Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: Dan
Date: September 30, 2013, 11:14:59 AM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .............
Subject: Skinnarians beware..... Your children are your proxies to Eternity!

Gary,  

You mis-hear what I say........

(As an historical footnote, I did personally confront Bobby on this issue.  He looked me straight in the eye...... 'You handle it,' said he.  That was the day before his assassination.)  

But, no, I have never endorsed the Golden Rule of Reproduction.  Rather, I point to it as lying at the heart of our population dilemma.  

Looking at this same issue from another angle...... our children are our hostages against the future, as is sometimes stated.  

I would emend that slightly..... Our children are our proxies to Eternity.

IOW, for an atheist or agnostic, your children are your Soul......  No children ~ No Soul ~ No Future!

Everyone on this list is an implicit atheist, agnostic, Skinnerian.  (Fred & Eve were friends of family, btw)  

IOW, populationists have not a snowball's chance in hell to fundamentally alter reproductive behavior, without penetrating the human psyche, further than Fred's 'black-box'.  

No one on this list even recognizes the existence of a human psyche.  To every last one of you, it  is simply a programmed stimulus response device.  

Wake up and smell the eternal coffee........

The team at RBC Capital Markets has put together a terrifying play-by-play for the Alphaville blog of The Financial Times. It shows how a debt-ceiling breach would translate quickly into a credit crunch and financial crisis with some disconcerting similarities to 2008. Get ready for some scary reading:

Let us be perfectly clear: crossing the debt ceiling would be catastrophic. The Treasury’s systems do not clearly mark what scheduled payments are for what reasons, so it is impractical to try to prioritize payments. And clearing systems like Fedwire do not allow defaulted securities to flow, so the system would seize. In order for the clearing systems to work, the Treasury would need to notify the market of a default almost a day before the default happened (to give everyone time to modify payments), and that is not going to happen because the Treasury will not want to declare default while Congress still has time to pass a bill. Also the Fed does not take defaulted securities as collateral at the discount window, even if those securities are still trading at par.

Brian StensonPalo Alto, CA
Many of the Tea Party Republicans who refuse to raise the debt ceiling are willing to risk a deep economic crisis and do not accept warnings about the consequences of a default. They also are skeptical about climate change and evolution (are they also members of the flat earth society?) I suspect they hope that President Obama will employ the legal reasoning that debt can be issued for expenses already incurred pursuant to past Congressional authorization regardless of the debt ceiling. In that case they will have found the thin rationale they have been searching for all these years and vote to impeach the President for these "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Sept. 30, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.REPLYRECOMMEND

“Markets can handle the prospect of a government shutdown starting tomorrow,” Mr. Halpenny said. “But if there’s no resolution on the debt ceiling negotiation by Oct. 17, when the government tells us they’ve run out of money, that’s a different proposition. Then you could really get into a panic situation.”

From: Dan
Date: September 30, 2013, 6:33:28 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .........
Subject: Are humans moral?

Gary,

1.) Can humans respond to rational, moral arguments, even when it is not in their self-interest?

2.) Will such a response not be essential to a non-coercive, non-violent resolution to the population/resource crisis?

3.) Would such a response not be in contradiction to the scientific worldview?

4.) Do you reject such a possibility, out of hand?

From: Dan
Date: October 2, 2013, 10:09:56 AM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .......
Subject: Averting the catastrophe....

CoF,

Do we not perceive a steady increase in the popular perception of the population/resource crisis?  

But do we suppose that such a change of perception can or will be translated into a broad-based, effective action to avert the crisis.  I am not aware of anyone on this list who holds out much hope for that prospect.  

Until there is such hope, we cannot expect a democratic solution.  Can a global non-democratic solution be other than catastrophic?

If we wish to avert the catastrophe, then we must be willing to consider any plausible option that goes beyond politics as usual.  

I submit that the only plausible option to catastrophe is an appeal to whatever may be the spiritual core of humanity.  

To an atheist, this would be an appeal to our much touted God-gene.  To an agnostic or a believer this would be an appeal to the existential/transcendental core of our being.  

Has anyone else ever considered this possibility?

From: Dan
Date: October 3, 2013, 12:38:59 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: ...........
Subject: learning our lesson....?

Gary,

You say that we need to learn our lesson.  

This, you understand, is a moral, even an anthropocentric, statement.  

>> And in the meantime, the entire island will have a chance to recover from the ravages of one species gone unconscionably out of balance. In time, the balance of Nature (always dynamic and ever-changing) will return to a system that works for all. In this way it will mirror the Universe itself, where all flourishing is mutual. <<

Again, Gary, you are using value laden phrases.  You are, quite innocently, quite unwittingly, bringing human exceptionalism in the backdoor.  

You are supposing that the universe is 'intended' to be our classroom.  You must understand that such ideas have no traction within the modern, scientific worldview.  Such ideas are simply a throwback to a pre-modern metaphysics.  

Even the innocent notion that life was somehow meant to flourish is a total anachronism.  

You make many emotion laden statements, almost unconsciously.  It is what we, humans, do, habitually.  It has nothing to do with science, of course, although science does strive to explain how emotions function within our species.  

But now we face, for the very first time, a global existential crisis.  Science can provide us with useful projections about how this crisis may unfold.  Science can also offer suggestions about the various ways that the crisis might be averted, and it can even make estimates about the efficacy of various motivational schemes that might be used in a strategy of abatement.

What science cannot do is inspire humanity to rise to this challenge.  

IOW, science can describe the stick with which we are about to be beaten, but, when it comes to survival, what can science offer us, beyond the technology of self-defence?  


(cont......)

From: Dan
Date: October 3, 2013, 3:59:38 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .............
Subject: Holonic Reciprocity and the Green Party

Gary,

Well, it does appear that you are more impassioned than most, and this is a good thing, and you attribute your passion to your worldview. Moreover, most environmentalists subscribe to something rather like your Holonic Reciprocity.

And, yes, the global Green Party movement is doing more to implement our ideals than is any other political group.

However, Gary, I doubt whether you or anyone else in the CoF supposes that the GP is on course to avert the global calamity that we see looming.

We need a game-changer. What do you see that being?

From: Dan
Date: October 4, 2013, 10:36:30 AM EDT
To: Michael Kavanaugh
Cc: ......CoF.......
Subject: Destiny's Children

CoF, Mike (and Yeats),

Would we, can we, deny that we are destiny's children?

Well, we sure do try, but to what avail?

Hey, didn't we get halfway to the stars, or was that just an illusion?

We have come a long way, baby, out of the primordial muck, and to what end? Our star burned bright, briefly as we lit the skies. It must have been the fourth of july.

Now we pay the price.........
>> The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? <<

Or were these twenty centuries just a cosmic bait & switch?

Overshoot......? Or was this an Undershoot, getting only halfway home, and trailing clouds of glory?

Has the launch been truly aborted, or were we just aiming at the wrong star?

You CoFers are more crazy than I thought, if you think you can convince the rest of us that our entire history was just so much spilt milk!

From: Dan
Date: October 5, 2013, 3:59:08 PM EDT
To: Michael Kavanaugh
Cc: .........
Subject: Libertarians and the new world order....

Mike et al.,

1.) I challenge anyone on this list to argue that the primary roots of modern individualism lie anywhere other than in the spiritual teachings of the founder of 'western' civilization.

2.) However, please note that his full-throated appeal to individual conscience was only ever provisional. It was intended only to come under the dispensation or covenant of which he was the author.

But, now, as all of us are arguing, the only hope for humanity lies in the establishment new world order. It is only the nature and source of this new order that we discuss.

Libertarianism is not high on the list of priorities for our brave new world. Survival is our only common ground.

Nonetheless, I am the only one on this list who argues for a voluntary solution to the population/resource crisis, with the caveat that such volunteerism can only be engendered in the context of the mother of all paradigm shifts.

Here, then, are our two choices wrt human survival........

1.) Totalitarianism, or.....

2.) Paradigm shift.

Does anyone see a third alternative?

From: Dan
Date: October 6, 2013, 4:46:09 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .............
Subject: Doomsayers in a logical bind....

Gary, Michael et al.,

There is still hope that humanity can be shocked into sobriety, with respect to our self-destructive Potlatch 'party' that we call 'modern (industrial/consumer) civilization'.

We are the shock troops, and our message is spreading. The global emergence of the Green Party is the primary political manifestation of the concerns of the CoF.

But, yes, most all of the organized environmental groups are focused on the amelioration or greening of economic growth. A small minority of environmental groups are willing to testify against growth, per se.

We of the CoF are, TBMK, the only definable group to principally address overshoot. This political fact is hardly conducive to optimism wrt the likelihood of our surviving overshoot.

I don't think there is anyone in the CoF who sees even a ray of hope, at this point..... not that we have given up hope, it's just that we don't see it....... with the possible exception of myself. But, hey, I've been wrong before, wrt my perspicacity or lack thereof.

My hope lies in the shadow of ignorance. How much hope exists depends on how large that shadow is.

I have a sneaking suspicion that science is overweening wrt its oft claimed hegemony wrt knowledge. Science loves to suppose that it embodies the only path to knowledge, regardless of how near or far it may be from the end of that path. Yes, science is a totalitarian system, and its hegemony may turn out to be justified. The cup of (scientific) knowledge, is it half full or half empty?

Yes, mine is a hope of the (scientific) gaps. Nonetheless, it is a hope that is shared by 99% of our earthly siblings.

This places us Overshootists in a logical bind....... will we not have to subvert hope, in order to persuade humanity to confront its existential crisis? But an existential crisis risks paralysis. How, then, do we empower humanity to overcome its crisis, without providing a new source of hope?

From: Dan
Date: October 7, 2013, 9:57:16 AM EDT
To: Paul Z, Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Harvey Brown Oxford paper on Mach

So, is everything resolved......... we are all idiots except Jack?  

Is Jim going to build a starship?  Is Jack going to build a stargate?  

If not, then what?  Is humanity f*cked?  

Just wondering........

From: Dan
Date: October 7, 2013, 11:56:39 AM EDT
To: John Taves
Cc: ...........
Subject: Morality vs Hope

John,

Ah, ha!  Only now do I begin to see your motivation.........

You wish to substitute morality for hope!  

IOW, you see the restraints of morality as being more effective than the inspiration of hope...... and you may be correct.  

Which does explain your StopAtTwo campaign, which could equally be a StopAtOne campaign.  What about StopAtOne-hundredth?  Hey, that might work, too.  

Morality is focused more on the individual, whereas hope is focused more on the community.  It is also about stick and carrot.  Morality can be enforced with the immediate threat of a stick, whereas hope is only ever about distant and ill-defined rewards.  

However, morality is more narrowly focused, more legalistic than is hope.  Morality is management by directive, whereas hope is more akin to management by a commonly understood objective.  

Then, of course, there is the famous Golden Rule.  The Golden rule is more about prescription than proscription.  It is alleged that the Golden Rule overruled the Ten Commandments.  But how could the Golden Rule possibly be enforced?  Has it become a joke?  

John, are these not issues that need to be addressed in the population/survival business?

From: Dan
Date: October 7, 2013, 5:17:41 PM EDT
To: John Taves
Cc: Ron , Princess Aliyah, Steven Earl Salmony , Sam B Hopkins , Jack Alpert , Jack Sarfatti , Paul Zielinski , Dick Farley , Bill L, Gus Russo , Michael Kavanaugh, Cyrellys, Rick Davis
Subject: Re: A life boat with 2.


On Oct 7, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Dan wrote:

John,

Yes, this is your best explanation, so far.

And, yes, I have promised John to provide him airtime on the radio show of Princess Aliyah.

I do hope that I can fulfill this promise.



On Oct 7, 2013, at 2:15 PM, John Taves wrote:

There is a life boat at sea with 2 survivors. They are barely able to catch enough food to keep them both alive. Then she gets pregnant.

Scale the boat up to the size of the planet. Make each of those survivors 3.5 billion people. Now tell me what has changed to make sure that she does not get pregnant in that situation?

Russ Hopfenberg believes that the fear of starvation prevents the births. Sure, we can all agree that the couple on the boat will comprehend that they should not get pregnant, and probably they can't because both are on the edge of starvation. We can improve this model by putting 4 people on the boat. 2 are strong and able to grab whatever food they want of the catch, and leave the scraps for the other 2 that are on the edge of life. Then the healthy couple gets the strong woman pregnant. The starving woman did not get pregnant as Russ hopes, and yet we have death caused by birth. Sure, we agree that the 4 people would get together and recognize that it would be idiotic to get either of the women pregnant. Scale this up so that the strong couple is the strong tribe and the weak couple is a neighboring weak tribe. Don't tell me these two tribes gave a rat's ass about the other's situation. In short, there is nothing that ensures the pregnancy does not happen.

Are you going to tell me that we have never hit the limit where we were barely able to catch enough food to keep our numbers alive, even though most of human history does not have exponential growth and we have always averaged more than 2 and have no mechanism that prevents that pregnancy? Of course we have always been at the limit. Of course Russ is correct to say that food availability limits our numbers.

There are no terms, like "death due to births" in our language to describe this situation. There is no acknowledgement in science that this is happening. There is no excuse to assume it is not happening.

How do we get this concept into the heads of population scientists?

--
jt

Perspectives in Love. All members of the Court rejoice in one clear perspective, the pleasure of serving their Princess. Her presence inspires those around to work hard with joy knowing that they are helping the Little Princess help the World. Only those who are truly evil would doubt the Perfection of the Princess. The Footman spoke for all members of Court in offering the following perspective on their Anniversary:

Princess,

The pure pleasure of being in your presence is a gift that you give so freely. I was reminded of this gift as I watched you sketch, while I worked on repairing the Palace Walls, a job that I would otherwise find unpleasant, transformed into an inspiration as your canvas quickly took on the image of two rhinos standing proudly in the bush. It was at first glance a copy of a photograph, but at a deeper level it was us transformed into the bodies of two rhinos, looking into each others eyes with love and understanding, ready to overcome the evils of the world including the horrible crimes against wildlife. On this anniversary, I offer a dedication to be at your side against evil and adversity. We will stand in that bush together as your Bat Drones patrol above spotting the poachers, and then we will advance on the evil, driving them from the field and from this World. Please accept this ring as a symbol of the joy you bring to those with open hearts.

From: Dan
Date: October 11, 2013, 10:21:17 AM EDT
To: Paul Z
Cc: David Gladstone
Subject: Our 'Braney/Holey' world.....

Paul,  

Obviously, what was written below was not going to pass muster.  Nonetheless, I do need to provide Jack and us with a scorecard, a very rough map, of what the Finite World Hypothesis is about.  

I do feel that Enrico's tome is the straw that is breaking the back of my many hesitations and second thoughts concerning the FWH.  

Why, for instance, am I now referring to an FWH rather than to an SWH.....?  

Here I refer back to Einstein and the Greek rationalists, e.g. Thales.  There was, with both E & T, an implicit abhorrence of the Apeiron, simply because it was incoherent, i.e. irrational.  

Why the modern mind has developed a love affair with the Infinite, begs for an explanation......

And there is a simple answer.......  

To the modern mind, the quantitative infinite of space and time is the politically correct substitute for the qualitative/transcendental infinite of God.  Exhibit A for this substitution is the enormity of the Sci-Fi industry built upon this cosmic bait and switch.  

Central to the idea of rationalism is the notion of the microcosm.......


(cont........)  



---------------------
(a draft, written yesterday, but not sent)

Paul and Jack,

One point that Enrico makes is that if one space-time wormhole can exist, then they must exist everywhere, especially in the quantum foam, where everything goes, anyway, unless it can be specifically forbidden.  

This is just another way of saying that the space-time manifold is an illusion, upon which point, philosophers and physicists have long been converging.  

This is also saying what the pantheists and pythagoreans have always told us....... everything is God, everything is information.  

But, then, don't we have to ask, a-la Fermi, where is God and everyone else...... that is, when they're not on the phone talking to Jack?  

Only two places they can be...... out there or in here.  

Then the only question is how many are we ........ finite or infinite?  Is God a right-to-lifer?  The more the merrier....  No??

Or is God, as Enrico and Thales suggest, a rationalist?  Are we of the Apeiron, or are we of the Logos?  

Or, to put this another way, can persons exist in an impersonal world?  An infinite world is an impersonal world.  KIM, that rationality can only be attributed to persons.  

Finitude and rationality are necessary attributes of an interconnected, self-contained world.  The Greek Sages understood this one thing, if they understood anything.  Clearly, Enrico, as with the Greeks, has trepidations about the Apeiron.  For them, the Apeiron is hell.  It is beyond the pale of persons and the Logos.  

As Godel pointed out, all logic must be self-referential or self-contained.  Yes, there are infinite levels of logic, which is also to say that selves are transcendental objects, of infinite worth.  How else can we be ends rather than means?  That qualitative infinity is the glue of the Logos.  It is how the center holds.  Anything knowable must share the universal holism.  To be is to be related to everything.  There can exist no ontological orphans.  

That we might be lost in space and time was an historical illusion.  We do have to lose ourselves in order to find ourselves.  Logic.....?  Only thus may we know ourselves for the first time.  In the meantime, we suffer alienation.  

How do we become alienated, if separation is an illusion?  It is a powerful illusion.  

From: Dan
Date: October 11, 2013, 11:23:25 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Our Braney/Holey/Microcosmic world.....

(cont.......)

The notion of the microcosm is key to the battle over infinity, and the microcosm is the crux of rationalism, coherentism.  

Let's start with physics........

I love the infrared catastrophe almost as much as I love the panpsychic catastrophe, especially when the former is applied to gravitons.  The gravitational force is transmitted by virtual gravitons, as the electrical force is transmitted by virtual photons.  Wonderful.......

But there is a slight, unheralded problem.  It is the poor cousin of the much heralded ultraviolet catastrophe.  Most of modern physics may be seen as a clever workaround to the UV catastrophe, but the IR catastrophe is swept under the rug.  With photons, the IR catastrophe is shielded by the charge neutrality of matter and of the universe, and if we set aside magnetic fields of possible galactic proportions.  

Gravitational fields are subject to no such shielding, despite best efforts of the sci-fi and fringe physics communities.  Theoretically, every elementary particle in the visible universe exerts an unshielded gravitational attraction on every other particle.  How else, for instance, would the solar system orbit the galaxy, and our galaxy orbit the Local Group?  

But you do see that this sets up an accounting nightmare for all those virtual gravitons.  And this is without getting into the Many Worlds Interpretation of every single quantum interaction.  

But, now, lets go back to the Big Bang and consider the problem of the primordial mini-blackholes.  This is where Enrico sent me around the bend, with his intimation of a primordial wormhole network.  


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

From: Dan
Date: October 11, 2013, 12:55:34 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Our Braney/Holey/Microcosmic world.....

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


The notion of a primordial quantum foam that includes an infinity of virtual wormholes, as it logically must, along with an infinity of quantum entanglements, does raise the problem of the IR catastrophe to a new and, I would claim, a qualitatively different level. I believe that this does contribute to the metaphysical grounding problem of physics. This, along with the Aether and the Tegmarkian postulations, including the landscape problem, especially, ought to be pushing the fringe physics community around the same bend.

I submit that the only way to solve the grounding problem is with a robust deployment of the concept of the microcosm...... as above, so below.

The grounding problem is best illustrated as the turtle problem, and the only way to solve the turtle problem is by invoking the notorious self-reference problem of logic. With self-reference, the grounding problem is turned into a Godelian tower problem. Which is worse?

Where else can we ground the tower problem than in the notion of a soul, and not just any old insectoidal soul, either. If we take self-reference seriously, then we must be referring to a sapient soul, whatever that might turn out to be.

What I'm suggesting is that the cosmic soul is just our primordial wormhole. We are the pearls on that string. Everything else is just........ background staging...... smoke and mirrors......


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

10-15

Quantitative infinity is a sublimation of the transcendental dimension.  

Don't forget about souls and coherence.  Non-redundancy, integral theory.  personal Meaning.  

Mach's principle and the aether.   Aether and apeiron.  

Multiverse and aether.  How many aethers?  

MWI and a fixed number of parallel universes.   Can infinity be fixed, physically?  


Microcosm.... is it necessary?  Holistically, yes.  QM says yes.  Observable world.  Logos.

Can there be logic w/o a logos?  Language must be finite.  

Primordial wormholes >> finitude.

Is not mathematics finite, taken symbolically or linguistically, if it is coherent.?  

It from bit......  finite bits.  How are they distinguishable?  How does context work?  

Is there a limit to the invention of words or ideas?  Are ideas mutually coherent?  

Universal translatability.  There is constructivism and intuitionism, etc.  

This is also related to the problem of private languages or mentalese.

Relationalism is the ontic control.   No part of reality can be relatively inaccessible.  

ANW is the primary opponent of finitude.  So was Newton.  How were they connected?  

Infinity is not observable, nor coherent nor comprehensible.  So there can be only one event horizon.  



10-14  >> BGF announcement

Are we all in the same boat?  

Is religion due for an update, wrt our existential crisis?  

Does our existential crisis point to a new world order?  

Dan Smith will be speaking at the Baltimore Green Forum on Sunday, Nov. 24, 4-5:30, at the Maryland Presbyterian Church, 1105 Providence Rd, Towson.  

http://www.baltimoregreenforum.org/


10-13-13

Is it a small world after all?   SWH/BPWH.......

1.)  ETH v. UTH

2.)  CohTT v. CorTT

3.)  IR catastrophe

4.)  Anthropics v. Rare Earth

5.)  Holographics

6.)  BPWH

7.)  Observer problem

8.)  Theism / co-creation

9.)  Small is beautiful

10.)  CTC

11.)  Panpsychism / entanglement

12.)  Einstein .... did God have a choice?  

13.)  Informationalism  - contextuality - Quine

14.)  It from bit, or is it itsy-bitsy?  All info is coherent.  

15.)  finite mathematics..... infinity plays a qualitative role.


Finitude and the Greens?  
--------------------------
(sent to Paul @ 4:30 ------)


Aether and finitude?  May have to do with Mach and the night sky.

10-16

Mathematical infinity is used merely to add coherence to the rest of the subject, as a limiting concept.

Infinity plays the role of God in math.

Every number is a microcosm, reflecting every other number.

What is the mathematical aether? Linguistic aether? Holism.... Logos..... Relationalism, contextuality. Is there a computer aether? Ratio or human Cs holds computation together, otherwise it is just random jabbering. Colony of robots?

Without a sense of self-identity, what is there? Nothing there, there.

Mathematicians take numbers personally. Can people exist w/o numbers? Society cannot, so neither can people.

The uCs is our aether..... the ground of being. What is the uCs of the logos?

It is like the universal grammar. Archetypes.

Establishing the finitude of reality would not obviously prove the SWH. Would it be a step in the right direction? Next step?

Can we also eliminate the multiverse? Yes, that would be next. Unobservable worlds? Ontic v. epistemic. They come together only under the rubric of theism.


---------------
10-15 at 4:30

There can only be one event horizon, and it must accessible wrt our CTC .

Can we make the event horizon smaller than the Milky Way or the solar system?

It could be done consistently with a conformal mapping.

Materialism is incoherent.  Can its replacement be partially coherent?  Either the world is an accident or not.  If not, then it must be self-contained.  

There can be no independent selves, i.e. no egos.  Sapience is strictly social.

Unobservable world?  Wasn't ours, up until sapience arose?  Does not mere sentience constitute observability?  

If sapience were removed, what would be the ontological status of the world?  

Relationalism rules out isolated worlds, as with egos.  

Can animals not partake of eternity?  If not, of what is their being?  It is of a totemic sort.  

Animals do not know when or where they are.  But do we?  Yes, in relation to an alpha and omega.  

What if other, isolated sapience did exist?  Would it destroy the coherence?  Quite possibly.  This is a partial explanation for the prevalence of the ETH myth, i.e. if they did exist, we would necessarily communicate.  

This logic may be related to the logic of time travel.  Existence requires coordination, lest inconsistencies arise.  Sapience cannot be isolated.  Castaways?  

This principle accounts for the limitations of AI.  


-----------
10-16 at 2:50

Omniscience is the name of this game..... epistemic >> ontic.  Another way to state relationalism.  

All relations are internal.  They are felt meanings.  Quantity comes from quality.  The psychology of time and the present moment is a case in point.  Past and future are strictly qualitative ideas.  Similar claims refer to space and personal identity.

10-17 at 4:10

Sapience is nothing if not teleological wrt omniscience. It distinguishes sapience from sentience.

Existentialism implies as much, in its nihilistic refrain. Mathematics is another manifestation of the universality of sapience. So is morality or ethics, and philosophy, in general.

Information is notoriously non-localizable and contextual. The information implosion is another necessity, on this view. So is the CTC, for that matter.

These relate to the idea of the microcosm. Anthropics, itself, is also related.

How long before we find an exo-planet with O2? It is expected to be possible within 25 yrs. What would I say about such detection? Would it be different from detecting planet, or even stars, for that matter? Big-bang? Rare Earth?

I have not pinpointed where may lie the evidence of the FWH, within conventional cosmology. Where is there any evidence of an intelligent filter wrt Tegmark's Meinongian/multiverse hypothesis?

Is it only a matter of aesthetics to distinguish FWH from the IWH/Multiverse? With only aesthetics to support the FWH, the physicists will be all too happy to hang on to their Multiverse, bless their hearts.

The universality of sapience is probably our best evidence for the FWH. How so? It indicates that minds are not world-bound, which lessens the need for other worlds. Ironically, our ability to conceive of alternate worlds is an argument against them.

The holism of mind, the unity of Cs, argues against the plurality of worlds.

Holism/microcosm argue against infinite worlds (IWH). An IW is acosmic.... there cannot be a microcosm. So the unity of mind argues for the microcosm and cosm.

A personal self is evidence for a cosmic self, i.e. a self-contained cosmos.

On the other side of this coin, the unnaturalness of the self argues against naturalism, which argues for a cosmic selection/filtration v. many worlds.

It is claimed by Wilzcek (2013) that the existence of independent parameters that are not anthropically significant is an argument against anthropics. My impression, however, is that the Standard Model is self-contained, so there is not any extraneous physics. It is all of one coherent bundle. Nonetheless, his conclusion about the cosmological import of axions seems to support anthropics. There is much ambivalence on these issues.

From: Dan
Date: October 19, 2013, 10:22:31 AM EDT
To: John H
Cc: ....CoF....
Subject: World's Top Problem is HUMANITY....... full stop....

CoF,

Come on folks, let's not have this be a CoD, confederacy of dunces........ what follows is with a partial nod to John T........

We could bomb ourselves almost back to a stone-age Adam&Eve, and within, say, ten (10) generations we would be right back to where we are today...... way overpopulated.  

The fact that we now have ~10^10 Adam&Eves is not really the problem, then, now is it?  

What, then, is so problematic about us, humans........?  

1.)  because we are too much like animals, or

2.)  because we are too little like animals?  

Come on folks, this should be a simple question........

My friend, soon to be visiting again, Craig, makes a Freudian slip of the tongue, when, below, he refers to 'pre-human technology'.  

Sorry, folks, ain't no such thing.........

So, here we are, once again, back to where we started......

We have met the enemy and he is us!  But who are we..... from whence do we come and whither do we go?  

It's just that simple, folks.  Ask yourselves this question, as if for the first time!  

We came from dust, and to dust we shall return........?  

Sustainability......?  My ass.........

From: Dick F
Date: October 16, 2013, 4:06:29 PM EDT
To: Dan
Cc: .........
Subject: Re: Dan Smith from Dick Farley, re Dan's comments about "violence" (Pandolfi,...


Dan,

This is why I was and remain reluctant to engage in discussions of personal belief systems, because your tendency is to react immediately to what you perceive rather than putting an informal conversation into a broader context.

I stand by what I've written to and about you, and remain concerned as noted. And it would be unsurprising to me for you to lash out to deflect the focus to my "deeper personal beliefs," of which you seem to be more discerning that am I.

As I've reiterated, Dan, to me "beliefs" mark a cessation of learning, a shifting from inquiring to defending.

When it comes to matters under discussion, other than psychiatric acuity, in my cultural faith tradition we're characterized as "Reformed, always reforming," and wherever I happen to be on the arc of study and growth, trending toward understanding of at least how my consciousness respond to what at any time I've learned, is hardly the stuff of "sticking a fork in it," and being done.

Your circuitous travels, evidenced by the links to your own blogs that I included in my PRIVATE email to folks who know and, in some cases I know hold concerns about you and your well being, suggest that you may be "stuck," Dan.

Why that may be and how it affects you and your life, happiness and peace of mind is your affair. But when mention is made of "official" transgressions or potential "violence," the danger signs ought not be ignored.

My intention in my communication is clearly stated, Dan. The issues are not about me, but about yourself.

Regards,

Dick

In a message dated 10/16/2013 3:55:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dan writes:

Dick,  

It does seem that your 'matrix of belief' eclecticism goes right out the window, when confronted with something that does not conform to your deeper personal beliefs.  You splash your holy water with more gusto than a toddler in a wading pool.  

Disappointing.


On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Dick wrote:


Not intended for publication or public posting, please. [Hey, Dick, give us a break!]  

To: Dan

From: Dick

cc'd and bcc'd (variously)

Dan,

In our tel/con the evening of Sunday, Oct. 13, a couple of things you shared with me certainly gave me pause, while generating concern for your personal well-being and balance. Specifically, the comments you made in conversation... about Ron Pandolfi and your lengthy relationship with him as your "handler."

By copying the good folks listed, perhaps this might turn into an "intervention" to help you redirect.

Acknowledging that your personal history with known government (intelligence) operators is well known (i.e., Dale Graff, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, and of course, Ron Pandolfi), and that in all of these cases said folks have been involved to various degrees with anomalous phenomena -- at the very least with public perception and ruminations within the various so-called "fields of research" attendant to them -- there is precedent for your admitted mental health issues and at least part of their "etiology" arising from nefarious intentions.

Whether these are attendant to any direct actions or "targeted" information (designed or intended to cause disruptions or exacerbate your mental illness for some "operational" or "disinformational" purposes) is above my proverbial pay grade and certainly my formal training. But that your interactions with these people haven't helped your mental health is quite obvious, besides your repeated personal statements about their impacts on you and your life. My acquaintance with you, personally off and on for twenty years, prompts this email.

We've discussed the apparent similarity of your situation to that of Paul Bennewitz and what seems, from the published and online "admissions" by other known intelligence operatives (of the USAF, DIA, et al.) to be the "targeting" of Mr. Bennewitz, contributing to deterioration of his mental health such that he required his admission to a mental health hospital for acute breakdown of his stability and overall ability to function.

Following his hospitalization and treatment, Bennewitz's family insulated him from "UFOlogy" and people who had (again, by their own asserted admission of their guilt since then) targeted and manipulated what      Bennewitz "believed he knew" and was doing, said targeting reportedly aimed at disinformation to protect "Air Force secrets" of technologies reputedly under development at Kirtland AFB, in the Phillips Laboratory.

Former AFOSI special agent Richard Doty and others, including William Moore, have spoken often and at length in alleged detail about their intentions to destabilize Paul Bennewitz. Why these people escaped a      prosecution or, at best, official sanctioning by their respective sponsoring agencies, remains THE mystery.

Dan, when you made reference in answer to my inquiry about "Whether you (Dan) believe Ron is responsible for your mental problems," you responded: "Well, he would be were I to do anything violent," my radar as both a journalist and a human being went on, especially given recent events where mental patients who at the time apparently were not receiving adequate professional supervision "went off" and acted out violently.

The risk to you of your doing violence or harm, to yourself or others, ought not be ignored or diminished, let alone made fun of (as has been happening in your persistent engagements with others of our acquaintance) or "teased" if what you're seeking is understanding and context of: "Who am I?" and "What is my purpose here (on Earth)?" as you've expressed is among your principal concerns.

That you acknowledged to me, the other evening in response to my inquiry, that you've announced to your church (Grace Fellowship Church?) your contention and belief, as you stated, that: "I am God" and that you are present on Earth as "The Eschaton," i.e., to be involved in some kind of "CIA-driven" consciousness or Revelatory drama designed to promote a "planetary awakening" is cause for concern about your well being.

You said that after your personal declaration of divinity to your church, they suggested that you "see a psychiatrist," and your response to me that you have, indeed, sought such professional help (from two psychiatrists), is sufficient -- if what you've said is true -- for you to reconsider your involvement with Ron in whatever capacity you believe, or have been led or allowed to believe, he has continued your "friendship."

To the point of my concern about you, Dan, and your perspective and balance, I was somewhat shocked that you said you were unaware of the book by writer Nick Redfern in which you are mentioned and quoted about "End Times," said book titled: "Final Events: And the Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOs and the Afterlife," published by Dennis Stacey's Anomalist Press in 2010 (ISBN 978-1-933665-48-1), and is available.

Whatever Redfern's purpose in doing this book, and we surmise he's either exploiting or servicing what in the past I termed the "Matrix of UFO Beliefs" (which itemizes variant beliefs and belief systems centered on the so-called "UFO" issue), this particular product does a unique service in summarizing and describing many of the "Eschatological" concerns allegedly held by competing "elites" inside and outside of government.

Independently, from our work with Laurance Rockefeller's first "UFO Disclosure Initiative" to the Clinton White House, our association with C. B. "Scott" Jones, Jr., Senator Pell, HRH Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein, and direct conversations via email and/or in person with Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green, Ron Pandolfi, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, Dr. Jacques Vallee, Dr. John Alexander and others, we have a relatively comprehensive "feel" for the richness of the field of so-called "UFOlogy," as well as its religious and political impacts on same.

Redfern's book is probably the best "survey course" in the religious or spiritual aspects of UFO beliefs and belief systems, whether as these have been promulgated by admitted "government" operatives or have just bubbled up in the public's consciousness in response to sustained marketing of anomalous explanations by people inside and outside of the (U.S.) government, in some cases attendant to counterintelligence efforts.

In the book I've referenced, Redfern reports on the assertions of an "Anglican priest" named Ray Boeche about a so-called "Collins Elite," which he contends is a quasi-government collective of "high officials" who believe the claimed "extra-terrestrial" presence attendant to UFOs (as broadly defined) are "demonic" and playing out a Grand Deception, which the reputed Collins Elite believe is targeting Christianity, primarily.

Personally, whether this is yet another example of Nick's taking one of our "Matrix of UFO Beliefs" elements and putting some of The Truth "Out There," mixed with sufficient silliness or extremes to deflect serious interest, I can't and won't speculate. We do know that some of the materials Nick cites were created for purposes more in line with disinformation, especially given their timing (concurrent with HPF's Rockefeller initiative), perhaps to suggest or instill "fear" in the religious demographic cohorts which follow UFOlogy.

Why you were "targeted" (early on, per your and Ms. Guiley's acknowledgement, by Dale Graff) we might surmise from another relatively thorough public airing of these topics, Jim Schnabel's "Remote Viewers," with which I assume you are familiar. Graff's work, with USAF and later with DIA, documents a thread of interest on the part of his former agencies which continues to run throughout UFOlogy today, as is readily      shown.

Evidence of this arises from suspected "quasi-official" DIA (or contractor) activities of a new UFO group, an operation directed by a self-described veteran counterintelligence and special operations professional, who of course may be impacting UFOlogy in a personal effort to "reform" its focus and methodology. Or not. Be it a "hobby" for its director, Antonio Paris, and his DIA colleagues helping with the organization, it's notable, especially when their investigations may involved claims of alleged "alien abductions" or "contactee" cases.
http://aerial-phenomenon.org/  Given Dale Graff's publicly admitted involvements, Paris merits our study.

As an aside, Dr. Peter Resta, long a quiet fixture in UFO scholarship, engages in counseling at a Christian center not far from your home base, Dan. Perhaps you might seek advice from Peter about how you may best reconcile your beliefs, about yourself and eschatology, with your involvement with Ron and UFOlogy?

Peter's upcoming "Mysteries of Space and Sky" conference, in Gambrills, MD, on Saturday, Oct. 26, may be an opportunity for you to engage with Peter, or Dr. David Jacobs for that matter, who will be presenting.
http://aerial-phenomenon.org/aerial-phenomena-set-to-speak-at-mysteries-of-sky-and-space/  and at this link,
https://mssx.eventbrite.com/ . As I plan to attend this, perhaps we can discuss these matters in person?

Meanwhile, another contextual book is Gordon Thomas's "Journey Into Madness," which documents a CIA effort at so-called "mind control," said project running through Allen Memorial Institute in Canada, and about which a court case and reported settlement disclosed salient facts which the agency has in the past taken pains to minimize, as one might expect. The "ancient history" of the agency, under Gottlieb, et al., is problematic. Thomas also provides the most throrough survey of IC efforts, at least through the late 1980s.

Hence, your assertion that Ron Pandolfi is in some "official capacity" your handler or otherwise engaging in behaviors toward you which YOU believe are contributing to your psychiatric issues, is problematic for Ron, if not his agency should, as you contend, Pandolfi's efforts be sanctioned as part of his professional duties.

First, Dan, as I suggested to you, you may wish to obtain a copy of Nick Redfern's book as noted above, so you may review "your" quotes in the context of Redfern's broader effort, which ought to help you realize that, if Redfern's survey of alleged government-related "eschatological concerns" is even remotely accurate, then you (Dan) are part and parcel of a broader operation, and thus your mental condition is THEIR responsibility.

If you do harm to yourself or to others, as you implied is among your personal concerns, it's problematic in the aftermath of whatever you might do, to yourself or others, especially if you do not seek professional      help.

Secondly, if you insist on your individualized pursuit of being "The Eschaton" or, as you put it, "God," then putting your personal imbalances in context might be helpful to you. For this, the writing and scholarship of Dr. Michael Heiser might be helpful to you, rather than Ron Pandolfi and his "merry prankster" playfulness in tweaking your illness, as you allege he is doing. Heiser has written extensively about "UFO demonology."

Nick Redfern cites Heiser's work, as did I to you in a recent conversation, particularly his "The Facade," a fictionalized account of experiences similar to what you apparently believe is your "role" in what's going on.

Redfern's book is a good place for you, and any psychiatric professional from whom you might (and should) seek help, Dan, as Nick does a good job of providing a "vocabulary" of terminology and personalities who've considered this field. As with his other books (i.e., about Roswell's being "something else"), Nick does an excellent job of rendering the opaque readable and open to rational consideration, quibbles over detail aside.

Also as Redfern mentions, there is considerable evidence -- some of which we've encountered first-hand in the past two decades of our involvement and investigations -- of government-related, political and religious involvement in the "ET/UFO" belief system which surmises the claimed "ETs" are actually "demonic" and bear hostile intent toward humanity. Whether a "Collins Elite" exists, and Nick allows for ambiguity over details and specificity, we know first-hand that such concerns do exist within and outside of government.

Author Jeff Sharlet's amazing investigative report, "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," provides a likely context where a Collins Elite type of operational wing might reside, as well as in the upper reaches of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and other religious organizations, respectively.
http://jeffsharlet.com/   (Jeff's book is recommended reading for those copied on this email, as well.)

Redfern mentions Nelson Pacheco and Tommy Blann, who issued their book, "Unmasking the Enemy: Visions Around the World and Global Deception In the End Times," at about the same time Laurance Rockefeller was approaching the Clinton White House on these matters, an initiative in which Laurance attempted to recruit his friend, Dr. Billy Graham, as a signatory to a letter to the then-president promoting "UFO disclosure." (Whether Nelson and Tommy were "serious," as they seemed to be, is questionable, but giving benefit of the doubt, I'm copying Nelson on this, as he's always come across to me as ethical and quite dedicated to shining "light" on these issues.)

Redfern himself allows for speculation whether the Collins Elite, and other portrayals of "ETs" as demonic, reflected serious concerns, firmly believed, or were yet another "design for doubt" to sow fear of      disclosure of Non-Human Intelligences interacting with Earth culture, maintaining it in an intellectual and political Limbo.

Pandolfi was, at the time, apparently tasked by his agency to contravene or otherwise deflect Laurance's effort, which initially included considerations of the broader belief-systems held by cohorts of our population and which we contended had to be respected if and when the President were to "disclose" some kind of "ET reality" and past visitations. If as you contend Ron is part and parcel of some "religious"      movement within the IC, whether sanctioned or otherwise "un-official," this would not give him license to "Bennewitz" you, Dan.

During the initial Rockefeller and HPF approach to the White House OSTP (Dr. Jack Gibbons), Ron's first thought was to snag Bruce Maccabee and have one of his "retail UFOlogy" reports sent over to the White House (OSTP) but Scott Jones and Laurance Rockefeller beat Ron's effort into the venue and our "Matrix of UFO Beliefs" and accompanying bibliography made it into the public record, where it yet resides. We took this to be Ron's planting of a "document" which he, FUFOR and others could float to redirect "theatrics."

Your assertion about Pandolfi's being Roman Catholic and "visiting the Pope (Benedict XVI)" -- while notable and interesting, if true -- is no doubt out of context, Dan, given your confusion and lack of awareness of the broader "eschatological" elements of what I've termed retail UFOlogy. Perhaps you've been hanging around agnostic or atheistic physicists too long, but broadening your awareness might help your mental state so you do not feel either "singularly important" or a victim of some "CIA operation" using you as The Eschaton.

Of course, your ongoing involvement with Pandolfi and his wife, centered on a "drone development" project ostensibily to assist in protecting the endangered snow leopard in "Princess Aliyah's" Kashmiri homeland, raises other questions about your supposed "concerns" about Ron and your perceptions of his "using" you.

Likewise your expressed concerns or questions about Ron's "Islamic sympathies," eschatologically. It's all quite murky and "weird," Dan. And whether by design or primarily in your own mind, please seek clarification and professional assistance in sorting all of this out, so that you might find personal peace and comfort.

In any event, Dan, obtain and read Nick Redfern's book, which will provide you with a context and contacts of whom you might avail yourself in "depressurizing" your personal obsession with having some kind of unique, "ordained" role to play in transforming the planet. Nick's inclusion of your reputed beliefs have made you into a "public figure" and, should you have an acute episode as you postulated, propels your case to notoriety.

As with the proverbial Noah in the Old Testament, you've been swallowed up into the "belly of the UFOlogical whale," and finding your way out and through, with whatever professional help and healing are necessary to restore your balance and productivity, ought to be high on your agenda, as well as Ron's and (others'), too.

Finally, should you harm yourself or others, Dan, if your mental condition deteriorates or becomes more acutely prone to your taking some kind of action, whether "acting out" or as a "cry for attention or help," all of this goes immediately "on the record," with full sharing of our data and references with law enforcement and other oversight entities with whom we've remained in contact, both on the record and on background.

The intelligence community, especially during the Cold War and along the fringes of consensus reality and politics, has a troubling history of leaving "psychiatric road kill" for society at large to assist or clean up. In my online and professional endeavors, I've come across present and past IC professionals who take a dim view of such ethical deficiencies for which they have contended to us there are efforts ongoing to remedy.

It is our fervent hope, Dan, that those who may have contributed to your present personal "tribulation" will step up and step in, with you or your family, to ensure that you receive the help and support you obviously deserve. At the very least, these "friends" who both pull you and push you away will reconsider such odd and unhelpful behaviors toward you, allowing you to find your way out of their "maze," toward happier living.

I urge you to seek effective professional help, Dan, and then follow whatever advice you're given, while letting your family or friends help you regain balance and personal productivity befitting your talents and interests.

Specifically, should you desire to take action:

Politically and "religiously," if you perceive or believe that a serving officer in the intelligence community is messing with you and your faith, for nefarious purposes or merely to destabilize and torment you personally for whatever psychologically sadistic reasons, please consult an attorney or one of these organizations and explain how your psychological state (perhaps) has been adversely impacted by government machinations.

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein/

https://www.aclu.org/

https://www.au.org/

Of course, if you intend to pursue any official allegations against your "friend," Ron Pandolfi, you could bring your case and its demonstrable public record to the attention of the Office of the Inspector General at one of the following agencies. I suggest you retain an attorney to represent you, given your psychological stresses as YOU have characterized them, to me and to others. Advised by your psychiatrist, you'd have a "team."

https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/leadership/inspector-general   (The "IG/IC" is: Charles McCullough, III)

However, and finally, Dan... the intelligence community is comprised of literally hundreds of thousands of people who wake up every day and go in to work pursuing collaborative effort to keep America and us, its citizens, safe and secure, while life guarding our national interests. They are constrained by secrecy as well as their internal ethical safeguards, which rely primarily on their individual character for integrity and justice.

The nature of their necessary secret efforts allows for excesses, improprieties, criminal behavior and outright betrayal in extreme cases, so the "bar" for holding high-ranking officers such as Ron Pandolfi "accountable" is of necessity set very high. His entire career, no doubt an honorable one, will be juxtaposed against your allegations about him in the context of your online and public persona, history and personal effectiveness.

You may find useful for your thinking the message former DCI Leon Panetta sent to his agency personnel when one of the various, seemingly incessant investigations produced some (inherently rare) publicized results. My personal hope is that you will seek and receive the help  you seem to be requesting via your recycled "theological arguments" centering on whether you, PERSONALLY, are either "God" or "Eschaton."

Frankly, as a cultural Presbyterian and independent scholar of belief systems and their political impulses, my sense is that BOTH of those jobs are presently filled, at least for the majority of Earth's believers, regardless of theology or tribal affiliations.

To help make a "Best Possible World," you might wish to think about involving your considerable energy and insightful talents with efforts "larger than yourself," as from my wanderings around this planet there seem to be many who could benefit from a helping, healing hand via organizations desperate for dedicated volunteers.

In closing, here's a brief story for you.

There is a (perhaps apocryphal) "urban legend" about a new psychiatrist at a major medical center who is consulted by nurses on the "Psych" floor about a patient who believed himself to be Jesus.

The patient was reclusive, withdrawn and would not participate in the "groups" or counseling sessions his treatment team were prescribing. He was not violent or aggressive, but contemplative and morose, an obviously lonely man who had yet to find a place in society where he was valued, safe and welcomed.

The psychiatrist one day walked by the nurses station, where staff were busy struggling to assemble some new shelving, and they had boards and fittings and directions strewn all over the place, buzzing as they tried to figure out how to build the shelves.

This gave the doctor an idea, and he asked for and then sought the man who believed himself to be Jesus.

Finding him sitting peacefully in the day room, looking out the window, the doctor approached him quietly and said: "They say you are a carpenter. We could use your help with something, would you mind trying?"

Stunned by the doctor's request, the man nevertheless nodded wordlessly, got up and went with the doc to the nurses station, where the psychiatrist told the nursing staff, "He said he would help us."

And without as much as a word, the man who believed himself to be Jesus set right to work, carefully and deliberately putting the shelving units together, to the delight of the already too busy nurses, who smilingly returned to their duties.

The "rest of the story" is that the man eventually opened up, and in counseling he finally admitted to the psychiatrist that he knew he really was not Jesus, but that he was seeking safety and direction in his life, which he believed "being Jesus" might provide. Rather than BEING "God," have you tried LISTENING for the whispers by which God is rumored to provide comfort, guidance and help? His Son, whom you profess to e your personal Lord and Savior, likewise has given a rather detailed "Instruction Manual," as I'm sure you're well aware. If you accept "on Faith" that you have been born again, perhaps it's time to grow past what is a rather adolescent possessiveness of what you believe is your "calling," and get with the Jesus program?

Dan, a psychiatric nurse of my long acquaintance told me that story, in which the psychiatrist took a chance and violated one of the "psych industry's" rules, that being: "Never enter THEIR worlds," speaking about the folks who struggle to live in their own mental jungles, afflicted with brain pathologies and behavioral injuries.

As with Paul Bennewitz, another victim of inappropriate manipulation of a U.S. citizen by a serving officer of our government, which inflicted measurable psychiatric damage on an innocent but unstable, brilliant man, any "messing with your mind" by Pandolfi or others employed or contracted by "the government" would be a crime, plainly and simply.

Your contentions and allegations directed at Ron, if taken seriously, could cause him considerable professional and personal damage, a real tragedy for him if what you say is false or is a product of a disordered mind.

That you are a "willing participant" or, like a battered spouse, may "enjoy" or even seek such masochistic outcomes by obviously sadistic insensitivity and "bullying," does not excuse them or any agency's letting them go on, whether officially or otherwise.

As "their employers," we as citizens (and this particularly includes your "friends," Dan) must hold people who carry the national trust to the highest account. Character is what one does when nobody is looking!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/24/raw-data-panetta-letter-cia-staff-release-interrogation-report/

With my regards, and most respectfully...

Dick Farley CloudRider@aol.com
Washington, DC USA

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/blogfather/2006/05/20/8317-former-cousteau-staffer-joins-cape-cod-today



cc: Ron Pandolfi
     Kit Green
     John Alexander
     Jacques Vallee
     Rosemary Ellen Guiley
     Hal Puthoff
     Dale Graff
     Nick Redfern
     Scott Jones  
     Michael Heiser
     Nelson Pacheco  (redacted)

References:

http://www.amazon.com/EVENTS-Secret-Government-Demonic-Afterlife/dp/1933665483

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhHNEg-QHdk  (Redfern's presentation on "Final Events")

http://www.nickredfern.com/            

Demonology Meets UFOlogy, "Battles with the Air Force & Christians In Action" --

http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/to-be-merged/unmasking  (Unmasking the Enemy, Pacheco & Blann)

http://www.betterworldbooks.com/unmasking-the-enemy-id-1885152019.aspx

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/  (Dr. Michael Heiser's -- Note, "The Facade" still available.)

Witches in saucers? "Modern day 'brooms' going BUMP! in the night?"

http://www.dalegraff.com/        ( http://www.dalegraff.com/contact.htm )

http://peaceroom.com/  (Scott Jones)

If there IS a "Collins Elite," here is their alleged National Command Authority (and political cadre?) --

http://jeffsharlet.com/

http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/0060560053

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet  ("Family" members embroiled in sex scandals, etc.)

Dan Smith's "Epistles and Exigesis, Hermeneutics for The Eschaton"

http://www.bestpossibleworld.org/nexu59.htm

http://www.bestpossibleworld.org/index06.htm

http://www.bestpossibleworld.org/nexu05.htm  (8/29/02) Dan's Messianic Legacy (How to save the world)

Political military-intelligence complex:

Church and State, Christian Pentagon, Boykin, and divided military, administration (Bush) and NGOs --

https://www.au.org/church-state/december-2003-church-state/people-events/controversial-general-stays-in-pentagon-post

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InfiltratingTheUSMilitaryGenBoykinsWarriors.html

From: Ronald P
Date: October 16, 2013, 3:16:05 PM EDT
To: Dan Smith
Cc: Princess A, Sam B H  
Subject: Fwd: Dan Smith from Dick Farley, re Dan's comments about "violence" (Pandolfi, CIA?)

Dan,

Despite appearing to be reasonably well grounded in reality while interacting with us or participating on the radio show, the attached e-mail from Dick Farley suggests you are still expressing your fabricated and seemingly insane stories to others.  You need to correct the many false statements below, in writing, before you can continue participating with us in reality.

V/r,

Ron

From: Dan
Date: October 19, 2013, 1:48:19 PM EDT
To: Craig Dilworth
Cc: .... CoF........
Subject: Re: World's Top Problem is HUMANITY....... full stop....

Craig,

You claim to have the answer as to the nature of the human problem.  

But you dodge my question........ are we too much like animals or too little like animals?  

Yes, this is a normative issue, and, you, qua technician, refuse to address any normative issues.  

You do respect your professional boundaries, leaving us, humans, as you acknowledge with all possible alacrity, in the lurch.  Is your innocence blissful?  

But I ask you this, Craig, is it truly and epistemically possible to separate the 'is' from the 'ought', especially in the context of an existential crisis?  

No, Craig, in your academically immaculate posture, you fail to answer the one truly human existential question....... Who are we, from whence do we come and whither do we go?  

Well, your excruciatingly, obviously implied answer is....... from dust we came and to dust we shall return.  

Hey, Craig, you may be right!  At least you are more honest than the CoF's sustainability team, and that is no mean feat of science!  

But tell us this, from your scientific vantage, do you or any of you colleagues have the slightest clue about the source of human intelligence?  

If not, then, by what stretch can you claim to have a clue about our existential crisis?  

Just wondering.........



On Oct 19, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Craig Dilworth wrote:

Dan.

What is so problematic about us humans?: We're too much like other animals in following our instincts/natural drives, while at the same time we are much more technologically intelligent than other animals. I thought I had made that clear.

Concerning pre-humans use of technology, I was referring to Australopithicenes and their descendants up to but not including Homo habilis, as I take up in Too Smart, pp. 172-183. They were pre-human tool-using hominids, so I didn't make a slip. And even if I had, what would have been Freudian about it?

I think the vicious circle principle provides a concise, comprehensive and correct answer to your question as to what is problematic about us humans.

All the best,

Craig

My response to Craig, below, from off the list........ [bcc to Craig]

>>  All I try to do in Too Smart is provide a scientific theory of how we got where we are. <<

This is just my point..... can science actually tell us how we got here?  

You have no choice but to commit the naturalistic fallacy, given that you are a naturalist.  Where is the harm in that........?

1.)  Naturalism, as you tire of honestly reminding us, provides no solution to the human predicament, other than to continue observing it, as it does with the rest of nature.  

2.)  This leaves us with two choices........

A.)  In this solution, we treat the human predicament as a technological problem, to be dealt with as we technologically deal with the rest of nature.  (most of CoF)

B.)  Or, we treat the human predicament as a personal moral issue (- John T).  

Well, yes, there is a third alternative.........

C.)  We attempt to combine #A and #B, using motivational or subliminal psychology through the mass media, such as with condom placements in soap operas, internationally.  

Nonetheless, most in the CoF would concur that, given the seriousness of our Overshoot, #C is very unlikely to suffice.  

Furthermore, no one in the CoF, possibly excepting Jack Alpert, sees #A as politically practicable...... it is barely practicable even within an (enlightened?) monolithic regime, such as in China.  

This puts us back to John's #B........  a personal appeal.......  

Why has John had so much difficulty within the CoF?  It is simply because all of 'us' naturalists in the CoF are either skeptical of, or mystified by, persons.  Hey, nothing wrong with that, I am, too!

The upshot is that #B is discounted from the git-go.  But can we, desperate that we are, afford to turn up our noses at John's #B?  

Here, then, is the deal wrt persons.......

1.)  Persons, supposing that they exist, are, by definition, self-determining, in which case we are something quite unnatural.  

Naturalism can only tell us how to deal with the human species under the supposition that we are objects to be manipulated in a stimulus-response manner.  However, even naturalists have difficulty dismissing self-determination as a mere illusion.  Very few others do deny their own selves.  This leaves us in a bind.......

The only road left untravelled takes us back into a premodern realm.  What business have we there, other than sheer desperation?  Do we have anything of value to bring back with us from our close encounter with a seeming apocalypse?  


From: Craig Dilworth
Date: October 20, 2013, 6:28:32 AM EDT
To: Dan
Cc: Sam H
Subject: Re: World's Top Problem is HUMANITY....... full stop....

Dan,

Thanks for your latest contribution. I'm afraid I don't have answers to your various questions. All I try to do in Too Smart is provide a scientific theory of how we got where we are. Of course I'm existentially involved in the whole issue, otherwise I wouldn't have devoted so much time to working on it.

Perhaps we can continue this discussion face-to-face when I visit Baltimore in Dec?

All the best,

Craig

From: Dan
Date: October 21, 2013, 12:45:32 PM EDT
To: Steven Earl Salmony
Cc: .............
Subject: Re: World's Top Problem is HUMANITY....... full stop....

My response to Craig, below, from off the list........

Craig states, below.......

>> All I try to do in Too Smart is provide a scientific theory of how we got where we are. <<

This is just my point..... can science actually tell us how we got here? And this is by way of contesting the penultimate conclusion of his book.......

>>> ..... it is most unlikely that any of the radical changes to society and the economy proposed by environmentalists - especially changes in philosophies or worldviews - will be adapted in time. <<<

Barring a MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts, Craig delivers his ultimate conclusion.......

>>> Consequently human civilization - primarily Western techno-industrial urban society - will self-destruct, producing massive environmental damage, social chaos and megadeath. <<<

Yes, Craig has, without mincing his words, presented us with the only alternative to megadeath.....

..... the MoAPS.

This is exactly what I have been trying to bring home to the CoF.

From: Dan
Date: October 22, 2013, 9:38:46 AM EDT
To: Princess Aliyah
Subject: Re: Statement of the Truth

Princess,  

What is truth......?  as Jesus was famously asked by Pontius Pilate, on his way to being crucified.

The blog post to which you most probably refer was Dick Farley's rant about a lengthy phone conversation that he and I had, late one evening.  

In that conversation, I simply pointed out to him that some folks may wish to draw parallels between Paul B's interactions with the Aviary, and my own.  I have never stated that I, myself, have taken such parallels seriously.  

Almost everyone to whom I have suggested that I might be Jesus has, TBMK, assumed that I must be insane, with the possible exceptions of you, Ron and sometimes Sam.  Frequently, I volunteer that I was proximately provoked to this hypothesis by the 'Sunfish' remark made by Ron, back ~1993.  But I have never afforded to him a full responsibility.  

Then there was the time (~1997) that I volunteered to land a plane on the White House lawn.  This was partly in hypothetical compliance with the example set by my Avian colleague, AF Sgt Robert Collins, who, at the instigation of two other Aviary members, Rick Doty and Bill Moore, the same two involved with Paul B, positioned himself inside the second security perimeter of the Manzano Weapons Storage Facility, for the expressed purpose of a meet-up with President Reagan.  

This story was relayed to me by Ron, and I may have been the first one to blog about it.  Ron went on to explain that this incident was what first brought the Aviary to the attention of official Washington.  Was that a bad thing?  Nothing that Ron said or that I inferred caused me to consider this incident to have been wasted.  Bob was, and still is, a member in good standing of the erstwhile(?) Aviary.  

These were the facts that I relayed to Dick, the other evening.  He made the not totally irrational choice to conclude that I was insane and that I was being manipulated by a branch of the USG.  

Dick emailed his rant to several dozen of his government and former government acquaintances.  Following my usual protocol, I posted his complete remarks to the web.  The one piece of advice that I take most to heart was Ron's early admonition to me....... come hell or high water, Dan, maintain your protocol.  

If there now exists a cogent reason for me to drop my protocol, I am open to receiving that new information.  

I trust that this (partial) explanation will comply with your request.  

Yours in service,

Dan


On Oct 21, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Aliyah Pandolfi wrote:

Hi Dan,

It appears you have not had a chance to retract the false information you posted in your blog. I would appreciate if you could do so before you come to co-host the show tomorrow.

Thank you,

Aliyah Pandolfi

Sent from my iPhone

From: Dan
Date: October 22, 2013, 12:12:02 PM EDT
To: Ronald Pandolfi
Cc: Princess Aliyah
Subject: Re: Dan Smith from Dick Farley, re Dan's comments about "violence" (Pandolfi, CIA?)

Ron,

The fantasy to which you refer is entirely that of Dick Farley.  I have never claimed to share that fantasy.  Are there any others out there who might share Dick's not entirely irrational hypothesis? There probably are such individuals.  

Would it thereby be unethical for you to continue any association with me?  

Evidently, Dick has concluded that your association with me has, indeed, been unethical, from the git-go.  I do not share that belief, nor, I presume, do you.  

Do I also presume that the Princess' and my efforts to 'improve' and/or save the world are futile and have no sanction from God and/or the USG?  I prefer not to believe that.  

Dan



On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Ronald Pandolfi wrote:

Dan,

Your response to Aliyah suggests you are still attempting to dance between reality and fantasy.  The reality is that you are a family friend with common interests in improving the world.  The fantasy is that you are a CIA agent under my control.  Farley was correct in pointing out that if you believe the fantasy, our continued involvement with you could be considered unethical.  Farley is not alone in having received this information.  You have provided similar descriptions of fantasy to close friends such as Sam, relatives such as Debbie, and professionals such as your Psychiatrist.  My sense is that when sober you are grounded in reality, but I could be wrong.  So my request  holds.  You cannot continue participating with us in reality unless you correct the many false statements in writing.

V/r,

Ron

From: Dan
Date: October 22, 2013, 3:43:32 PM EDT
To: Ronald Pandolfi
Subject: Your request.......

Ron,

I am not playing a game with the BPWH.

I am disappointed with your characterization to the contrary, much more so than I was with whatever may have been Dick's fantasy.

And I resent the implication, below, that I should perform as your script writer.



On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Ronald Pandolfi wrote:

Dan,

Among the mentally ill, there are many individuals who would believe the Farley hypothesis. That does not suggest it is "not entirely irrational."

To continue our association, you must recognize that there is one and only one correct hypothesis, that you are a family friend with common interests in improving the world. You must respond to Dick Farley and those on distribution with a clear statement to that effect, not cut and past my words into a response. This is not a game where you can dance between reality and fantasy. You have to make a choice between a path that is clear and real, or a path towards insanity.

V/r,

Ron