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.

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.)

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.


Hmmm, thank you for the offer to do so Dan, but will it be my or the Source's views represented OR once again what you believe those views to be?

How many times have you gotten details wrong about me or either of those specific views? Enough times that I ceased trying to correct them at one point. The idea of my views being "libertarian" for instance, implies a political source rather than the more accurate historical and Synchronistically connected view. You may try to represent those views but there is no substitute for the real deal.

When you or any of the others truly wish to experience those, you know where to find me.

FiOs.

Cy

Cy, 

Of course, no one can represent your sources better than you.  And, no, you are not difficult to contact.  


And it does appear that we are coming to another decision point, with no one knowing who is the decider.  Each of us in charge of our own actions and thoughts, of course.  Ron has a significant degree of access, but he defers to Aliyah wrt KWF.  If KWF is going to be the focus, then Aliyah needs to find out what is to be focused.  That (minimal?) instruction would be my responsibility.  

Are we also, or instead, going to use KWF as a cover for our operation XYZ?  How long would the cover last?  Not long at all, if I am to be involved with KWF.  

It's just a question of when the three of us decide to get our act together.  Ron has usually been very standoffish wrt the BPWH/4M..... At some point he will have to stop cuttting bait.  The Princess can put that to him better than I can.  Yes?  

The first thing we will need is an active focus group, i.e. one that can meet regularly with Aliyah and me.  This would consist of de-facto interns of KWF, with a senior advisor or two.  Some of the meetings could be done over skype, but not all.  

A venue for one of the focus groups would be a local university.  We would need to go to the university admin to get permission to do that. This would probably require another call to the WH.  Each relevant dept. in the university would assign a faculty, who, in turn, would assign a student to participate.  


9am--------- 

This is what I need to put to the princess, hopefully within the hour....


10:50--------- 

Had a 40' convo with Aliyah........ I made a request, she made an offer.  I have a call into Ron to get his input.  

Request......  As Ron had arranged a meeting with RA of F&W, so could he arrange for us to meet with a university president to set up a BPW focus group.  

Offer.......  Aliyah continues with setting up a drone workshop at, say, GTU.  At the end of the workshop, we introduce the BPW gambit, and see if we can hold onto some of the participants.  

I am not amenable to this offer.  It just sounds like another delaying tactic, with a very uncertain outcome.  There would still have to be a phone call, after the fact.  What would have been gained?  




(cont.)

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

Ask Ron to call Scooter Braun ;-)

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/6281868/cl-solo-america-scooter-braun-2ne1

Dan, the objective is to support, protect and lend to the development of Kashmir World Foundation.

Skai and I had a convo, and then Ron called.  I have texted the Princess to suggest that she and I might both be right.  

Yes, quite possibly the Princess is right, that the KWF could provide the best possible entre for the BPWH into the public domain.  But this will require that I be more assertive within the KWF paradigm.  

My concern is that I not be seen as merely attempting to hijack her organization, either by her or by anyone else.  

It is a fine line that is being tread, here.  


10:10------ 


Ok, a meeting (of the minds) has been set.  


As a starter, the philosophy page might be redesignated as an intro to the best possible philosophy.  


Speaking of which...... p99 in SA/SI might be the critical page..... it's all about what 'is', is.  

For example we have E = MC^2...... this is about as close to a scientifically paradigmatic case of 'predication' as there 'is'.  

The paradigmatic case of predication is the following sylogism..... 

All men are mortal.  Socrates is a man.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.  

Herein, we have three distinct predications.  It is also an attempt to express a truth.  Is the truth hereby expressed a-priori, synthetic or tautologous?  

I would suggest that it is all three, but all in different guises.  

And what about the first (scientific) example?  Same thing, I submit.  

Do I sound like an incipient monist?  

This is what I get from reading a review of Michael Ayers 'Rationalism, Platonism and God' (OUP, 2008) by Yitzhak Y. Melamed, JHU......  http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23920-rationalism-platonism-and-god/ . 


11:15---------- 

Predication is about how we participate in the logos....... 

P88.... 'Texture of Medieval Thought'..... That lost world, then, was a world in which both phenonmenon and name were felt as representations..... The phenomenon itself only achieves full reality in the moment of being named by man.  

This is just what the mystics/shaman have been trying to tell us, down through the ages.... the logos stops here.  

Then came nominalism...... words are just so much hot air.  Then came logical positivism/behaviorism and the like.  And we still haven't gotten over it.  

The logos became an idol, something to be exploited and abused, and never treated as sacred.  Can we recapture the sacrality of words?  Should we?  Well, it all depends....... 

Socrates is a man.  Male and female created he them.  We hardly thought of the force of words until...... identity politics.  

Shan't we clone our transgendered babies, in the brave new future?  Or shall we skip the clones, and just move straight to silicon chips?  


E = MC^2....... a-priori, synthetic or tautology?  

If forced to choose, I would go with tautology.  Isn't this what Parminides got so excited about?  Is that excitement not still reveberating in the Aether?  Atman = Brahman (A=B).  Yes?  

Tautology.....?  Yes, I'm invoking most of Leibniz, except where he seems to imply that A /=/ B.  Hey, we can't be right all the time.  

E.g. does the PII imply that E=MC^2?  We can't tell the difference between a lump of coal and a nuke?  Yes and no.  

No, not until we name them, and invoke the best possible Logos, i.e. not until we perform magic/alchemy.  






(cont.)

Ron continues with the assertion that the 'eschatological vectors are coming into alignment', with a time-frame, now, of 16 months.  

Our sea-based adventure is going ahead, on that basis.  There could still be space available for last minute participants.  

KWF will be the vehicle for moving on this expanded agenda.  

The idea is to use the MoAPS to preempt the near eschaton, allowing us time for the millennial kingdom.  

A likely first action will be to initiate a focus group at a local university, under the banner of KWF, in parallel with a drone/DaVinci workshop.

Several of these vectors now point in the direction of the brine. Good thing she can bend the line as they emerge in another time. Is the MoAPS a shift in space or mind? With Dan at the helm, the journey will be fine, until he confronts the iceberg slime.

赤い大地の剣 Akai daichi no ken, has a blade that was tempered in the red clay of Japan. It was made for killing -- a warrior's sword, tailored to the body and form of the Princess, deep red with the color or Earth after time is gone.

------ 16 Month Deadline --------- 

My part of the SBA is back on hold......... too little, too late?  

If there actually is just a 16 month deadline for the MoAPS, as the alternative to an eschatological event, then our own timeline needs to be stepped up.  

At the least, there needs to be a working focus group at one of the science funding agencies.  Yes?  

Instead, we are talking about revising the by-laws of the KWF, and the statement by Ron that, at first, Aliyah could only devote a small portion of her KWF activity to the paradigm issue.  

This is carrying the idea of continuity to an extreme, in the face of an extreme discontinuity.  If the three of us cannot rise to this challenge, how can we expect others to do so?  

What do I do?  Sail off into the sunset?  Sayonara?  Do I have no alternative, but to appear to go along with a totally inadequate initiative?  Is it not too late for tokenism?  

I'm off for a walk in the woods.......


1:50--------- 

It should not take nine days to ammend the KWF bylaws.  

Otherwise I would be leading a tutorial on the BPWH.  Why wasn't this done on the cruise before last, when we had Paul Z available?  

On the last cruise, MJ12 was supposed to have been involved, peripherally, at least.  What happened to them?  Now that the stakes have been raised, they have disappeared.  This does not make sense.  

Instead, we should be setting up meetings back on shore.  We would need unlimited ship to shore communications.  None of this has been mentioned.  I should not have to be the task master or manager.  This cannot be a one person show.  Anything less is a joke.  I will stick to my reading, blogging and working with Paul.  That is what I have signed up for.  




(cont.)

I look forward to getting back to blogging as usual.  The insistance upon and considerable pressure to participate in seagoing events is distracting.   Is this just to obtain work pass of some kind?  Does this not cast doubt upon his alleged paradigm deadline?  Well, it certainly casts doubt upon my participation, therein.  Enough said?  


I've spent still more time with OB's SA/SI, and it is worth every minute.  It is largely complementary to the BPWH.  I still have not found any particular item to quarrel with.  

What I don't have is a picture of his version of final participation, either in its affect or its effect. Is this my own lacuna, or is Owen being cagey?  I guess I'd better check on that, again....... 

But wait, here is a sticking point..... SA/SI is prone to dualism between the phenomenon and the noumenon, i.e. between the 'represented' and the 'unrepresented'.  This is no small bit of semantics.  

Virtually everyone after Kant has attempted to parse his noumenon, especially Hegel, or simply concede the matter to science.  Owen eschews any such metaphysical gambit.  But can he afford to be so parsimonious?  By the same token, he eschews the Eschaton.  In some strong sense he follows the catholic initiative in immanentizing the Eschaton.... no 'consummation' for Owen.  If anything, this final abstemiousness explains his reticence wrt the noumenon.  

Me, abstemious?  Not damn likely.  We have the CCs and the CuCs.  That's all she wrote.  Our final participation is to dive back into our Source, in the CuCs, in an historically orchestrated fashion.  This is how the best possible creative bootstrap works.  Owen's three stages are the larva, chrysalis and butterfly, if you will.  We are poised on the latter boundary, waiting patiently for our D-day.  

What Owen mainly lacks, then, is the Parmenidean, brahman, neo-Platonic One/monad/unity, in that he follows the Kantian/deistic/Cartesian dualistic formulation.  This is a strange abstemiousness, given the rest of his work.  


4:30---------- 

Allow me to repeat this quote from Owen....... 'Pan has closed shop, not to retire, but to [retire within us].' (p.130)  This our final participation.  This is our apocatastasis, our embrace of the Source.  We hold Pan in our bosom.  Can we imagine it?  Can we imagine anything else?  

A few pages latter....... "I believe it will seem very strange to the historian of the future, that a literal minded generation began to accept the actuality of a 'collective unoconscious' before it could even admit the possibility of a 'collective conscious' - in the shape of the phenomenal world."  And that was 60 years ago.... strange, indeed.  

And, in the very next breath.... "I do not, however, think it can be very long now before this, too, is accepted...." 

Finally, on the next page..... "... the fact that the phenomenal world arises from the relation between a conscious and an unconscious...." Bye-bye atoms!  What happened to his metaphysical neutrality?  He just couldn't hold it any more!  



(cont.)

Ron continues with the assertion that the 'eschatological vectors are coming into alignment', with a time-frame, now, of 16 months.

What is the above based on?

Gary, 

Per my usual protocol, what you see is what I get.  Had there been more information, I would, at the least, have made reference to it.  

Do I take this prognosticaation seriously?  I have taken no actions that might indicate such, and neither has Ron, that I'm aware of.  There have been no consultations, one way or the other.  

The boat trip was to have had a BPWH theme, but that was only after several other iterations, and very little substantive input.  At this point, I'm seeing much too little, much too late.  I'm not participating.  

At the very least, there would need to be a focus group at one or more of the several government science agencies.  Nothing less would make any sense, now that Ron has dropped the E-bomb.  

Instead, this could easily be a trial balloon or a decoy of some sort.... and not very effective at that, evidently.  Of course, we do have to factor in Ron's first public appearance..... right here.  Last night he wanted to be sure that I would let him know if I heard anything.  I could hear a pin drop.  


1:15-------- 

I have finished my rereading of SA/SI, backwards and then forward.  Excellent stuff!  It will help me to flesh out the BPWH.  Owen's main problem is the lack of the CTC.  There is, therefore, no Omega >> Alpha virtual closure/gap.  

There is no Eschaton, no D-day.  History has just two phases... original and final participation.... BC and AD.  Alpha and beta-thinking, i.e. science and philosophy, were interlopers of the interim.  

The Eschaton is thoroughly immanentized.  

How could Owen have missed the MoAPS?  Reluctant messiah?  He didn't wish to incarnate the SoT, etc. 

Despite all his talk of the evolution of idols, he did not attempt finally to eradicate the notion of deep space and deep time.  Again, missing the crucial CTC.  He does not provide this alternative model for cosmology.  A model need not always be an idol.  

Owen misses our incipient 3rd age.... of the Spirit.  We have the bronze, iron and 'silicon' ages.  Our wireless world brings on the final participation, in earnest.  


Owen's greatest leap is to compare and then identify rainbow and tree.  I have failed to be quite so glib.  My bad?  I am less willing to compromise or negotiate with atoms.  My rationale is to be more radical in my construct of space, more Kantian, in that sense.  I'm like the dentist who says, your teeth are fine, but your gums will have to go!  There would be only one atom and, maybe, a cell or two.  The rest is mainly up to our perspicacity.  Space and geography are our doing.  Birds don't migrate in their space.  The do so in ours.  Yes?  There is a difference.  We geometrize.  Birds don't, bless their little hearts.  They just flap their wings a lot.  I'm not being just a little bit glib, am I?





(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: April 8, 2015 at 9:16:23 AM EDT
To: Ron 
Subject: (it's) your call......

Ron, 

If I try to make sense of your gyrations, I chalk them up to your gaming the system.  That's what you get paid to do.  That's not what I get paid to do, so we have an interfacing issue.  

In your phone call yesterday, you spoke of 'vectors of instability'.  You wanted to know if Sam or I had any recent data, and you mentioned Charlie Hall, in that regard.  I reminded you of the incident with Gail Tverberg and Dennis Meadows at the zombie-apocalypse fest at the hippie commune in western Maryland, last spring.  

Gail stated that she expected the fracking investment bubble to collapse this year, leading to the second global financial collapse, a collapse that would not have the sovereign debt cushion that we had in '08.   

The larger point is that we are accelerating into dead-man's curve in our race to oblivion.  These impending instabilities or non-linearities have been foreseen at least since Dennis' 'Limits to Growth' (1972).  

I hope, Ron, that God is watching your backside.  I hope that your deep-black psychic network develops no glitches.  It's ok for God to play chicken with our destiny, but I suspect that game is above your pay-grade.  

OTOH, I am chicken little.  I don't play chicken.  Nor am I going to play the lounge lizard on your May cruise.  I'm still waiting for you to get serious about the future.  In the meantime, I'll be sitting right here, by my phone.  

Dan 

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: April 8, 2015 at 9:30:33 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: Gary, Bill L., David G., Cy, Colton, Sam, John S. 

Subject: message in a bottle......

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t175p900-hello-cy-omf-ii-part-2#6023 

From: Paul 
Date: April 7, 2015 at 7:11:47 PM EDT
To: Dan 
Cc: David
Subject: Your Recent OMF Post

Hi Dan,

Comments below in red.

On Tuesday April 7 Dan Smith wrote:

1:15-------- 

I have finished my rereading of SA/SI, backwards and then forward.  Excellent stuff!  It will help me to flesh out the BPWH.  
Owen's main problem is the lack of the CTC.  There is, therefore, no Omega >> Alpha virtual closure/gap.  

There is no Eschaton, no D-day.  History has just two phases... original and final participation.... BC and AD.  Alpha and beta-
thinking, i.e. science and philosophy, were interlopers of the interim.  

The Eschaton is thoroughly immanentized.  

How could Owen have missed the MoAPS?  Reluctant messiah?  He didn't wish to incarnate the SoT, etc. 

As you say, he has his "final participation" -- in which the use of symbols, metaphor, and allegory is permissive but fully 
aware. It doesn't hypostatize the icon as an object of veneration in its own right -- and is thus not idolatrous.

I'm still not sure what the relationship is to Heidegger's immediate apprehension of Pure Being...

Despite all his talk of the evolution of idols, he did not attempt finally to eradicate the notion of deep space and deep time.  

As a Kantian surely would, considering them to be mere forms of human intuition imposed in sense experience a priori.

Quotes?

Again, missing the crucial CTC.  He does not provide this alternative model for cosmology.  

Well, what kind of "spark gap" would it take to go original participation >> final participation >> original participation? 

But I thought you were now thinking more in terms of Hofstadter strange loops, as opposed to GR CTCs?

A model need not always be an 
idol.  

Isn't that the point of Barfield's concept of "final participation"?

Owen misses our incipient 3rd age.... of the Spirit.  We have the bronze, iron and 'silicon' ages.  Our wireless world brings on 
the final participation, in earnest.  

How so? What do you think Barfield means by "final participation"?

My impression is that he is thinking in terms of a deliberate fully conscious use of icons, distinguishing between that an 
the mistaken belief that the icons are themselves the real McCoy, which Barfield characterizes as a form of "idolatry"?

Owen's greatest leap is to compare and then identify rainbow and tree.  I have failed to be quite so glib.  My bad?  

Barfield's argument here is rather weak if you ask me. Yes the rainbow as perceived is an intersubjective construct (what
Barfield calls an "intersubjective representation"), but the water droplets and the refracted light waves that are the physical
basis for the rainbow effect do not depend on the perception of color -- which Barfield confusingly calls the "unrepresented".

Again, we are talking about primary vs., secondary qualities. You need a Kantian argument -- or something equivalent -- to 
establish that the primary qualities are also fundamentally intersubjective.  Barfield's rainbow conveys the idea, nicely, but 
doesn't actually make the needed argument IMHO.

I am less 
willing to compromise or negotiate with atoms.  My rationale is to be more radical in my construct of space, more Kantian, 
in that sense.  

You just need to establish that primary qualities are also intersubjective constructs aka "collective representations". Then
everything else follows.

IMO Barfield's thesis boils down to the observation that "nature" is defined by the conceptual map the human mind applies
to the territory. Thus as the human mind evolves, so does "nature". Nature is a system of collective representations.  

I'm like the dentist who says, your teeth are fine, but your gums will have to go!  There would be only one atom 
and, maybe, a cell or two.  

Ontologically speaking, there is only One period (according to Parmenides at least).

Atoms are intersubjective constructs. They are no individual substances. Also they are divisible.

So contemporary science does NOT support metaphysical atomism.

The rest is mainly up to our perspicacity.  Space and geography are our doing.  Birds don't migrate 
in their space.  The do so in ours.  Yes?  There is a difference.  We geometrize.  Birds don't, bless their little hearts.  

That doesn't mean they don't have a model in their heads that serve to organize their sense impressions along 
geographical lines.

They just 
flap their wings a lot.  I'm not being just a little bit glib, am I?

Hmmm...

I'm going to scan some Barfield quotes and OCR them, and then post them for discussion. I'd like to pin down what Barfield 
means by "final participation", "unrepresented", etc., a little more precisely.

From: Dan
Date: April 8, 2015 at 11:25:55 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David, Colton
Subject: Re: Your Recent OMF Post

Paul, 

Immediate apprehension of pure being..........? 

That is pure faith.  That is allowing ourselves, individually and collectively, to be rocked in the bosom of Abraham.  

It is letting ourselves see the world as a love-fest, and not as being red in tooth and claw.  Yes, it will still be that, for a spell, but that spell will be broken, with the spell of love.  Seeing is believing, all we have to do is learn to see with our minds' eye.  We just have to get serious about beta-thinking.  

Deep space, deep time..........? 

Owen simply was not going to throw himself under the NASA juggernaut, not in 1957.  NASA no longer occupies the cosmic Catbird seat.  Psilocybin is making its comeback.... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment .  The Kingdom is within, sports fans!  And that is not just a figure of speech.  


But I thought you were now thinking more in terms of Hofstadter strange loops, as opposed to GR CTCs........?  

Look, Paul, let me remind you of the NWO......  If I like a phrase, I take it, I own it.  I like CTC, I don't like strange-loop.  If the physicists don't like my slanderous plagiarism, then see me in court.  You, Paul, are my fringe-physics lawyer.  All you need to know is how not to blink, when you get caught in the headlights.  It's kinda looking like that might be sooner than later, you know, before the cock crows.  


What do you think Barfield means by "final participation"......? 

See above....... 

You need a Kantian argument -- or something equivalent -- to establish that the primary qualities are also fundamentally intersubjective.  Barfield's rainbow conveys the idea, nicely, but doesn't actually make the needed argument IMHO......... 


Again, Paul, yours is not to reason why, yours is but to fill in the blank spaces.  Yes?  I know you can do it!  


Thus as the human mind evolves, so does "nature". Nature is a system of collective representations......... 


Kinda..... but don't forget the God of the Gap..... the Alpha and Omega/Telos.  Yes, we are One with God, she has our backside and our frontside, as do we, hers.  


So contemporary science does NOT support metaphysical atomism.......


Amen, brother.  


That doesn't mean they don't have a model in their heads that serve[s] to organize their sense impressions along geographical lines....... 


Model in their heads...... that is a mouthful!  But not quite.  There is but one Atom and but one Bird, in the End.  That one bird is Our totem.  Let's not confuse the Bird's map for Our territory.  Yes, birds have a collective consciousness, and that is all they have.  Their CCs is an essential subset of ours.  Who are we to begrudge them that?  


'Nature is our Mirror.' (Rorty?)  That's all I'm trying to say.  Is this what Owen is saying?  


Dan 


cc: OMF 

There is but one Atom and but one Bird, in the End. That one bird is Our totem.

I recall one of Castaneda's later books discussing a similar concept for humans and other forms of life.

http://terebess.hu/english/fire6.html

He gave me a detailed explanation of what the mold of man was. He did not talk about it in terms of the Eagle's emanations, but in terms of a pattern of energy that serves to stamp the qualities of humanness on an amorphous blob of biological matter. At least, I understood it that way, especially after he further described the mold of man using a mechanical analogy. He said that it was like a gigantic die that stamps out human beings endlessly as if they were coming to it on a mass-production conveyor belt. He vividly mimed the process by bringing the palms of his hands together with great force, as if the die molded a human being each time its two halves were clapped.

He also said that every species has a mold of its own, and every individual of every species molded by the process shows characteristics particular to its own kind.

He began then an extremely disturbing elucidation about the mold of man. He said that the old seers as well as the mystics of our world have one thing in common -- they have been able to see the mold of man but not understand what it is. Mystics, throughout the centuries, have given us moving accounts of their experiences. But these accounts, however beautiful, are flawed by the gross and despairing mistake of believing the mold of man to be an omnipotent, omniscient creator; and so is the interpretation of the old seers, who called the mold of man a friendly spirit, a protector of man.

He said that the new seers are the only ones who have the sobriety to see the mold of man and understand what it is. What they have come to realize is that the mold of man is not a creator, but the pattern of every human attribute we can think of and some we cannot even conceive. The mold is our God because we are what it stamps us with and not because it has created us from nothing and made us in its image and likeness. Don Juan said that in his opinion to fall on our knees in the presence of the mold of man reeks of arrogance and human self-centeredness.

As I heard don Juan's explanation I got terribly worried. Even though I had never considered my self to be a practicing Catholic, I was shocked by his blasphemous implications. I had been politely listening to him, yet I had been yearning for a pause in his barrage of sacrilegious judgments in order to change the subject. But he went on drumming his point in a merciless way. I finally interrupted him and told him that I believed that God exists.

He retorted that my belief was based on faith and, as such, was a secondhand conviction that did not amount to anything; my belief in the existence of God was, like everyone else's, based on hearsay and not on the act of seeing, he said.

He assured me that even if I was able to see, I was bound to make the same misjudgment that mystics have made. Anyone who sees the mold of man automatically assumes that it is God.

Foot Mann wrote:Several of these vectors now point in the direction of the brine. Good thing she can bend the line as they emerge in another time. Is the MoAPS a shift in space or mind? With Dan at the helm, the journey will be fine, until he confronts the iceberg slime.

赤い大地の剣 Akai daichi no ken, has a blade that was tempered in the red clay of Japan. It was made for killing -- a warrior's sword, tailored to the body and form of the Princess, deep red with the color or Earth after time is gone.

Bending lines...

Peter Berresford Ellis wrote:Then Righbaddan, the royal poet went to Cellachain (Cashel Eoghannocht) and said: "I know the sidh of Drom Collchoille where the lady Aine dwells."

Chellachain looked at the poet-warrior in curiosity, "No one knows that," he said dismissively. "And if anyone did, what good would it avail us?"

"It is a closely guarded secret among poets," agreed Righbaddan. "But good it well do, for isn't it Aine who is the guardian of the Eoghanachta, and isn't it Aine who fortold that Mor would be mother to a dynasty of kings in Cashel?"

Aine who created the Eoghanachta through Oilill Olomh, son of Eoghan Mor; she who was daughter of Mannanan Mac Lir.

The ancients bent no knee before the kindred peoples, nor to the Universal Source. Instead they stood as expected on two feet and tall; fierce and firm...

Castaneda wrote:He began then an extremely disturbing elucidation about the mold of man. He said that the old seers as well as the mystics of our world have one thing in common -- they have been able to see the mold of man but not understand what it is. Mystics, throughout the centuries, have given us moving accounts of their experiences. But these accounts, however beautiful, are flawed by the gross and despairing mistake of believing the mold of man to be an omnipotent, omniscient creator; and so is the interpretation of the old seers, who called the mold of man a friendly spirit, a protector of man.

Now, Dan said you mentioned Charlie Hall?

Which, your horse race makes less sense than recent synchronistic happenings with this one: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_hall.htm

unconfirmed as yet...but if true, then I'd expect they were doing some inquiring. For if true, WE, mine, have spelled out why certain treaties are null and void, in this short time before the Reckoning.

What exactly was your comment in regards to that (Charlie Hall)? Was it on this or something else entirely? I seek what is at work behind the name...they or Synch.

Will you reply with clarity on this Footman? I will check back on a possible reply later...I must be elsewhere for a few hours.

My interuption to your ponderings of Aislings, was not without necessary purpose.

Cyrellys