From: Dan Smith
Date: December 12, 2013, 9:58:44 AM EST
To: Princess Aliyah
Cc: Ronald and Bill L.
Subject: Re: Maniac and/or Messiah
Ultimately it is up to you, but I am inclined to forge ahead, with or without Jack. At this point, you and I owe nothing to Jack.
Yours and my timelines first need to be motivated, which is what we would do first, if you are willing to go ahead with the show on Tuesday. After that introduction, which could take most of the show, we could do flashbacks to our hearts' content.
The situation is that no one can help us or hold our hands, other than God/Sophia, herself. Them that knows can't talk, and them that can talk don't know.
Call me at your convenience. We do need to have our ground-rules and other parameters, in place.
On Dec 11, 2013, at 9:46 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
right - but remember I'm too busy until Jan 5 or so.
On Dec 11, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Ronald Pandolfi wrote:
In preparation for the show, please only cc those who are directly involved. Leave off the list the usual loons, crooks, and worse.
Jack is essential to the show. He delivers the key element that corresponds with your transition from physics to metaphysics, and he does it while moving himself closer to real physics and real answers to outstanding problems.
How Jack's book effects different people in different ways is a key element of understanding the Maniac and/or Messiah debate. It focuses on the process by which bright people separate their thinking from mainstream, and then forge in new directions. It gets a bit closer than we have yet in explaining we tolerate your insanity. Your separation from mainstream is what makes your views interesting, and it is what defines you as insane.
In the meantime, the Princess and I need to work on an outline for the show.........
First comes the question of whether or not the world actually needs to be saved. The jury is still out, on this one. The Princess and I may have to be both judge and jury, for the present. We welcome other input.
Even if there were to be a technological breakthrough of historical proportions, many would agree that technology alone cannot solve the world's problems, and, without a corresponding elevation of the human spirit, the new technology might only render our future more precarious than it already is.
For instance, the Princess has been very active in promoting the idea of maker-spaces, particularly in connection with the WCUAVC project, which is part of her Al Kareem foundation. But the new technologies that are driving the maker-space movement can also be used in ways that do not promote a healthy world.
The point is that the tremendous strides the we have been making in the material aspects of most of our lives, are not being matched in terms of our ability to get along with each other on our increasingly congested and polluted planet.
In the past, and up to the present time, in many nations, religions of many varieties have provided an essential component of the cohesive bonds that make up any complex social structure.
But, at the very same time, conflicting religious views are also contributing to the ethnic and sectarian clashes that have become so prevalent in many parts of the world.
Back in the time of the Enlightenment, most thoughtful people were hopeful that the rise of reason, particularly under the auspices of our rapidly expanding knowledge and advancing technology would pave the way for a Golden Age of peace and prosperity.
Well, after the horrors of the 20th century, those hopes have largely been replaced by a pervasive fear of our self-destruction, on a global scale. Many, still in the religious mode of thought, express these rising concerns in the biblical perspective of the apocalyptic Endtimes. Whilst those of a more secular persuasion are convinced that these apocalyptic preoccupations are likely to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Like all other human propensities, our spiritual sensibilities can be both a boon and a bane.
In my estimation, the crux of the matter comes down to the question of human exceptionalism. Are we or are we not exceptional beings, in the cosmic scheme?
I have recently had the opportunity of an extended discussion of this topic with Craig Dilworth, author of Too Smart. His view is one of unrelieved pessimism. We have finally managed to outsmart ourselves and we have no one to blame but our own exceptionality, within the natural scheme of things.
This may well be, and it is the prevailing view amongst our modern minded crew.
The existentialists suppose that life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe. And this is simply an amplification of the Darwinian view that the survival of the fittest is a purely ad-hoc process, with no guarantee wrt the future. Even the thought that evolution might somehow favor increasing complexity is subjective at its core.
And social Darwinism continues to rear its ugly head, most notably now in the form of Transhumanism.
Gary calls our attention to the following item........... http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/12/10/john_podesta_returns_to_the_white_house_will_discover_truth_about_aliens.html?wpisrc=burger_bar .
I'm in no position to pooh-pooh Podesta.