents of this projection...... the compound, bi-directional eyes of God.

From: Dan
Date: June 10, 2013, 12:10:09 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Recap.........

(cont......)


The best possible world has got to be a personal world. It cannot overwhelm our sensibilities. We cannot become lost or otherwise misplaced within this world.

The Earth, with its ~10^10 inhabitants, demonstrates the upper bound of this personal creation. That there should be competing such worlds also does not make sense. Each additional such world would greatly diminish the threshold of 'acceptable' evil or suffering on any other such world. This is a very important point to get across. The level of suffering on this world simply rules out the possibility of any similar worlds. This is not a test. This is not an experiment. This is for keeps. This is for ever and ever, amen. Ours is the eternal Presence. The only ending is our personal mortality.

Are we and God incapable of building into Creation a highly refined natural aesthetic? Would we not be motivated to do so? Why then such an elaborate scheme of self-deception?

How else could we have become so enraptured in these depths of the Soul. Our sojourn here is our rapture of the deep. But we are running out of oxygen, and reaching the end of our mortal limits, as a global society.

Only by our cosmic Self-revelation, only by the mother of all paradigm shifts, may we now enjoy the fruits of our labors, may we experience God's Millennial kingdom on Earth, as it is in heaven(?).

From: Dan
Date: June 10, 2013, 12:53:01 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Recap.........

(cont.........2)


The Earth has, from the start, logically pushed the limits of cosmic organicity. Stretching all bounds is the hallmark of this singular optimization that is our best possible Creation. It was only in the primordial dreamtime, and, now, with this electronic shrinking of the world, leading into our final, Barfieldian (Owen) participatory dreamtime, that this optimization becomes globally manifest.

We have come close to accepting the seemingly self-evident truth that humankind has become a cancer on the Earth.

Are we a Cancer or a Chrysalis? Are experiencing our death throes or our birth pangs? This is a basic question, which stands in urgent need of a preliminary resolution.

How better to discharge this responsibility than by a timely review of the BPWH?

.