Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

And for the insane, or other wise, we present:

Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4206v4

Beatriz Gato, Beatriz Gato-Rivera
(Submitted on 23 Apr 2010 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2011 (this version, v4))
We introduce the `Complete Wave Function' and deduce that all living beings, not just Schroedinger's cat, are actually described by a superposition of `alive' and `dead' quantum states; otherwise they would never die. Therefore this proposal provides a quantum mechanical explanation to the world-wide observation that we all pass away. Next we consider the Measurement problem in the framework of M-theory. For this purpose, together with Schroedinger's cat we also place inside the box Rasputin's cat, which is unaffected by poison. We analyse the system identifying its excitations (catons and catinos) and we discuss its evolution: either to a classical fight or to a quantum entanglement. We also propose the BSVΨ scenario, which implements the Complete Wave Function as well as the Big Bang and the String Landscape in a very (super)natural way. Then we test the gravitational decoherence of the entangled system applying an experimental setting due to Galileo. We also discuss the Information Loss paradox. For this purpose we consider a massless black cat falling inside a massive black hole. After that we outline a method to compute the contribution of black cats to the dark matter of the universe. Finally, in the spirit of Schroedinger, we propose that next generation double-slit experiments should use cats as projectiles. Cat interferometry will inevitably lead to the `Many Cats' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, allowing to shed new light on old mysteries and paradoxes. For example, according to this interpretation, conservative estimates show that decision making of a single domestic cat will create about 550 billion whole universes every day, with as many replicas of itself.

Don't know much about philosophy........ but I know that one plus one......

So, yes, following Paul's promptings, I'm quite content to concede pride of place to Paremenides' One, as informed by Craig Dilworth's treatise on Simplicity.  

I mean what else is there.....?  What do they say about history..... a tale of sound and fury, as told by an idiot?  

Buddhists proclaim the void.  Parmenides likened the One to a void of all phenomena.  We also have, of course, the Noumenon and the Brahman.

But there has a big difference...... with Buddhists the cosmic glass was half empty..... with Parmenides the glass was overflowing.  

That slight distinction made all the difference......  Jesus took that distinction, and ran with it.  And the rest, as they say,.........

Was Jesus a philsopher?  Thank goodnes, not.  Paul.....?  Well, he was determined to beg, borrow and steal his way to a martyrdom in Rome, bless his heart.  

When we speak of the Athens-Jerusalem axis, around which western thought pivoted, we are speaking mostly of Parmenides and Jesus.  That was where the rubber met the road of history.  

But, no, I'm not throwing Leibniz under the bus, as Paul Z suggested.  Gottfried, with his atomic monads, threw himself under the Cartesian bus, a philosophical martyr.  Did he slow the bus down?  Barely.  But he left behind these essential gems...... PSR, PII, PLA, the BPW and the Monad.  Did he leave anything out, for the rest of us to add?  Not a whole lot.  

With Gottfried, we have a logical bridge back to the Parmenidean One.  

That the One could be a cosmic bootstrap is all that needed to be brought to the table.  What would the Eleatics think?  Probably what all the monotheists will think....... blasphemy!  A mighty Bootstrap is our God?  Nah!  

God is the great attractor?  God is the unified field, the cosmic agape.  

An essential idea of Parmenides is that time is an illusion, but an essential one, say the evangelists.  

I'm thinking that our CTC/bootstrap functions as a filtering net that is cast upon the abyssal apeiron.  This is also our collective unconscious (CuCs).  We are the filter feeders, if you will.  Individually, we are microcosms, with our selves patterned upon the one Self.  

Our micro-selves form the compound-eye of the Self.  This compound-eye might also be viewed as a planetarium projector, even as reflected in the starry sky.  

We are the cell membrane of the Self.  This does not prevent us from doing double-duty as the braincells of the Self.  

Our CuCs contains both the One and the apeiron. How do we find and follow the light of the One? We do have to make our way through much flotsam. That is our Sisyphean task.



(cont.)

Ok, sports fans, I think we can throw Parmenides under the bus, as well....... along with the Brahman that he stole from the Hindus, IMHO.  

Here's the deal......

Well, ok, before I threw him under the bus, the P-man did afford me a MoAPS......

Is it possible for a MoAPSer to get MoAPSed??  Maybe.  

Here is the koan..... there can be no change unless there is something to change.  The something is the One/Brahman.  

But to that Koan we must add Gottfried's PII+..... no diference w/o a differentiator.  

THEREFORE:  Brahman must have a personal aspect.  The Hindus seem to be evenly split on this point, i.e. between pantheism and panentheism.  

Who is left standing......?  Plotinus, IMHO.  

And, yes, there is an underlying duality.......

The personal bootstrap/CTC must have a ground to stand on, and that ground is Brahman, the undifferentiated whole.  

Before there can be discernibles, there must be identity, and before that there must be an identifier...... and that's us, sapients.  

Epistemically speaking, it takes one to know one.  This is the basis of personalism.  We cannot know anything that is impersonal.  All that we can ever identify is that which is personally functional.  

And, if you are not sapient, there is a strong sense in which you can know nothing.  Indentity can spring only from personal identity, i.e. Selfishness, if you will.  


For instance, in refutation of Plato and Pythagoras, there cannot be numbers w/o Number[ing].  This is a quote that I read somewhere, yesterday.  This is simply a restatement of JvN's ordinals and GSB's laws of form...... it's all about drawing a distinction, and this requires a reflexivity that is the essence of sapience, and has nothing to do with AI.  


The much touted, by me, organicism of mathematics is just a reflection of the personal potency of brahman/ether/logos.....

The holism of words/language is another, major example.  Music is our best appreciated holistic artifact.  

The conflation of musical and mathematical genius ought have told us this, long ago.  We're somewhat talking about the breakdown of the bicameral mind, of course.  That may reflect the primordial duality of Brahman/Atman.


Hindus believe that Atman = Brahman.....

But Jesus turned that around, by demonstrating that Brahman = Atman.  

The rest, as they say, is history.......


Allow me to recommend Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy ('02), edited by PM Gregorios.  I'm just starting to read it, myself, available on google-play.  


11:15-----------

The question remains as to how we can best take these insights back to the List, and beyond......

Jack needs to be impressed with the fact that both Spinoza and Einstein were panentheists.  

Also, we now have Stephen Hawking saying, yes, Virginia, we have no horizons!  Where does that leave us, other than with the Ether/Now/CTC/Brahman/Logos/Quantum-vacuum/Entanglement/Bootstrap....etc.....

Have I left something out?  

Are we ready to make a Federal case with this?  



(cont.)

Oh, dear, sports fans.........

It looks like even Plotinus gets his turn under the bus, to sit in the corner with the dunce's cap.  Matter is evil, says he!  And so he fell into his own gnostic trap.  

He did not understand the necessity of the cosmic Bootstrap (CTC).  Matter is evil, only when we project upon it an absolute independence.  

Matter has substance only in the circulation of the CTC, only under the aegis of the relativity of time.  

The only true substance is the Simple potentia (dynamis/nous), that which is immanent in all phenomena.  For every being there must be a ground.  We moderns think of atoms as the ultimate being, with space being the gound of being.  To realize that such a superficial view of reality has held us in its thrall for the last four centuries, does beggar the imagination.  Who'd a thunk it?  

Behind the complexity, there must be a simplicity.  Has this not been the driving insight behind all science, religion and philosophy?  

What is it that has obstructed our grasp of the transcendental simplicity?  What is this beguiling opacity with which the One has clothed itself?  Nature abhors a vacuum and a naked singularity/simplicity.  

Individual genii were vouchsafed occasional glimpses of the One, but the show had to go on.  It was the essence of the One.  No, the One was the essence of the Show.  

We can fully appreciate this mutual essentiality only in retrospect.... only in the fullness of time.  


noon-----------

Is there anyone or anything left to throw under the bus of history?  

Only the j-man, but he already threw himself under the bus, and not until he had prophesied his second/final return visit.  He owns the Eschaton.  I'm here to remind us of that essential historical truth.  


Now, excuse me for a few minutes while I make my review of Brahman via Paulos Gregorios.......


But, wait, before that exercise, and at Paul's suggestion, I need to look at Anaximander (c. 610 - c. 546 BC)  of the Milesian school, mentor to Pythagoras, and predating Parmenides by almost a century.  Is this our last Greek, standing........?  

Hey, I think I'm beginning to understand the four elements....... We can only think of them in atomic terms...... but, no, the Greeks thought of them in vital/animating terms, yes, as spiritual substances.  Talk about the disenchantment of nature.......!  You have to see it to believe it...... been there done that.  

The Greeks went from the Many to the Four to the One.  We went from the Many to the GUT/TOE.  Hey, we almost made it......!  


2pm--------

Anaximander posits an infinity of worlds, emerging sporadically from the apeiron.  He was also the first to suppose that the Earth floated free in space.  I think I'll stick with Parmenides and Plotinus, but postulating the Apeiron secures his place in the pantheon.  Now, we head back east.......


3pm---------

Maybe this was all I needed to read, PMG's intro...... Nothing like the procession-recession of everything from the One and back to the One is to be found in the Indian tradition.

Hmmm...... well, moving right along.......!

NB., however, that I don't believe this either, but it is the essential aspect of the relatively illusory aspect of our temporal dimension.




(cont.)

Ok, I think we've finally gotten the history of the BPWH pretty well pinned down......

It was Paul's pointing to Parmenides, who was the cementing link between the various historical traditions, east and west.  

Parmenides, in the west, points to the spiritual explosion ~600 BC.  This explosion now has a name..... the Sramana movement, as it has been denominated in India, where it represented a clean break with the Vedic tradition, and is most clearly seen, besides with Parmenides, in the Upanishads.  Its signal achievement was the identification of Atman with Brahman.  It was left to the j-man to turn that identification around, and to give it its essential historical/prophetic/eschatological impetus.  I have only to rationalize it.  

Historically, however, I am still wont to refer back to Jaynes' BBM, identified with the explosion of Tera in the Mediterranean, ~1600 BC.  The BBM left a spiritual vacuum, centered on the existential self.  

From the Ganges, the Sramana/BBM illumination worked its way back to the Mediterranean via Athens, and, finally to its historical culmination in Jerusalem, with the X-event.  

It is almost as if the j-man sucked the wind right out of those sails.  They were left with an empty husk.  

Basically, and historically we have three main events..... the T, S and X events, spaced about equally apart...... and then nothing until the MoAPS.  I am inclined, however, to include the C-event, the Cartesian breakdown of the world into mind and matter.  Then we can spell out the T/S/X/C/M timeline in the history of ideas.  

In a strong sense, the C-event simply recapitulates/ratioanlizes the original T/BBM event.  From T >> M, we are moving in a circle/spiral as if on the CTC from the Alpha to the Omega, with the M-event anticipating/rationalizing the Omega.  KIM, that the M-event is also to be identified with the 4M/K/SoT/X2-event.  

Is this ready to go to press.... to go to the J(ack)-list?  

From: Dan
Date: March 17, 2015 at 11:29:24 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: David, Colton and Robert
Subject: wrapping up history......


https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t175p870-hello-cy-omf-ii-part-2#5974

In anticipation of going to a larger list, could we practice, please, by not hitting reply-all?!

If you have comments or suggestions, please reply personally to me, first, by email, phone or whatever.  If, then, I am not able to properly convey your comments back to the list, then, of course, you may feel free to represent your own views, thereto.

For as long as possible, I would like to maintain an open list.  This will not be possible, if, from the start, there is a cacophony.  And, yes, in this generally silent microcosm, these comments do apply to one in particular, and I think you know who you are, David.  

11:50-----------

As a prelude to the above, I recommend my latest reading, which was Ciapalo's essay in Gregorios' book Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy.  



(cont.)

From: David
Date: March 18, 2015 at 7:00:20 PM EDT
To: Dan
Cc: Paul and Colton
Subject: Re: Julian Jaynes "Preposterous hypothesis "

I see Wheeler's termites crawling through the substructure of Dan's historical house of cards! Look out below! The labels are getting too fuzzy Dan. Jaynes bicameral mind will have to go. It's nonsense and certainly nothing to use as a bridge.
You can't let your need for something fool you into making it up just to fill the need!

Yes, sometimes David does get agitated and sometimes his does backslide.  Hey, it happens to the best of us!  

Late last evening, I was on the phone with David and then with Paul, for an hour and a half.  I think we got things settled down.  Paul is going to see David today, and make sure that he is back in the saddle.  

The point I should have reiterated, and do so almost every day, is that I am not pretending to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist.  I am a one-trick pony, and my one trick is to save the world with the MoAPS.  In putting together the BPWH/SWH/MoAPS, I beg, borrow and steal, and mostly the latter.  I am stealing Jaynes' historiography, not his neuroanatomy, thank you very much.  

But David has presented us with a good excuse to review the historiography of the BPWH.......


10am--------

It is my contention that the very notion of history hardly existed until the ascendency of the prophetic tradition (PT).  That tradition is simply a statement of God's valorization of human history and destiny.  

Outside of that tradition, we have Darwinism/evolutionism, and the various cyclical cosmologies...... the Eternal Return.  

Outside of the prophetic tradition, salvation, such as it may be, is strictly an individual affair.  Before that, the continuity of existence was strictly tribal.  

Nonetheless, strong elements of tribalism persist in the major divisions of the PT..... only we, special believers/practitioners, are going to be saved.... everyone else goes to hell.  

The very first signs of civilization included, especially, the act of burial of the dead.  Most ethnographers link these burial practices to a belief in the individual soul...... the soul comes from a Source, and returns to that same Source.  This process may include transmigration, and is overseen by various tribal ancestors, totems and other spirits.  There is a strong shamanic element in these practices, or they simply define shamanism.  


In shamanism are the roots of gnosticism.  Gnosticism adumbrates the most basic of human (transcendental) aspirations.  

Everything outside of the primodial gnosis is an attempt to channel, deflect, manipulate and otherwise harness this most essential of human traits.

How does the BPWH differ in this respect?  How do we stand out from the crowd?  How am I not just an overweaning witchdoctor?  

A rational synthesis of all the versions of gnosis is the goal, here.... leading to the historical MoAPS.  

Gnosis, however, is notoriously ahistorical and acosmic.  It is of, by and for the lone virtuoso/shaman.  I bring to gnosis a strongly prophetic/histoical essence.  In that process, there is the synthesis of the prophetic, linear timeline with the gnostic dynamic of descent and ascent.  

What we get is a nearly closed cosmic Circuit (CTC/SWH).  The Circuit might also be seen as a single-stranded cocoon, shaped as a torus, that is spun by the trajectories of the cosmic soul, of which we are all time-sharing.  This single-soul hypothesis may be compared with the Wheeler-Feyman single-electron hypothesis.  Think of the torus as a magnetic loop, along with its essential air-gap or spark-gap, which is the Omega >> Alpha interval or our collective/historical opening to eternity.  But understand that the CTC is, itself, eternal.  It is the bootstrap/belt of the cosmic Monad.  However, it is eternal only from God's PoV.  This is the one and only best possible circuit.  There is no encore, not from our temporal perspective.  Collectively, we only go around once.  


It is only within Christendom that we see an internal punctuation of historic timeline.  This punctuation comes under the rubric of Dispensationalism or Covenantalism.  But, no, I've obviously just mispoken.......

In the Hindu cosmology, the timeline is a sawtooth, with a gradual descent from a golden age into our final iron-age, ending in conflagration and a sudden restoration to the Golden beginning, and ad-infinitum.  The descent phases (gold > silver > bronze > iron) are also punctuated by ten avatars of Vishnu or whomever.  

With the BPWH, the Hindu sawtooth is replaced with the singular, open CTC.  


1pm------- 

So, what's with this punctuation/segmentation of history?  

Surely, segmentation has its pedagogical uses, but is there nothing more than pedagogy?  

The Omega >> Alpha gap and the MoAPS are cases in point, but who says we have to have a MoAPS?  

Doesn't coherence imply continuity?  

Maybe not.  Maybe it's just the opposite.  Consider language and thought.  Our thoughts, even when holistic, require segmentation.  Our thoughts are filled with paradigmatic concepts.  There is clearly some sort of complementarity between the analog and 'digital' nature of thinking.  The quantum domain itself is the playground of this duality.  So is mathematics.  This is the complementarity between the one and the many, between stasis and flow.  

The world is more like a great (segmented) thought, than a smoothly running machine.  

There is much room for confusion here, between epistemology and ontology.  However, as an idealist, I don't recognize a dichotomy, just a duality, therein.  


3:40--------- 

Stability and form are a necessary aspect of existence.  And so is change.  Put these two ideas together and we get quantum jumps and gestalt switches.  That history is not immune to these jumps should come as no surprise.  

From another perspective on coherence, we should suppose that history will take the form of a Metanarrative.  Narratives are nothing, if they are not episodic.  Yes, there are episodes within episodes.  There is a beginning, a middle and an end.  There will be turning points, and plots within plots.  

The fundamental movement, on the cyclic narative, is that of birth and death, decay and rebirth or expansion and contraction.  

On the prophetic side, there is just one, finite timeline.  There is a beginning and an end, but the end is arbitrary, unknowable from our perspective.  Rhyme or reason......?  

Well, there may be an overlying evangelical dimension, but it is nothing guaranteed.  What is thought to be guaranteed in the three principal prophetic traditions is a Millennial finale, of God's kingdom on Earth.  This finale is preceeded by some dramatic divine intervention.  So, I did misspeak.  It is not the final end that is arbitrary, it is the beginning of the final act, the timing of which is a divine secret.  

There are, of course, exceptions...... 

In Daniel 2 there is the prophetic vision of the idol of gold, silver, bronze, iron and with feet of clay.  This has generally been interpreted as an historic succession of empires.  One might also view it as an allusion to the Hindu Ages.  Clay?  Sure, is not the iron age followed by the Silicon age?  Surely, just an historical anachronism.  

But, within the prophetic tradition there have been the dispensationalists and the covenantalists, as noted above.  


5:30--------- 

We have two basic motions...... the gnostic vertical motion, and the prophetic linear motion.  I combine these into a segmented circuit, with the Omega >> Alpha gap at the top.  The logical anchor or nadir of the circuit could be none other than the X-event, the Incarnational/sacrificial event.  What could be a more explicit anchor than being nailed to the Cross?  

And we do need vivid metaphors....... mommy, mommy, why do I keep going around in circles?  Shut up, or I'll nail your other foot to the floor.  

Do we get the picture?  This is not rocket science.  

The explosion of Thera and the X-event seem to be incommensurable. Only in retrospect will we see the commensuration of the episodes in our global psycho-drama.  Only then will we see through the veils of time.  



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: March 20, 2015 at 3:14:26 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Colton and David
Subject: Re: Metaphysics..... form or content?

(cont.....)

The main thing going on here is about the Visitations.  

It is about Fermi's paradox...... if we can go there, why haven't they come here?  

My answer to Enrico is that 'they' have come here, so we don't need to go there.  And Ron is my witness to this effect.  

This is what we need to convey to the Princess.  Easier said than done.  

The main point about Visitation is that it has to do with UT's rather than ET's.  

(Paul and I need to explain this to Colton so that he can write the BPWH executive summary, for the Princess.  Ron admits that he has not, briefed the Princess on the BPWH.)  

E.g. does anyone suggest that the Andeans have not been visited?  

Just got off the phone with the Princess, and she is looking forward to the executive summary.

Dan



On Mar 20, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Dan wrote:

Paul,

Colton is not answering either of his phones......

We do wish to set up a conference call with Colton in about an hour......

One purpose is for Colton to help write an executive summary of the BPWH for the Princess, which Ron would endorse.  The Princess is very busy, but Ron agrees that he could help us with her focus on saving the world.  

Dan


On Mar 20, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul wrote:

Dan, I was answering Colton's questions about classical metaphysics and its relationship to what you call "metaphysics".

Kant is a very influential philosopher in this context and I think it's important for all of us -- not just Colton -- to be clear about
what he actually said about "noumena" and what his criticisms of classical metaphysics actually were.

Or do you not believe that any of this is relevant to your "immaterialism"?

On 3/20/2015 9:03 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
Paul,

I take your points here.  They are important points........

BUT, again, you are getting hung-up on forms and formalities......

My concern with metaphysics has never been about its form.... only ever about its content.  
The distinction that I'm making here is between what you are calling "metaphysics" and what I'm calling "classical metaphysics".

It's not about form vs. content, it's about certain truth arrived at by a priori reasoning vs. hypothesis. That is hardly a pedantic quibble.


IMHO, Kant, like too many german philosophers, was a windbag, an obscurantist.
A very influential windbag.

He put compromise way ahead of truth and coherence.
But he argued that our phenomenal reality has more to do with the unity of our understanding than with the nature of things in themselves --
which, for all we can know, may not exist. For example, for Kant, material objects are purely phenomenal, and the supposed ground of their
existence is purely hypothetical.

I think that is very close to your own version of coherentism. It is also a cornerstone of Bohr's "Copenhagen" philosophy of quantum mechanics,
which is the basis for Wheeler's observer-participant event ontology.


I'm taking back philosophy and metaphysics.  I am not here to analyze them to death.  I am here to breathe new life into them.  Yes, to resurrect them from their premature grave.
Could what you are doing be described as "natural philosophy"?


Intellectual heads are going to be smashed, intellectually.  Your job, Paul, should you choose to accept it, is to pick up those pieces.
I think Hume and Kant did quite a lot intellectual smashing of their own Dan.

You can stand on the shoulders of giants.


I'm not here to draw more distinctions.  I'm here to connect every last dot.  No one escapes the cosmic dragnet of the BPWH.  If I cannot represent the Monad, what can I do?  I am a one-trick pony, and this is a one-ring circus, whether we like it or not.
Colton was asking about "metaphysics".


Please, Paul, we are here as Constructivists, not as deconstructionists.  That job has already been done.  We stand on that rubble.  Do not nit-pick.  Find a stone to add to the edifice.  Find some cement to seal up the chinks.  Is this asking too much?
Colton is the one asking the questions Dan. What you mean by "metaphysics" is not what is usually meant by "metaphysics".
Colton  wants to understand the difference.

Do you  not approve of Colton's questions?


Dan


On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

As a theory of certain knowledge, empiricism is an epistemological thesis and as such comes under the
heading "metaphysics" (= ontology + epistemology + ....).

Epsitemology per se has been abandoned in modern fallibilist theories of science wherein methodology
replaces classical epistemology.

So no one, including you Dan, is now talking about a priori reasoning that leads to certain truths about
ultimate realities lying beyond phenomenal appearances.

So the definition of "ontology" has shifted. However, I think one must still make a distinction between
ontological models supported by hypothetico-deductive reasoning tested against experience, on the one
hand, and sheer speculation on the other.

As I've previously suggested, I think the best approach is sophisticated coherence theory of truth, which
"saves the phenomena" by requiring consonance of theory with empirical observations.

I apologize for the above conglomeration, in reverse chrono-order.  

There is extra communication, and the protocol @ forumotion has been under revision..... 

There is also interleaving.  I have tried to get Paul out of that habit, but it is hard to break. 



(cont.)

From: Dan 

Date: March 20, 2015 at 12:26:35 PM ED

To: Colton 
Cc: 3 others...... 
Subject: Re: Relativity and Metaphysics

Colton, 

Where angels fear to tread......... 

Cherchez la Femme..... Sophia..... 

Albert was closer to the truth than anyone has realized, IMHO. 

1.)  He, single handedly, smashed the Newtonian Idol of absolute space-time.  

1a.)  And, yes, Paul is right.  Albert, at first, threw out the Ether-baby with that bathwater. 

2.)  How did he accomplish this iconoclastic feat?  He rode on a photon.  Seriously.  Does this have something to do with photo(n)-electrics?  If it does not, Sophia will have to eat her hat.  

3.)  Yes, Albert was the Mother of all deconstructionists.  All we have to do is pick up those pieces.  

This is the One lesson we need to learn from Einstein....... Iconoclasm!  

Put that in your Academia section.  If the Princess does not like it, tell her to talk to me.  

On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Depends on which version of "relativity theory" you're talking about.

In my view Einstein's Machian 1905 theory of relativity was superseded, first by Minkowski's 1907
geometric model, and then  by Einstein's own 1916 theory of gravity (which it turns out is not Machian).

If you simply want to expound the (erroneous and historically false) standard textbook view -- the 
triumphal narrative of relativity -- that Einstein proved in 1905 that there is no such thing as the "ether",
or that the idea of an ether is scientifically meaningless, then maybe I'm not the one to ask.  

This is a big subject Colton.

On 3/19/2015 2:51 PM, Colton Fagundes wrote:

Dan, Paul David: As for the metaphysical implications of relativity theory... any recommendations there?

From: Dan 
Date: March 20, 2015 at 12:03:02 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Metaphysics..... form or content?

Paul, 

I take your points here.  They are important points........

BUT, again, you are getting hung-up on forms and formalities...... 

My concern with metaphysics has never been about its form.... only ever about its content.  

IMHO, Kant, like too many german philosophers, was a windbag, an obscurantist.  He put compromise way ahead of truth and coherence.  

I'm taking back philosophy and metaphysics.  I am not here to analyze them to death.  I am here to breathe new life into them.  Yes, to resurrect them from their premature grave.  

Intellectual heads are going to be smashed, intellectually.  Your job, Paul, should you choose to accept it, is to pick up those pieces.  

I'm not here to draw more distinctions.  I'm here to connect every last dot.  No one escapes the cosmic dragnet of the BPWH.  If I cannot represent the Monad, what can I do?  I am a one-trick pony, and this is a one-ring circus, whether we like it or not. 

Please, Paul, we are here as Constructivists, not as deconstructionists.  That job has already been done.  We stand on that rubble.  Do not nit-pick.  Find a stone to add to the edifice.  Find some cement to seal up the chinks.  Is this asking too much?  

Dan 

On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

As a theory of certain knowledge, empiricism is an epistemological thesis and as such comes under the
heading "metaphysics" (= ontology + epistemology + ....).

Epsitemology per se has been abandoned in modern fallibilist theories of science wherein methodology 
replaces classical epistemology.

So no one, including you Dan, is now talking about a priori reasoning that leads to certain truths about 
ultimate realities lying beyond phenomenal appearances.

So the definition of "ontology" has shifted. However, I think one must still make a distinction between 
ontological models supported by hypothetico-deductive reasoning tested against experience, on the one 
hand, and sheer speculation on the other.

As I've previously suggested, I think the best approach is sophisticated coherence theory of truth, which
"saves the phenomena" by requiring consonance of theory with empirical observations.

Notice that these several postings are also in reverse chrono-order......

From: Dan
Date: March 20, 2015 at 11:19:39 AM EDT
To: Colton 
Cc: 3 others
Subject: Re: Einsteinianity.......?

(cont.......2) 

How about this........ the whole point of Einsteinianity and Christianity is not that we should turn them into idols, but that we should be inspired by our shared personhood.  'All you, who come after me, will do much greater things.'   

We have the Hero with a thousand faces?  True, and never faceless!  

Hero worship..... bad.  Hero inspiration...... good!  And, yes, it is a very fine line, and far too many have crossed over it.  I know, I spent three years at Grace Fellowship.  Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to bring them back.  

I'm inspired by Einstein.  Paul, being further ahead of that curve, is inspired by Minkowski.  Does Minkowski negate Einstein?  Is there not room for a little synergy?  Inviting more people to the Party need not turn it into a proletarian mob.  Without heroes and without cold facts, are we not fascists?  Been there..... done that!  

Charisma.......?  Can't live with it..... can't live without it.  Are we not all the anointed ones?  Is that bad?  

Back to Albert....... In 1905 he wrote two 'obscure' papers..... photo-electric and relativity.  It may be very cogently argued that all of physics since then may be construed as footnotes to those two papers.  His was the hand, writing on the wall of physics.  

Me?  All I have is my little bloggy-blog..... BPWH/SWH/MoAPS/(4M/K/SoT/X2).  Where would any of us be without all those other 'giants'?  Am I here to suck the wind out of any sails?  Or am I here to let 'er blow......?!! 

On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Dan wrote:

(cont........) 

Even according to my very 'own' BPWH, God is almost a nobody, IMHO, kinda like the j-man, before Saul/Paul hit the road, in both senses.  David points out, as do many, that we should call it Paulianity.  

Am I proposing Einsteinianity?  

Again, that is not my point, but I'm still struggling, right now, to figure out what is the point...... 

I think that the point is Inspiration.  We need Inspiration.  Inspiration is nothing if it is not essentially and intensely personal.  

We have always needed heroes.  Paul and David will say that we should outgrow our need for such.  They could point to the psychology of lotteries, with all the poor suckers, each thinking that he or she is going to win!  

But what is life about, if it is not about dreams?  Should we stop dreaming/hoping when we turn 21?  

And what does this have to do with metaphysics and relativity?  Where are the facts, here?  

My point is, and can Paul and David disagree, that, without cold, hard Facts, are we not lost in the Apeiron?  


(cont........2) 

cc: OMF 

On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Dan wrote:

Colton, 

Let us not get ahead of ourselves, Paul.  Let's try to look at this historically and historiographically.......  

Yes, Paul and David will disagree with my segmental approach to history, and, yes, the devil is in the details.  Paul and David do say that we would barely have heard of either Einstein or Jesus, respectively, had it not been for the subsequent PR campaigns that were mounted in their behalf.  

I can accept this assessment, up to a point...... 

Einstein and Jesus have both been transformed into Icons, after the fact.  In fact, I have told my former colleagues at Grace Fellowship that, to me, the putative physical resurrection of Jesus is rather beside the point.  

What is the point.......? 

There are two theories of history..... Carlyle (Great 'Man') v. Spencer (boots on the ground).  Spencer won the argument, but where would history still be without visions and visionaries?  Marx is a case in point.  With all his proletarianism, did he not roll over in his grave, when Marxism became the identifying mark?  

Immaterialism is nothing w/o idealism.  Idealism is nothing w/o personalism.  

But is personalism not just a crutch for us weak-minded myopians?  


(cont......)  

On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Paul wrote:

Depends on which version of "relativity theory" you're talking about.

In my view Einstein's Machian 1905 theory of relativity was superseded, first by Minkowski's 1907
geometric model, and then  by Einstein's own 1916 theory of gravity (which it turns out is not Machian).

If you simply want to expound the (erroneous and historically false) standard textbook view -- the 
triumphal narrative of relativity -- that Einstein proved in 1905 that there is no such thing as the "ether",
or that the idea of an ether is scientifically meaningless, then maybe I'm not the one to ask.  

This is a big subject Colton.

On 3/19/2015 2:51 PM, Colton Fagundes wrote:

Dan, Paul David: As for the metaphysical implications of relativity theory... any recommendations there?

From: Dan
Date: March 22, 2015 at 10:49:42 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David and Colton
Subject: Re: Barfield, "The other postmodern philosopher"

Paul, 

Thanks for this link, I'm just getting into it.  

In return, I recommend the Encyclopedia Barfieldiana .... http://davidlavery.net/Encyclopedia%5FBarfieldiana/ 

My original copy of SA/SI (1957) is in storage, acquired in the early '80's.  My second copy is due this afternoon.  

Even Owen's eschatology is a prefiguration of my Chicken Little version.  

In retrospect, we should have encouraged Colton to use Owen as his mentor for the KWF philosophy site.  Hindsight...... 

On Mar 21, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Paul wrote:

Here' s an article that compares Barfield with Polanyi as "post-modern philosophers":

[url=https://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD WEB ARCHIVE/TAD18-1/TAD18-1-fnl-pg27-38-pdf.pdf]https://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD18-1/TAD18-1-fnl-pg27-38-pdf.pdf[/url]

From: Dan
Date: March 22, 2015 at 11:47:43 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David and Colton
Subject: Re: Barfield, "The other postmodern philosopher"

(cont.......) 

Paul also recommended Fichte, usually just seen as the bridge from Kant to Hegel.  

Fichte was an outright idealist.  Hegel's Dialectic was too easily assimilated to Marx's.  

What I'm not clear on is Barfield's 'unrepresented'.  How does it differ from Kant's noumenon?  

Also, Owen speaks frequently of 'particles' as if synonymous with the unrepresented.  How are we to distinguish SA/SI from some species of epiphenomenalism, a-la Teilhard.  He does criticize Teilhard's material take on evolutionism.  

I came across a passage today speaking of animals as having 'devolved' from the human.  I don't think Barfield ever actually said this.  But, yes, this is my view.  This is in line with Plotinus and Parmenides, IMHO.  We have the great chain of being (GCB).  

Animals our our agents in the reification of the BPW.  Totemism/shamanism speaks, somewhat, to this.  


(cont........2)  

From: Dan
Date: March 22, 2015 at 12:22:21 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David and Colton
Subject: Re: Barfield, "The other postmodern philosopher"

(cont......2) 

And, yes, Polanyi is also important, mainly as an early anti-reductionist.  I was introduced to his thought through my earlier Loyola contact with Fr Jim Salmon, in the founding of the Cosmos and Creation lecture series (early '80's), which continues today.  

Barfield's mentor was Rudolph Steiner, founder of Antrhoposophy, e.g. Waldorf schools, out of Theosophy.  What these two schools have in common is a denial of eschatology.  Need we say more?  

Backward (from the future) causation, teleology, downward causation, is well represented in the anti-Darwinian GCB.  Post-modern physics is our royal road to the GCB.  This is where Thomas Nagel is tentatively pointing.  Very tentatively.  

Back to the books........  


(cont........3) 

Below is an email chain from yesterday, in reverse order....... 

From: Dan 
Date: March 23, 2015 at 2:10:19 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: Executive summary discussion

Paul, 

Yes, in some ways, I'm seeing Schopenhauer as a more pivotal figure than Fichte.  Certainly he had more influence on 20thC thought, viz. Nietzsche and Freud.   And his debt to Eastern thought is more explicit.  

The noumenon is our CuCs.  The supposed external world is a 'projection' of the CuCs.  'Representation' is a poor, passive translation of 'vorstellung', IMHO

And what was Hegel's noumenal bootstrap that you mentioned?? 

The various dialectical paths back to the noumenon (CuCs) is where the original telepathic monologue of the gods is turned around into a conscious dialectic.  Yes?  

Animals as agents of the vorstellung/outpouring........? 

This is the crux of the GCB, which is an extended version of the outsourcing of Creation a-la the demiurge and the Plotinian/kabbalistic tzim-tzum.  Animals, down to the minuscule, play a great role in the shaping of the world, whether from a darwinian or anti-darwinian PoV.  


David, 

You say that Part 2 will transition to Rome....... 

How will the HREmpire figure?  IOW, what are we to make of the unique features, or the very idea of a 'universal' Church?  


(cont......) 

On Mar 23, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont.......) 

Perhaps the crucial observation of Owen's is the X-event, quite literally, marked the death of God.  Jesus might have been resurrected externally/literally, but the crucial resurrection was as the living Christ within, along with the Kingdom.  This marks the transition from alpha to beta-thinking, IMHO.  

Something very similar may be said about the (nearly) simultaneous transition from temple-worship to rabbinical judaism.  Yes?  

Thus do we complete the death of the bicameral/transpersonal/telepathic voices of the gods that defined our original participation.  

The all-important (gospel) parables mark this inward turn, wherein we are required to engage in our dialog with god, within our (individual) consciousness, rather than unconsciously/tribally, as we did originally.  


(cont.......2)  

On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Dan wrote:

David, 

Excellent, thank you!  

Now, we just need to provide additional continuity between the two halves of your summary.  

IMHO, a good deal of this continuity you will find in Owen's SA/SI.  For instance, he refers to the X-event as the historical null-point between the original and final participation.  

The Thera-event as a marker for the transition from original participation to figurational (alpha/beta) thinking.  

It could be that the X-event also serves as a transition/trigger from alpha >> beta thought.  This is what Owen is trying to point out in his discussion of the crucial significance of the parables in the gospels.  I suspect that existentialism, even, is a very delayed reaction to this transition.  Let's give ourselves ample latitude in exploring the deeper currents that combine to produce the more obvious but superficial facade of history.  It need not be a tale as told by an idiot!  Yes?  

On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:27 AM, David wrote:

This is an attempt to try to put in a few pages the reasons for what we are engaged in, the historical and the phenomenological roots  of Eschatology and some of the philosophies that help guide the way as Barfield does along with many others who must be included. This is just part 1, so the word summary is becoming theoretical at this point. If you think it sucks don't hold back!;] 

Perhaps no question better grounds the human observer in the conundrum of existence, than the eternally unanswered, "What are we?"  

People uninclined to let the question go unanswered often find themselves at odds in a sea of indifference. Some of us get dragged out of our churches in chains for daring toask the question. So when asked for an executive summary one can answer in two words. Life and death, that's what this is about and rebirth too.  

Those of us who find under the general rubrics of religion or philosophy hope to find the why and the wherefore of human existence and to answer that first question, What are we? Some of us are pulled to the Eschaton, as if by a massive black hole. The Eschaton, the end of time, the end of days. Just now I entered a search term and what came up before I even noticed it, was the name Dan Troop Smith! I know this is the end times!:] The thing about the end times is the idea of a sudden transformation that remakes the world in front of us to be unrecognizable to our former eyes and sensibilities. Everyone hopes to be among those who survive this and enjoy what comes after. 

One also looks at the world differently if one reads Owen Barfield with some small understanding. A humanist and a man of great understanding, Barfield's writing enlarges the readers understanding of himself, even if one does not immediately find himself in accord with the ideas at first; they are compellingly espoused and intriguingly posed. He shines a bright light on that other world we occupy merely as passengers or unwilling hostages of a foreign and random universe of particles that wink in and out of existence in a billionth of a second. Barfield holds that man has become estranged from what might be called the ground of being, but that this world which he called the unrepresented world can be perceived by some of us at least and that it is possible to participate in that world and vice versa. This idea is certainly at the core of Wheeler's similar idea. 

From: Dan
Date: March 24, 2015 at 11:44:48 AM EDT
To: Paul and David
Subject: Owen Barfield

Paul and David, 

I have nearly completed my reprise of OB's SA/SI....... 

Owen made a splash, but, somehow it never reverberated outside of the creative writing seminars or classics departments, as where I encountered him, via a graduate student at JHU.  

I recall noticing a department for the study/history of consciousness.  This was back in the '80's at one of the UC schools, Santa Cruz, I believe.  It might even have been inspired by OB, and might even still exist, for all I know.  

But, in anglophone/analytic philosophy, Barfield would have been a square peg in a round hole.  

Continental Philosophy.....?  Back in his day, that would have been a difficult crossover.  

Another detriment was the obviously Xian PoV.  Could it have been written from another PoV?  Could it have been better disguised?  Perhaps, but much of its dramatic structure would have been lost, and so there would have been less notice.  

SA/SI had a wide influence in a limited, academic setting, but there has been no school of Barfieldian thought, as such.  It would seem that he has been reabsorbed back into the Anthroposophical movement, which remains a quite insular institution.  


(cont......)   

From: Dan
Date: March 24, 2015 at 12:17:04 PM EDT
To: Paul, David and Colton
Subject: Re: Owen Barfield

(cont.......) 

How much influence has SA/SI had on my BPWH?  Over the years, I have frequently mentioned the notion of original and final participation.  The former is usually subsumed in the rubric of the primordial Dreamtime, and in the context of Jaynes' BBM.  The latter comes under the rubric of the MoAPS and the millennial kingdom-come.  I had come to my immaterialism just a few years before being introduced to SA/SI.  

Teilhard's Omega was perhaps a bigger influence on my eschatological thought.  

It seems to me that OB remains agnostic wrt the SWH, and wrt to his noumenal 'unrepresented'. To that extent, he remains a residual dualist.  

I note that his chapter on Space and Time comes late in the book, and, again, seems dualistic, and almost an afterthought.  

I could draw up a considerable list of items that seem crucial to the BPWH, which OB never mentions. 

Furthermore, he is going to be of almost no direct use vis-a-vis Jack&Co.  

Nonetheless, wrt to a wider audience, OB could be a crucial addition, and clearly I should keep him high on my list of Sources.  


Colton, 

I think we can all highly recommend Owen Barfield to you, especially wrt supporting any sort of anthropological notions of cosmology.  Is it too late to include him on your philosophy site?  

From: Dan 
Date: March 24, 2015 at 2:42:56 PM EDT
To: Paul and 3 others
Subject: Re: Owen Barfield

(cont........2) 

UC/SC has the only History of Cs program that can be googled.  

There is no mention of Barfield.  It's course listing has a distinctly marxist/feminist slant.  

Then see...... Neumann 'The Origins and History of Cs' (1949).  Following Jung, Neumann depicts consciousness as having arisen from the Heroic struggle of the ego against the Ouroboric embrace of the matriarchal/feminine unconscious.  He depicts consciousness, even in women, as being male oriented.  

We can feel badly for poor Owen, being submerged by some very murky politics.  

I'm now reading..... THE SAD AND SORRY HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS: BEING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A CHALLENGE TO THE ‘CONSCIOUSNESS-STUDIES COMMUNITY’ 

From: Dan
Date: March 25, 2015 at 1:14:35 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: D & C
Subject: Barfield's 'unrepresented'?

I am still struggling with this concept, or, at least, with Owen's use thereof....... 

In several places, in SA/SI, OB insists that he is not engaging in metaphysical/ontological speculation. 

The question then is whether or not he is begging the question.  I have a hard time thinking that he is not, in fact, engaged in more than a bit of subterfuge, in this respect.  

His best attempt to cover his tracks is when he is most dismissive of any eschatological speculation, almost as though denying that such a thought had ever crossed his mind.  Doth he protesteth too much?!  

Either by quote or statement........ 'Pan has closed up shop and gone inside.... us.' 

IOW, we have met the Monad, and it is us!?  Is this not the only logical result of applying the dialectic to his noumenal unrepresented?  How does this not smack of finality?  Paul......?  

And speaking of eschatology, Ron wondered whether I had resolved my dispute with the Princess over the tone of Colton's philosophical section, i.e. pedagogical v. speculative.  I said that I had pleaded nolo-contendere..... kicking that can down the road.  Instead, I preferred to focus on my interaction with Ron, and I may have been slightly more specific.  But, in any case, he volunteered that, in the world at large, there was a disturbing increment in the 'vectors relating to eschatology'.  Could I have come up with such a phrase?  Will he next deny this?  Or does this mean I should be waiting by the phone, for Rome?  Hey, I've already packed my toothbrush.  

From: Dan
Date: March 25, 2015 at 2:27:38 AM EDT
To: David
Cc: Paul
Subject: Re: Barfield's 'unrepresented'?

Had he actually meant to kick that can down the road, might he not rather have kept his mouth shut?

On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:33 AM, David > wrote:
I think he meant it. I agree. I don't blame anyone for kicking that Eschatological can down the road, it's going to be messy..

It would be ingenuous of me and not following protocol for me not to be forthright wrt my speculations......... 

As I attempted to explain to David, and speaking of vectors, there are four events that may have an omega-oriented directionality.  Three were public, one was not, except to the extent that I have spoken of it before.  Each involved R&D, and each had an abduction-type component.  Three involved airplanes, but not the non-public one.  The latest one is the Alps incident, that might have triggered the statement reported yesterday.  Connecting those two dots may seem a stretch, but that is how these things manage to stay under the radar, all these twentysome years.  

I'm suspecting that, if we lend this any credence, this is similar to the kind of data that CK may have been referring to, aside from other signs of more general geopolitical disturbances.  So, yes, there would be a combination of conventional and uncoventional sourcing.  

The question that P, D and I have to ask is at what point might these type of speculations be expected to become self-sustaining, i.e. networkable, if indeed that is part of the plan?  



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 10:36:32 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

Paul, 

I gather that you remain skeptical that I and/or we could convince anyone else on the Sarfatti list to take seriously the R&D 'show'.  

This show has been in progress for 20+ years, and, so far, no one has (spontaneously) admitted to doing so.  So, yes, the evidence is on your side.  And I do appreciate your sincerity and caution wrt attempting to persuade other individuals of these speculations.  By merely consulting with you, in this regard, and reporting your skepticism, my own balance and integrity is enhanced, thereby.  

Nonetheless, I would be remiss to not report my speculations on this matter, since, even if aimed to no one else, and if they are supposed to have any serious intent, then they are aimed, at the least, to elicit such response from me.  And it is my long established protocol to post the resulting speculations in public.  

There are several points to be made concerning the R&D show, in relation to any wider concerns about eschatology...... 


(cont........) 

cc: OMF 

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 11:25:59 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

(cont.........) 

# I would very likely have devoted considerably less attention to this topic, had there not been the involvement of CK.  

# What is most notably missing in other discussions about a possible MoAPS, is any sense of immediacy or currency.  A sense of urgency is going to be the crucial factor in capturing any wider audience.  

# The outstanding feature of R&D has been it's apparent tie-in to particular events, over the years.....  
** Besides the explicit link to the papal resignation, there were explicit links to two previous air incidents..... 9/11 and MH370.  
** The most recent and most provocative statement to-date, concerning the "omega"-vectors, came within hours of the alpine crash, but, so far, without any explicit linkage.  
** All three air incidents are effectively 'hi-jackings'.  

# Am I saying that there are no accidents and no (individual) depravity?  
** I take seriously the prophetic tradition wherein God is assumed to be active in history.  
** The question before us is the possible or optimal nature of that activity......... 


(cont.......2)  

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 12:54:09 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David
Subject: Re: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

(cont.......2) 

I submit that R&D provides an optimal conveyance between VALIS and humanity, given a few reasonable caveats......... 

#  Minimal intervention - prime-directive 

#  R&D is predicated on the existence of an insider/MJ12-type group.  

# The point of the minimal intervention is to prime the internal pump of human intelligence toward our independent assessment of what would constitute a BPW. 

#  This would include our realization that, in the postulated best possible Creation, we would be the essential co-Creators.  

#  What is the alternative?  Suggest a better world, and a better plan of disclosure.  Any takers?  
** none of this is rocket science, is it?  

In a separate communication, David suggests the following alternative......... 
"I think when the time comes, that it really happens, people will accept the truth of it."

This is the most widely held view, and, on the face of it, the most reasonable view, but it does not meet with the above criteria........  


(cont.......3)  

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 1:22:21 PM EDT
To: David 
Cc: Paul 
Subject: Re: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

(cont.......3) 

I think I can explain what David is trying to say, albeit in his laconic fashion...... 

#  Let's not worry our little heads about this.  Clearly, the fate of humanity lies far above our (individual) pay-grades. 

#  If and when VALIS wishes to wake us from our dogmatic/materialist slumbers, it will have ample means at its disposal to do so, means that will be very unlikely to include individual human actors to any significant degree.  

Yes, David, maybe 'salvation' is meant to be a spectator sport.  But is this the lesson of history?  Is this in keeping with the history of the prophetic tradition?  True, scripture does seem to imply that VALIS will come upon a cloud, and in glory.  But does that make sense?  Would it be the best possible 'apocalypse'?  


(cont........4) 

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 2:55:40 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Do we have an inkling?

Paul, 

I had a lengthy convo with David about these matters, but any onus is upon me, of course....... 

The question before us is whether we, individually or collectively, are being called upon.  Or, at the least, should that possibility not be given a degree of practical credence?  

Practicality.......? 

The practical matter is concerned entirely with the 'trans-portability' of this putative collective calling.  

Do you agree, Paul, that without this communicability, our exercise remains strictly academic.  Nothing wrong therewith, but it does tend toward the ivory/ivy encrusted.  This, we may suppose, is what transpired with Owen's Inklings.  They kept the flame burning, they kept the inkling alive, but the times, they were not yet ripe.  Were they?  


(cont.) 

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 5:37:56 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: Do we have an inkling?

(cont.......) 

Paul, earlier......... 

"Yes I think David agrees that it is necessary to formulate this MoAPS so that it can be 'triggered' in advance of the anticipated apocalyptic event(s)." 

Formulation.........  well, I do keep trying....... 

The BPWH, almost by definition, is the only coherent alternative to materialism, physicalism or dualism.  

The BPWH is radical, from any historical, philosophical or political PoV.  We cannot soft-peddle its contrarian nature.  

We will need to invoke CK.  Has he not been 'asking for it?'  The clear objective is to use CK's involvement to raise a ruckus.  This should be expected to result in his resignation, in order to protect the others who, as it will soon transpire, were almost certainly cognizant.  Anything less than this would be an academic exercise.  Yes?  

From: Dan
Date: March 28, 2015 at 10:16:57 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Do we have an inkling?

Paul, 

***Citing "Barfield" won't be enough IMHO.*** 

Yes, I agree, and that was not my point.  Owen is mainly for the three of us, insiders.  He helps us to better formulate our own thinking.  

And that is what you want us to do, but you want us to do it 'externally'.  You want there to be a 500 page book, complete with bibliography, footnotes and index.  

That will happen, sooner than we think, but that is not 'our' main job.  That will be the job of the instant historians.  Our job is to be out in front of this beast.  Owen and the j-man are our two best (personal) 'authorities', the best that the three of us are gonna get.  Am I wrong?  

But, yes, the Princess and I will both be riding shotgun, as it now appears.  I think it is meant to be a twosome, where I am mainly her tutor.  She has 'presenter' written all over her.  We just have to keep her pointed in the right direction.  

To wit: it now appears that we will be going to the WH, sooner than later, with the usual TACP/KWF cover.  How does that work?  This is what the Princess and I are just waking up to.  


(cont.......) 

On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Paul wrote:

I didn't mean a bare list of bullet points. It will take arguments and authorities.

Citing "Barfield" won't be enough IMHO.

But then, I haven't yet read his book. So let's see.

From: Dan 
Date: March 28, 2015 at 11:37:47 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: Do we have an inkling?

(cont........) 

'Cute as a button, smart as a whip.'  That's what I said, when Ron asked me, five years ago.    
 
Yesterday, afternoon........ well, I was informed after the meeting, that Ron had called the WH to arrange for the Princess meet, on short notice, with the Dir of F&W, Dept of Interior, Bryan Arroyo.  We were expecting others to be present, but, no, just the three of us, and Aliyah's intern, Mara, from CK.  

Hold that thought, one second........ I just received two JW's, inviting me to their Easter service.  It occurs to me that they should be my next church.  Yes?  Perfect follow-up to GFC.  Yes?  

Basically, Bryan rolled out the red carpet........ what can we do for you, Princess?  

Anyway, after the meeting, after dinner, we're back at the ranch......  A. says that this was a prep for a soon to be meeting at the WH.  Under what cover??  


(cont.......2) 

Hello Dan, thought I'd leave you a note as I dropped in today, I appreciated our phone conversation yesterday. I have not forgotten about getting you the alternate phone number. I will forward that number via pm to you and we may continue the conversation as you like where time allows.

Cy

XxFrom: Dan 

Date: March 30, 2015 at 4:06:40 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David, Colton 
Subject: NYT - Stone blog

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/heideggers-philosophy-why-our-presence-matters/ 

We may be falling behind the curve.  Does Barfield mention Heidegger?  

What to do....... 

There is another boat trip, scheduled in a few weeks.  R,A&K have a cabin.  It's their vacation.  Will there be another cabin?  Will there be an agenda?  Who's in charge?  Is this necessary?  

We need a timetable, a timeframe even..... a logical sequence of events. 

How much time do we have?  When and how do we start?  A boat trip? A bus trip?  A bus makes more sense.  A magic/majic mystery bus tour.  

We would need a presidential/papal memo of some sort, to get this initiative launched.  

What about KWF?  Can that be turned on a dime?  Can the world be so turned.  

Yes, this is operation stone-soup...... we do have a significant pot to begin with, but who has the first stone?  4M/K... is likely to be the first and last stone.  

All along the way, there has to be some serious networking.  As a for instance, are we going to have to reinvent MJ12?  There has to be some serious backstopping.  If there is an immediate problem, we need some immediate assistance.  Who will hold down the fort and keep the planes from crashing, I mean besides the president, etc.?  There would have to be a portable SCIF.  Would that be too formal?  




(cont.)

All along the way, there has to be some serious networking.  As a for instance, are we going to have to reinvent MJ12? ... We would need a presidential/papal memo of some sort, to get this initiative launched.


Dan, perhaps you need to take into consideration the message from the Best of all Popular Worlds as it relates to the BPW ...

http://time.com/3747739/time-100-poll-results/

X2 and K-Pop superheroes saving the world, now that would be a MoAPS! ...

It might look something like this, perhaps? ;-)

The upcoming Sea Based Adventure is not a vacation. It is a deep dive into a new realm through which the end may become more clear. Some participants will be taking a bus, others a train, but all will gather up at the dock to embark together. Bathed only in the light of the Princess, they will descend together as well; with emergence for those who take the correct path.

Well, Gary and Cy, look what the Catfish dragged in............ 

Looks kinda like he drug his little self all the way to OMF2.  There were rumors that he was on OMF1, but they could not be confirmed.  

And it does seem like there is an invitation, of sorts.  But the SBA is not just another vacation cruise.  It will be 7+ days and it will be early next month, and this is April fools, but will this be a ship of fools?  I refer to myself as one of god's own clowns.  

This appears to be a standing invitation, as long as space is available. So just contact me or whomever.  Prices are ~1k, and scholarships may be available, but do hurry.  

And, Gary, would you please see if Lee Chae-rin could join us on the cruise.  




(cont.)

Yes I noticed. Welcome to OMF Footman. Would that I could take advantage of the invitation. However Synchroncity's Apprentice must remain in Montana for now. I am not entirely out of reach and may meet visitors here. We are not out of the path of the train-wreck as yet and Synch is not relinquishing the intervention via liberty's children at this time. This is why I dare not step outside the state as yet. Only unambiguous contact would allow an exception to this.

Cy

Cy, 

Thinking back on my visits to my sister, Louise's cabin in the Montana mountains, I can well sympathize with your sentiment.  And, as much as any, Ron appreciates your libertarian perspective.  We will do what we can to keep your views before us.  


I'm still reviewing Owen Barfield's SA/SI.  It is at the top of my recommended reading.  He gets to the heart of the matter, on page 82, when he points out how 'blood' and 'heart' have shifted their meanings, but, in saying so, Owen suggests that he will be accused of confusing the word with the thing.  

But, no, the 'real confusion lies hidden in the idictment.' It lies in our supposing that there is an object that may be separated from our (collective) representation of it.  Only, now, do we, moderns, suppose, can we make that distinction.  Good luck with that, says Owen.  How's it working for us?  

IOW, we have, in trying to save every last appearance, allowed ourselves to become seduced by our own Idol of objectivity.  Objectivity is a hollow idol.  We have become objectivity's hollow supplicants.  

The world is not dead.  It will be reenchanted..... over our dead bodies?  




(cont.)