Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)

Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that. Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design. She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party. They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed. Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast? Like any of us would forget and forgive her? Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers. She's five ahead of this gun owner. And that's just what we happen to know about. There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart. I could go on but what's the point. Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.

I'm a celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC. Truth and justice equals neurosis? What kind of thinking is that?!! But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception. So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play. They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.

>>>on India and Greece...look at the Sanskrit language and old greek. Then compare it to Old Irish. Fascinating? Now look at some of the ideas each culture valued...same again. All three have same root system. Ah but why would anyone care about the legacy of the elder gods? 'er ET and the seeding of civilizations? Virmana are inconveniences...ah! and there once was one in the vicinity of Fermoy Eire of all places! That is if you can take the Christian overlay off the history.

>>> on the subject of the Glyphs:

432 Mystery

432 Mystery: the first lesson - the Abducted Preceptor

Dan, it would seem that "a common destiny" is encoded in the initial conditions.

Why look for visitors when we are in their home? Why look for assistance from those who created the problem? The pathway is not defined by the existing roadway. Open a new door. Climb up a new staircase. Step into a new dimension. The Vectors are pointing from the past along established pathways. They cannot be stopped, but they can be bent. Drop a black hole and let the new world begin.

Hmmm......

Which cosmology is this? The better possible world?

I must have missed that class.

I suggest Ron's "bending" of the vectors is to be found in the initial conditions and was pre-selected rather than post-selected, from our vantage point. Of course, this presumes a certain and possibly unpredictable twist of fate from our earthly point of view.

Gary,

I had a conversation with Ron this morning.  I, too, was left wondering.  It does seem that he spoke in riddles.  The 'black hole' he refers to is simply the MoAPS, which, per our intention, will bend the Vectors.  

But you are right, anyway.  Our destiny is written in the stars.  The Alpha is the Omega.  It could be none other, when we stop to think.  In our ouroboric CTC, the end is the beginning, and the beginning is the end.  The eternal Telos rules all.  

We could go around the soul circuit the nominal 10^11 times and still not get it all.  Folks want a better world a different world.  We have before us 10^11 worlds, and each one is the best for us, especially when you include the Millennium, which will be our final 'thousand years' in this temporal, fleshy existence.  Keeping in mind that everyone is the 'reincarnation' of everyone else.  We are all soul mates.  

Sure, I'll include all the Serpos that you like, with the simple proviso that they are not the center of the action.  


But the best possible world just got better, IMO.  I had been supposing that we were stuck with MJ12, being the minimalist version of an intervention.  Yes, there once was such a group, it may even still exist, but it was, from the start, destined to be supplanted by us, by everyone.  

We are all UTs with our 'virtual' flesh.  Everyone of us is in direct contact with cosmic consciousness (cCs), whether consciously or not.  

And we now have a stone-soup version of MJ12.  We've had it all along, but are just waking up to the fact.  Our slumber of materialism has left us all kind of groggy.  


I am also noting the news out of Stockholm...... Stephen H. seems to also be confused about what happens to the information falling into a black hole.  


1:15------------

Stephen is unsure as to whether the conserved infomation ends up in another universe or back in this one.  

With the small world hypothesis (SWH), I look upon black holes with the same grain of salt that I look upon exoplanets and trees falling in the forest.  They are all a part of our virtual holographic reality, along, even, with ourselves.  This is the strong form of immaterialism.  It's not clear that there is a weak form, at least not one that makes a bit of sense.  

Now we have the proof in front of us.  It comes bundled with the vast amount of anomalous data that has been scattered everywhere about us.  It only needs to be collated in an organized and timely fashion.  The BPWH/SWH/CTC (4M/K....) provides such a time-critical vehicle, given, especially, the cogency of the Vectors.  

The Princess speculates that the MoAPS will likely coincide with the September surprise, coming next year.  She notes the near coincidence of the Hubble fiasco and the Gulf war.  

She suggests that a similar coincidence could be slated for next September. That seems a stretch to me, but it gives us a starting point. It suggests, among other things, that the surprise does not have to be deadly. We're looking at a 'decoy' surprise that could serve as a vehicle or even a cover for the MoAPS.




(cont.)

Per family necessity, it appears that I will play hard to get.  Well, that's relatively speaking.  I may just stop playing easy to get.  Aren't vacations wonderful, when it comes to clarifying communications.  

Recycling old aviary stories is not likely to bring about the MoAPS.  Ron would have to stick his neck out much further than before.  He only plays by increments.  That will not be sufficient to meet a September surprise.  

It will have to be either 'MJ12' or CosCs.  Perhaps we are slated to experience some part of a tribulation.  It will be quite tricky to prevent things from spiralling beyond control.  There would have to be a very serious backup plan.  I cannot imagine what it would require.  It would have to be something dramatic.  By necessity, it would take us well beyond spontaneity.  It would be hard to justify it, from the PoV of the BPWH.

Let's do a little recap.......

There is a story to be put out.  It is a three part story.  There is sequestered info about the visitors.  There is the notable alignment of 32 prognosis vectors pointing to a Sept '16 surprise of a global breakdown, of sorts.  Then there is the MoAPS.  The BPWH includes all of this info, except a precise date.  The MoAPS is to be billed as a possible antidote to the Sept surprise.  

Only this three-part story provides a coherent account of how this info has been sequestered for so long, and why it is finally being put out now.  

A missing piece is to find an outlet, besides OMF.  There is nothing wrong with OMF, it's just the even when is was 20 times as active, it never generated a news story.  I believe that the original OMF was founded upon, or just before, the breaking of the Serpo story in late '05.  But then I remember an '04 date.  I joined early in '06.  Cy joined with the story about the 'admiral', maybe in '08.  

Neither of those stories made it into a mainstream story, but the Serpo story had a lot of internet circulation.  

The has never been a mainstream UFO story since the late '40's, with Roswell and the Kenneth Arnold sighting.  The main exception were the Congessional hearings in '66, in connection with project Blue Book, which were inconclusive.  There never was an official denial of an anomalous phenomenon, just a denial that UFO's posed any threat to national security.  

If only they knew........

But what now.......?

What do we do with the greatest story ever told?  How presumptuous is that.  There is only one significant challenge.  That was the story of the J-man.  It turned out to be the GSET, but it took several centuries to catch on, and several more to get widely published.  It was also an unfinished story.  This will be rather more complete.  

People say we should put it out in pieces.  But none of the pieces makes a lick of sense, by itself.  Evidently, it is all or nothing.  The nearest thing to a reporter who might touch this story is Steve Bassett, and I'm not sure he would publish it.  Maybe I'll have to write it myself.  How to circulate it?  It would be about three pages in length, like one of my longer posts here.  

Ron points to three members of the aviary who have provacative stories that have never been published.  They have not even been told to other members of the group, so I don't know how Ron could have come by them.  As of now, I cannot vouch that such stories exist, or if they are true.  My hunch is that they are.  It's hard to put any meaningful credibility rating on that possibility.  

As far as I know, Ron is the only one to have collected them, or to know of their collective existence.  Why, then, don't I go to him?  First of all, he would deny they existed, even to me, or had any credibility, and would probably refuse to recount what he knew of them.

It seems that he wants me to keep him out of the loop, to the extent possible.  I'm lazy.  I don't like to reinvent the wheel.  It's rather too late for him to be cut out.  IOW, I'm gonna get him to give a bare bones account of the stories and the 'vectors'.  I give a bare bones account of the BPWH.  I will, of course, give him as much deniabilty as he wants.  He would take it anyway.  Would my hearsay have any credibility?  Very little, especially relative to the fact that it would be in the running for the GSET.  

Nonetheless, I have to presume that if he came right out and said what he knew, there would be considerable traction on the iternet, to the extent that the mass media would have difficulty ignoring it, and then it would get back to the POTUS.  I wonder if he has been briefed, to this effect.  I would have to presume that he already has a clue or two, or at least someone high in his administration does.  

Who might believe me in his stead, over his denials?  Very few, especially in the context of the GSET.  What, then, to do?  If the content of the stories were sufficiently povocative, they might have traction on their own, if the rest of the larger story were ignored.  But the larger story could hardly be ignored, if I'm the only known source.  This is where KWF could come into the picture.  The princess would be a provocative intermediary, were she to post it.  Heck with Basset, in that case.  

But then we come to the real estate transaction.  She wants a new location for KWF.  I could help out, but Debbie has put down her foot.  I would be looking at a divorce.  I don't want that.  I would be a duck out of water.  R&P can't quite grasp that simple fact of my life, even though they are in that position, themselves.  I would not be happy to take a 'bribery' route, in any case.  The most obvious outlet for the story comes with prohibitve strings attacched, as if by design.  

There you have it.  That's about all she wrote.  You know the rest of the story.

I have sent this link to Ron and one other.......


9:30-----------

In defense of my own credibility and sanity, I should point out that this story bears very little resemblance to the original GSET, with the possible exception of the cosmology.  IOW, this story is almost completely impersonal, whereas the original is almost competely personal.  That was, in fact, the one major source of personalism.  

It's all about the message.  To heck with the messenger.  I feel only like I happened to be in the wrong place at the right time, or was it the right place at the wrong time?  Who knows?  Not me.  I've just never had a good reason to tell a lie.  Instead, I had the luxury of a plethora of time to make some sense of the world.  If it is any approximation of the truth, imagine the set up.  Who'd a thunk it?  

That would ultimately have to be story........

The wife of a gov't officer posts a crazy story by some crazy guy, who happens to be the godfather of her child.  End of story?  Maybe, maybe not.  

1.)  Old but virtually uncirculated UFO stories.

2.)  Vectors pointing to a global meltdown.

3.)  A cosmology that purports to explain #1, and provide an antidote for #2.  

Each of these three pieces makes little sense, nor has any credibility, just on its own, but, taken together, they tend to support each other, and much other anomalous data that has been circulating forever.  This is the theory, anyway.  Who will buy it?  Who will make it their own?  Does anything compete?  

What else? That should be enough.

Will the Princess play along, even on a shoestring?



(cont.)

Ron points to three members of the aviary who have provocative stories that have never been published. They have not even been told to other members of the group, so I don't know how Ron could have come by them. As of now, I cannot vouch that such stories exist, or if they are true. My hunch is that they are. It's hard to put any meaningful credibility rating on that possibility.

It is possible the stories concern privately experienced anomalous events and as such are one-source tales of little interest to journalists, who require two-source minimum confirmation (and likely more for unusual reporting). In this case, there is little to no payout for the sources to come forward and face the likely fallout of doing so. Perhaps they have been shared privately, one-on-one, with Ron.

There was mention a while back of new and credible data provided by the chief of security at LLNL in the later 1980s, which was discussed by several birds.

Gary,

You are absolutely right.  Ron could be making the whole thing up, or otherwise slanting the truth.  He claims to be quite ignorant of the BPWH.  Why do I still pay attention to him, when I know for a fact that he has told me lies?  

That's a good question.  

Why do I keep breathing when I know I'm going to die soon?  Force of habit, I suppose.  Protocol, such as it may be.

That's my excuse.  I can provide little excuse for others.  

Even the MoAPS is partly dependent on Ron.  Not the content, of course, but the motivation.  I was stymied, motivationally, when I made the contact.  I could continue, now, on my own, but it would definitely be anti-climactic.  

LLNL stories........

Was that when Uri was involved?  

You may well know more of the (aviary) stories than I do.  If Ron mentioned any, it was usually disparagingly.  I have also been cautioned against using the term 'aviary', but I hardly know an alternative.  

On the debriefing and even the selection of the astronauts when Frosh was involved, Ron has claimed that his psychic interests were notorious, and likely biased the whole process.  Did this alleged bit of news never get reported?  It might considerably expand (or contract!) our data base.  

But now, there seems to be a counter-move toward credibility.  Perhaps this is mainly a distraction for my benefit.  

As for the BPWH, it's not easy to separate the credibility from the motivation.  It's not easy to separate the three theses...... UFO's, Vectors, cosmology.  The first two do depend considerably on the Footmann.  


11am---------

What about everybody else?  We take the Footmann out of the equation.  We still have many credible anomalous phenomena.  You have to be a hard-core, professional materialist to discount every piece of anomalous data.  You have to be a very hard-core materialist to claim that all of consciouness is just a disease of language.  On top of that, you have the 'easy' problem, you have rationality.   The vast majority of philosophers and many top-notch physicists do not discount free-will and morality.  It has been proven that mathematics transcends calculation.  Quantum mind is the only thing keeping physicalism alive.  

Does the quantum cause the mind, or does mind cause the quantum?  The jury is definitely still out on that one.  No doubt, the quantum plays an irreducible role in nature.  Does the mere fact of irreducibilty explain all the structure of the mind?  Free-will, for instance, has both a negative and positive thesis.  Quantum randomness, per-se, can account only for the negative thesis.  That leaves the vast majority of free-will unaccounted for.  Philosophers understand this.  Some physicists may not.  Jack, for example, does not.  

Where does this leave us, Gary, my most loyal skeptic?  Are you not a betting man.  What odds would you give me?  

Even without the Footmann, I'd have to give myself much better than even odds.  There is something under the Sun that transcends any stretch of what we may call 'physics'.  

What does this say about the 'small world hypothesis' (SWH)?  

My claim is that no form of dualism can be made coherent.  The >90% sure fact of the UTH over the ETH, nails the lid on there being any ET life.  Given that fact, of even a little non-physicalism, the SWH looms large.  The SWH is, by far, the 'stickiest' part of the BPWH.  

What does all this tell us.....?

Materialism/phyicalism = 1%.  

Dualism = 2%.

BPWH = 97%.  

This is leaving out the Footmann.  If we factor that in, we could easily get something like 99%.  Are you a betting man, Gary?  

Let's take something more immediate and tangible.  Say, my meeting the Pope on his visit to Washington.  Under even the best of 'normal' circumstances (<2014), I would have put those chances at <0.01%.  But what are the chances in 2015, with both R&P suggesting that arrangements are being investigated?  1%?  2%?  How about 10 to 1 odds?  Any takers?  

And so it goes..........


8:30-----------

I did get to meet NBE.  I called my sister at noon.  She was just coming to the phone, too.  It seemed that Nancy had invited us(?) to come over.  Debbie and I got there at 1:30.  She called Nancy to say that her brother and sister-in-law were coming over.  Redundancy?  Deliberate?  It was a lovely informal meeting.  Nancy was disheveled in her gardening togs, at age 89.  

I had suggested to Ron that he have Andy Card call the Bushes, to this effect.  Were Ron to take any credit, I could not rule it out.  He may ask innocently if I got to meet her.  



(cont.)

I expect to hear sometime today if their has been any progress on the Francis front, assuming that there was anything to progress, in the first place.  

True to form, Ron did ask if I had met Nancy.  Yes.  Did we discuss anything eschatological?  No.  She did not ask if I thought the world might end.  Deborah and Debbie would not have been amused.  There was some discussion of the 'Suffragette' movie she had seen.  

Ron calls. He is helicoptering to an airfield to fly winged drones (w/o tails?).

We rehashed the Nancy meeting.  He was surprised that we did not disuss Jeb.  We discussed no current issues.  Both Debs would not be supporting Jeb.  I don't know that Nancy is.  Among the Republican candidates, he is the least antagonistic to women's issues.  

Francis does not (particularly) want to see the Footmann.  (If anyone) he wants to see the Princess.  Will he ask her about an early retirement?  What happened to the 'people' who were supposed to be working on the meeting?  I may ask the Princess how she is doing.  Branson is continuing to support the KWF, mostly at his private SA game reserve.  Doesn't Francis want to discuss the vectors?  The Church is traditionally amillennial.  It tries to discourage the Millennialism that disrupted it during the 12th Century (see Joachim da Fiore).  
---------


Instead of atoms, I suggest that the basic unit of existence should be taken to be the angels, even prior to God, perhaps.  But, wait, the entire point of the angels was to do the will of God.  We may wish to revisit that point.  

If there were just one intelligence, it would have hallucinated playmates, rather as children do.  If traumatized by solitary existence, it would have developed a multiple personality.  

These multiple persons, angels, could have floated in timeless, spaceless existence.  There could even have been 'choirs' of such beings.  Time could have been created to support 'song'.  Song does need something to fill, like space.  How could there be sonority w/o space?  

If bodies did not exist, they would have to be invented, to put a quorum size on meetings, perhaps.  When and where would one meet?  There would be a designated spot, for instance.  It could be like the Little Prince and his planet, peopled with his imaginary playmates.  It could be standing-room only.  In a circle?  That implies some fence.  It would be more logical as a sphere.  That sphere, in conjunction with the associated beings/bodies, would be the primordial 'atoms' of existence.  

In the first approximation, the sphere would lead a timeless existence.  In the 2nd approx it would be a CTC, closed timelike curve.  There would logically be some furnishings.  Perhaps, more importantly, there would be metabolism and exchangeable parts.  

There would need to be gravity and mobility.  The wheel might not be logically prior to the creepy crawly stages.  There would be a logical sequence of locomotion, it could be played out on a CTC.  The early stages would be backgound (evolution) just like the stars.  Instead of a sunlamp, there could be an honest to gosh Sun.  Anyone for photosynthesis or heliotropism?  No reason why not.  But what about those pesky photons?  Frankly, I'm rather put off by representational realism, even by geometric optics.  Being an immaterialist, I'm more inclined to direct realism.  

Photons and atoms are the icons of mterialism.  Me?  Not so much.  Don't get me wrong!  I have found photons and atoms to be very useful accounting devices.  But that doesn't mean I have to wear a green eyeshade all the time.  It can be exhilarating to remove it, once in awhile.  Sometimes you can see halfway to heaven.  

Physcists have grown quite accustomed to spookiness of photons.  True, bosons are more partial to the God particle, but that association should not make them guilty of misplaced materialism, not according to Alfred, anyway.  

Is there that much difference, ontologiacally speaking, between angels and photons?  Beats me!  Well, we can see photons.  I've never seen one.  I think I've seen an angel or two.  I know of folks who have, almost for sure.  

I have seen the sparkle of an old radium painted alarm clock, through a microscope, but they were buches of photons, or so I'm told.  I'm typing this on a wireless mini-ipad.  Lots of folks had to wear lots of green eyeshades to invent it.  If they had not taken photons much more seriously than I do, I'd still be scratching on papyrus, if I were a lucky one.  It was the labor of Job(s).  

I am suggesting that reality is a "folie-a-'douze'".  Absolutism wrt existence is a residue of deism, IMHO.  The primodial CTC is as close as anything we have to an absolute.  It might easily be mediated through our collective/cosmic unCs (CuCs).  Our individual being is abstracted from, while contributing to, the C(u)Cs.  That is the old bootstrap trick.  What are the mechanics of the cosmic bootstrap?  Well, you tell me the mechanics of Cs, and I'll tell you the mechanics of cCs.  


noon---------

Let me start first...............

'Esse est percipi.'  

What is the alternative?  Unobservable universes?  

How, then, do we make sense of the fossils?  God planted them because he didn't like paleontologists. Or was it because he did like them?  

Well, the God of revelation is necessarily the God of concealment.  What could be a better veil than the robustness of nature?  A total distraction, a total passtime.  Did God get a green thumb?  No.  I suspect that God was more the cheerleader, more the Tom Sawyer.

Consciousness trickles up and down, but we are its mainstay. We are the Adam Kadmon, the Vitruvian man, the measure of all things, we are the prototype of the world.

It's us or 'rust'. By definition, there must be an end to material progress. We ingrates, when will we ever get enough? Me? I'd settle for Apocastasis, any day. What else is the point?

Why else would we 'wire' the world, other than to facilitate a global consciousness? That is the logical end of consciousness. Not some silicon abyss.





(cont.)

With angels v atoms, I point to the ontological distinction between sentience and sapience, not that I suppose atoms to be either.  I am pointing to the significance of angels, supposing them to be sapient, like us.

Angels preceed humans, logically.  They might even be supposed to preceed God and all other being, sentient and otherwise.  I suppose that one angel, by itself, makes no sense.  Let's take an even douzen, for starters.  I refer to a primordial zodiacal sapience and/or to the seven deities of the week.  We might call them the archangels.  A Freya emerged, rather tricksterish.  Many years ago, you can read it on the BPW site, I suggested that Freya recruited the other archangels into a game of..... I'll have to look it up......

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/nexu54.htm#pokatok (1/18/05).  

Yes, pokatok, a Mayan ballgame in the Yucutan.  This was the start of our virtual reality we now call the Earth.  It was not angels on the head of a pin.  It was not quite the Little Prince.  It was a 3-D pong, with six players on each side.  The 13th participant was the referee.  That might have been the proto-God figure.  It might have been Freya/Jesus.  

How do we get from a ballgame to metabolism?  Well, the ball would have been the first object.  The court would have been a proto-Earth.  A jungle stretched into the distance.  There could have been coconut palms for refreshement.  Did the players get thirsty?  Did they breathe?  

There would have been bodies, for sure.  There would have been gravity.  There would have been work and energy.  There might have been injury, of sorts, or do we just hit the restart?  I'm not saying we have to have a linear logical progression.  To be is to relate..... relationalism.  There is a multidimensional gradation of being.  Freya is the center.  Hers is the most focused of consciousnesses.  

Keep in mind that 'time' is still mainly cyclical, and, then, only relative to the game.  The logic of ontology defines othogonal 'dimensions'.  

I hope that this is a sufficient platform for ontological imagination.  Your guesses are as good as mine, hopefully better, even.  

The ballcourt, gravity and the ball itself, not to mention the bodies of the avatars, all provide an excersize in collective ontology.  How do we keep shap-shifting to a minimum, for instance?  Magic is no real problem.  The problem is to explain the physics.  That is the real magic.  It has to do with logic and math.  Good luck!  


9:30------------

The francis gambit may just have been a preemption of my own proclivity to, occasionally, get off the reservation.  That would, at least, make some sense.  The earlier alleged meeting of the Princess and Benedict might also have been made up, for the opposite effect.  She might have been an avatar in a larger game.  Sometimes fiction cuts closer to the grain than mere 'fact'.  

What next?  Maybe francis is right.  Maybe we will just muddle into the Millennium.  I am another avatar, like the princess.  Is this to be the best possible muddle?  What about the MoAPS?  I could be, in effect, a stalking horse for the big Muddle.  

Probably, there would be extra grief, but it could have been deemed to be worth it.  Does this make francis mj1?  Perhaps.  Is there a spot for the potus?  Who else?  Are there runner-ups?  Maybe Two is also correct.  Maybe he is really 13.  Maybe he's not supposed to know.  Things do get a bit convoluted.  It's rather a big game.  Or is it a little one?  Still, it may not be too easy to work around the BPWH and R&D.  It would not be easy to remove the traces.  It's really, then, just a waiting game.  The only good indian......  I just have to entertain myself, and a couple others, 'til the next stroke.  Shouldn't be too onerous.  
-----------------


I really have fallen down with the metabolism of angels.  It's the opposite problem with the 'rapture'.  Speaking of which, I've not heard from JP/GFC.  That could keep me out of some trouble.  

Which is more difficult...... starting or stopping metabolism?  That is quite the puzzle.  One is in need of a logical bridge.  Is there not a story to tell?  What was the song from Yes!, something about a story?  

He spoke of lands not far
Nor lands they were in his mind
Of fusion captured high
Where reason captured his time
In no time at all he took me to the gate
In haste I quickly
Checked the time
If I was late
I had to leave, to hear your wonderous stories...

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

What does metabolism have to do with the aether? It's like the air we breathe. It's like the fish not noticing the water.

We think very little of air and water, unless we're in the desesrt.



(cont.)

​Instead of atoms, I suggest that the basic unit of existence should be taken to be the angels ...

Physicist George Ryazanov wrote about the above, many years ago. Some angels are moving along with us, over us and observing the arrow of time, whereas others are stationary to the arrow of time. Thus we, as humans, experience a mixture of time and timeless dynamical effects. Transcendent experiences are mediated by the angels outside of time's arrow. During such experiences we experience transcendence of time, according to Ryazanov's imagery. But the angels are God's messengers and their communication constructs worlds, as I recall.

To Dan from George Ryazanov, 4/26/06

Dan!
    Yes, loops in time are imaginary construction of mind.
    But this mind is the Mind of God.
    And this Mind generate reality in the same manner
    as our imagination generate our action.
    This simple analogy generate all physics and much beyond.
                                                                                    George

AND THIS:

I also have Ouroboros- it explain[s] why equations of physics have solutions with opposing signs of time.
It is important in my picture that human beings are neurons of Global Psyche. You name it Cosmic Soul (? I forget the name).
Then I derive matter, physics and mathematics as collective modes of emotions of natural spirits.

Gary,  

George seems to be rather distant, from the perpective of the BPWH.  I don't see how his cosmology differs from the standard model.  But you know more about it, please elaborate.
-------------


My point from yesterday is that '(arch-)angels' need a common ground on which to stand, if they are to cooperate, physically.  That common ground could be a pokatok court, along with a ball, to make for a ballgame.  

This scenario also brings to mind Saint-Exupery's 'Little Prince' living temporarily on asteroid B-612.  

The ball and court, or the asteroid, provide us with a common frame of reference.  

It is a long way from a ball court to metabolism, but the idea is similar.  A major point for bodies is to provide a frame for the soul.  Even angels have bodies of a sort, shape shifting though they may be.  A body provides many additional channels of communication, so much so that they tend to overwhelm the direct links.  Given a 'physical' body or avatar, is not metabolism the next logical step?  Cellular and developemental biolgy would have to be invented, if they did not already exist.  Evolutionary appearances would the next logical step after that.  So we have a robust veil of nature.  

But do keep in mind that all this 'physicality' is playing out in an ultimate frame of unphysicality or immaterialism.  


10am---------

That is why the commonality is a key element.  But it does need a common basis point or a common point of reference.  The Earth, with an implied gravity field, provides such.  The primal pokatoc court could be floating in space, but, with gravity, you do need a base.  There could be multiple megalithic sites with a common Geo-metry.  This is what many non-standard archeologists have supposed, in one fashion or another.   If we add astronomy to this geodesy we get something rather like Hamlet's Mill and astrology.  

It is the transition to more 'realistic' avatars that still presents a conceptual hurdle.  Do we just wake up one day with a fully functioning body.  Where does reproduction come into this picture, for instance?  That is a rather big step.  

Back with the body, however, one should be reminded of the cosmic or spiritual body, of which our physical body, with its various organs, would be a metaphor.  It is a mini-ecosystem, at the least.  It is, quite simply, a microcosm, especially if we include the mind.  

Reproduction, then, is a microcosm of creation and 'evolution' rolled up into one process.  Conceptually, though, you do need something very much like DNA from the start.  The early atomists apparently missed this conceptual vehicle.  Maybe they did not.  Was DNA not always latent in their atomism?  


Keeping one's eye on the ball was the harbinger of much of objectivity.  Elsewise, it was more obviously intersubjective.  It was the avatars of other souls.  There is the obvious proclivity to imbue the game ball with a soul of its own.  I would accept that, in a generic sense, but not specifically.  No more than I accept individual atoms.  

Atoms are useful accounting devices for the conservation of matter, but how does that actually work?  Why would it be harder to conserve bulk matter?  Can't rightly say.  


2:50------------

We may be biased toward the digital, and thus toward the atomic, when it comes to counting. There seems to be more precision. It's digital v analog.





(cont.)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin........?  

That's not really the question.  It's more like.... what is the head of a pin to angels?  They are not considered to be spatial beings.  A pin is.  How many thoughts can dance on the head of a pin?  It's not a meaningful question.  Are angels more like thoughts or like persons?  

All of us, angels and pins included, are God's thoughts, or so I am willing to entertain.  That entertianment just so happens to be a lifelong passion of mine.  But I have been at pains to say that God is, more likely than not, a construct of archangles.  Don't I sound downright medieval?  That is perhaps why I have so little company in entertaining these thoughts.  Times progress.  Yet, there are many today who might be, and even are, classed as idealists, in the ontological sense of that word.  

There are many philosophers who refuse materialism and dualism.  What have they left?  There are many Buddhists.  Generally they do not concern themselves with cosmology.  The are quite content to leave cosmolgy to the cosmologists.  But me, I happen to be an echatologist.  

How does one become an eschatologist......?

Well, first I became a physics student, a relatively passionate one.  It was something objective, in a world replete with subjectivity.  I was all to aware of my own mortality and vulnerability.  If might made right, I did not feel paricularly rightful, nor did I want to.  The higher you climb, the further you fall.  Living by one's wits did nothing to alleviate one's existential anxiety.

But physics hardly touched upon ultimate concerns.

The relief of my anxiety was to embrace the fear.  That s what I did, after ten years of trying to embrace existentialism, as a way of life.  I could not stop searching.  My searching led to the anthropic principle.  I felt like I was half-way to something.  

Oh, yes, a big part of my existential anxiety revolved around the population problem.  That is what I went to, immediately upon leaving physics.  There was an energy problem, particularly.  People would fight for their access to fossil fuel.  Alternative energy was a pipe-dream, in the context of an expanding population.

But dealing with the population issue was to deal with everyone's ultimate concerns.  Stymied.  Existentialism.  

Then anthropics.....  There was some sort of design, or was it an illusion?  Existential anxiety was writ large, with anthropic design on one hand, and an ELE facing us on the other hand.  

Who's design was this?  Deus abscondus?  

What about the mind-brain problem?  What about consciousness?  I tried dualism for five years, despite the fact that it seemed like a non-starter.  What else was there?  

What to do with an eschaton?  Material progress had to have an end, but how, anthropically speaking...... on this third rock from the Sun?  

The Masquerade (1981) puzzle book pushed me right over the edge.  It wasn't that hard.  Cosmology and paleontology be damned!  There had to be an illusion somewhere.  Was it in our heads or in the sky?  I put it in the sky.  Am I the only one so disposed?  I search for another..... another who would take anthropics and our existential crisis seriously..... in the context of cosmology.  I've had an internet presence for almost thirty years.  The BPWH is easy enough to google.  Where is everybody?  Fermi asked the same question.  

Are we going to muddle through this crisis and the MoAPS?  We might, especially if they could be taken separately, but how taken separately?  I'm skeptical that they can be, but I suppose I may be biased.  


12:15---------

How about them angels.......?  

Suppose the head of the pin is the Earth.  The answer is, evidently, 10^10.  How do we muddle beyond that?  Got me.  Got God?  TBMK, God is a construct.  We are a construct.  It is mutual, TBMK.  Yes, I'm a small world panentheist.  Quakers and Christian Scientists come close.  Buddhists fail the cosmology test, rather grandly, with their eternal return.  

Now all we have to do is sort out the angels and the humans.  Easier said than done, and, in the end, I don't, really.  How's that?  

I'm suggesting that angels are just closer to the big illusion.  We're rather stymied in our small illusion.  Well, not really stymied, not until it gets time to leave.  Not until the Endtimes.  Only the father knows for sure?  Well, that was 2,000 years ago.  I mean, come on.  Is the hand-writing not on the wall?  Have we put the nuclear genie back in the bottle?  How many new genies have arisen?  


1:30----------

Thoughts don't reside in space.  They are illusions.  Where do illusions reside?  They are information.  Where does information reside?  What exactly is information?  Something subjective?  

CD's reside in jewell cases.  Information resides on CD's.  Infomation has to mean something.  There's the rub.  Perfectly encoded information cannot be distinguished from random noise, without the encryption key.  Keys get lost, don't you know.  

Angels can keep their distance..... emotional distance.  I suppose it may be a bit like a Hilbert space, infinitely dimensional.  That's where quantum states live, in theory.  An infinite number of such states might reside on the head of a pin, so to speak.  

Yes, quantum states are rather like thoughts, in that they reside in no particular place.  In some instances they may define places, define sapce.  Many suspect they do, somehow.  

May an angel be likened unto a quantum state.  I'm sure I'm not the only one to have entertained such an analogy.  

Quantum states often tend to be localized, like thoughts and angels may be.  Thoughts are often localized on selves, although selves do seem to be able to share thoughts.  It's called communication...... sometimes it's called telepathy or even telephony.  

To be is to relate or to communicate, meaningfully.  The ultimate reality is felt meaning.  X'tians sometimes call it love.  It (inevitably?) became localized upon an eponymous historical figure.  Others call it hate.  I suggest that the latter is parasitic upon the former.  Unfortnately, we have invented hate bombs, but not love bombs, not quite yet, anyway.  I suggest that a MoAPS could serve as such, in a pinch.  

The history of the world might be charaterized as one damn thing after another, or a tale of sound and fury.  Does love make the world go around?  

What I'm suggesting is that the Earth formed out of a pre-geometry, Penrose-style.  It is the congealment of felt meanings, on the cosmic scale.  I'm sorry, this is the best I can do, off the top.  It is God, containing it's own veil, we call nature.  We'd be blinded otherwise.  Don't you love the gravitas of it all...... 32'/sec^2.  

Are we ready to be blinded?  Pierce-the-veil.  Some say Parsifal.  Would we rather be blinded by gamma rays or by the truth?  Are we a cancer or a chrysalis?  Is it a contest?  Nolo-contendere.  

Yes, the Earth is our karma-ball.  It could be our knot of fear.  The Gordian knot has already been severed.  It was the labor of the cross.  Yes, that's well nigh impossible to believe.  The folly of the cross.  

There must be an equation for this folly.  Can we not work it out with a pencil?  It must have something to do with the decimal system, but that sounds more than a little desperate.




(cont.)

Dualism is rather convenient when is comes to making a distinction between heaven and earth.  Not so with immaterial monism.  No to metabolism, yes to shape-shifting.  Another distinction is the Earth itself.  Heaven may be more like a complex of condos, mansions, if you will.  It would be Miami Beach, without the beach or hurricanes.  That, though, is rather too simplistic, IMHO.  It does not well acommodate teleportation and shape-shifting.  Nor does that model account for the apocatastsis.  Obviously, you will need an underlying dynamic, but that relies on a naive view of time.  It would have to be more of a dreamscape.  Miami Beach is not that.  There would still have to be considerable provision for bodies and gravity, presumably.  NDE's may point the way, but they do not help with the intersubjective 'mechanics' of it all.  Can we transcend the mechanics, in any systematic way?  That may be an oxymoron.  

You see the problem.  How do we maintain the order without the familiar physics and metabolism?  What happens with time?  That's a bigee.  Everyone wants to do their own thing.  Everyone's imagination is on overdrive, or what?  What happens during the Rapture?  Can we spread it out without deconstructing the whole idea?  The episodic nature of it is basic to the whole eschatology.  Do we now go out with a whimper?  The last one out turns off the lights.  Well, I do suppose that we would have a continuing significant reduction in fertility as a major component of the Millennium.  It would segue into zero fertility in heaven.  

What would be the systematics of the apocatastasis?  How does that connect with the temporality of the CTC?  How does the apocatastsis differ from the Rapture?  

I do suppose that the 12 final megalopolises segue into 12 motherships.  An off-the-grid segment of the population joins with the flora and fauna that segues into the 12 primordial megalithic cultures.  This is the Omega to Alpha transition across the 'spark' gap of the CTC.  Some of the off-worlders (144,000) transition back as nephilim, perhaps, mixing with the off-the-griders.  We are looking for an optimized punctuated equilibrium scenario.  Maintaining as much diversity as possible.  

We are keeping in mind that there is only a single soul trajectory throughout.  The 'eternal' return is composed of 10^10 returns of the cosmic soul shared by all of us, including God.  The CTC, being embeded in eternity, is a rather powerful illusion.  

We are the apocatasis for all time.  What we have now is God's illusionary dreamtime.  Quite a production, isn't it?  Who knows how we ever establish and maintain synchrony.  Eternity and sychrony do seem rather at odds.  And then we have our more idiosyncratic deams w/in the big dream.  Convolution.  Well, the big dream may be a folie-a-douze, as shared by the zodiacal olympiad.  God is just Freya, perhaps...... the cosmic instigator, somewhat tricksterish vis-a-vis the rather more staid olympiad.  

This is a very rough outline, obviously, but it might be 'good enuf for gumm'int work'.  


12:30-----------

The olympiad synchronizes itself by balancing on a ball.  It can be a friendly version of a log-rolling contest.  Recall the circus trick of the elephant on the ball.  Everyone has to be on the ball, almost literally.  

This ball trick transmogrifies into both a magnesium atom with twelve electrons, and the Earth and zodiac combination.  Sun, moon and planets are thrown in for good measure, the heptoad, if you will.  Maybe you'd prefer a sunlamp. You might wish to take that up with Freya, just sayin'.

We get Schrodinger's cat for free, almost.  The objectivity problem is about the same.  The laws of physics are intersubjective.  They come about in a 'reversal' of the  anthropic principle, if you will.  Think of mechanics as coming about in the fairness of a roulette wheel.  This is the 'shyness' effect as applied to casinos.  

We might be half-way to something useful.  But, golly, I don't see how we can muddle through a MoAPS.  It can be a grass-roots process, but on the individual level there is still the gesalt of it all.  And there are still the mass media, after all.  And then, with disclosure, we have the potus and/or the pope problem.  Do we have a workaround for the Vectors?  I'd like to see all that in writing.  

How does the PtB wish to handle this?  What can they do but try to preempt it at the last moment.  Am I voulunteering to be their lapdog?  Can you suggest an alternative?  As a BPWer, I've had plenty of practice as an apologist.  Is that not the name of the game?  Is there any other game in town?  



(cont.)

He toils so we can find our pay, yet he is made of simple clay. The Pope asks can he come to play, the vectors clearly point the way. The Princess responds they merely say, where we are heading as of this day.

Hmmm........ I've asked the Princess for her thoughts.  She was not aware of the post.  

She's saying that it seems significant.  I would tend to agree.  

She is going to request a clarification.......

Hopefully, there will be more information after breakfast.


Meanwhile, I've been trying to tie together some of the loose ends in the BPWH.  There are some big ones.........

The starting and stopping of metabolism is just for some of the humans, the ones who are 'raptured' and returned.  Some humans, I believe, never depart.  They remain on the Earth, with the rest of the flora and fauna, but definitely off the grid.  In fact, the grid, more or less, just vanishes into thin air, and, with it, most traces of culture, except language, I suppose, and most memory, individually.  It's back to the stone age, basically.  

Then some of the off-worlders return, initiating, probably, the dozen or so primordial megalithic sites.  I would guess that the 'natives' rather outnumber the returnees.  I had been supposing that ~144m leave and ~144k return.  But I doubt that more than a very few million will stay behind, maybe only ~100k.  There might be only a few hundred returnees/'nephalim' per megalithic site.  These numbers are in drastic need of optimization.  

Then there is the sychrony problem........

Back then, 2-6 thousand BPE, travel was rather slow, especially between hemispheres.  But now I don't see the problematic.  I was thinking the return would have to be synchronous, like the departure.  But there's no real need for that.  That takes care of one 'loose-end'.

Also, the starting and stopping of metabolism is much more of a parochial problem than I had been supposing.  The metabolism of the returnees could much more easily be restarted, just by association with the 'stay-behinds'.  Yes, there is still a global design problem, but now that can be absorbed into the general biological problem.  There is also still the departure problem, which could be significant.  But there again, we have the models of the 'angels', i.e. the ones who stayed behind in 'heaven'.  When in heaven, do as the angels!  It might be that simple, in an immaterialist context.  

Then what.......  Maybe my biggest problem is realizing that there no big problems.  It's mainly a question of getting the right slant on things.  Rather than confront problems head-on, like atoms, we just need to approach them from the side.  

The conservation of matter is still nagging at me.  How do we deal with E = MC^2, for instance?  I mean, if you lose track of too many atoms, you would be having a meltdown problem, or so I was thinking.  But I don't think I'm looking at the problem the right way.  It's like I'm mixing metaphors, or not mixing them properly.  


2:15----------

If atoms disappeared, there would be nuclear energy released, one might suppose.  What if they were to appear?  It doesn't make sense to look at the problem from the perspective of nuclear energy.  We need another angle.  If atoms are not objectively real, how do we kee track of them, or of the matter they are supposed to comprise?  

For instance, the limit on spontaneous proton decay has been set at > 10^30 years.  As long as we watch the pot, it won't boil.  What about when we're not watching?  Is there some absolute inertia in matter to conserve momentum, energy, etc.  That's exactly what I am questioning with immaterialism.

But matter just doesn't jiggle, spontaneously.  This is explained as due to certain symmetry laws of space and time.  All the laws of physics are relativistically invariant, for instance.  And there are several other symmetry groups that apply to the equations of physics.  But this is all based on absolute objectivity of such laws.  These laws are supposed to be the same on exo-planets in distant galaxies.  

Physics appears to be the same on the most distant observable stars.  Why should it not be the same on any planets revolving around those most distant stars?  
--------------------


3:45-------------

In a subsequent conversation with the Princess, she had the impression that the message was directed at us, but she was not able to convey much more specific info.  I pressed her about wildlife conservation and she indicated that any such meeting would be on the more general topic of the vectors.  Ron told her that the 'vectors' might better be thought of as tensors.  Ok.  

If Ron just wants us to be better motivated in our endeavors, by suggesting that certain people might be interested, that is fine.  I think I'd rather see that interest expressed right here.  
----------------


The sky appears 3-dimensional. The stars are not painted on a canvas. The effect is much more holographic than that. The detail is astounding, if it is just some kind of simulation. How could we be the only observers? What a show. It seems to have enraptured the best and the brightest, and almost everyone else as well.




(cont.)

A conversation with Ron this morning did little to clear the air.  He pointed out that there have been no popes who were also mathematicians.  The business about the 'tensors' raises technical questions beyond the ordinary.  

The reading of the Little Prince has raised some philosophical issues.  It seems that the little Chilean prince is also from the stars.  I don't recall how the story went.  

It is a small world where the vectors/tensors are concerned.  Only a handful of people concern themselves with the over-all alignment.  Ron seems to be checking the vectors now on a weekly basis, but they are not changing much, in any bulk or gross manner.  

I get the feeling that we are all floundering.  Nobody's sure about the next step.  It is just apres-vous.  What would you advise the Pope about the immigration crisis, for instance?  The Pope has some excellent advisors.  How can we access such people, I asked rhetoically, it turned out.  

What does Debbie say about any imminent crisis?  I think she is aware of the vulnerabilities, but focuses just on getting through the day, like everyone else.  What else is there?  Preaching?  

Was I getting back into the church?  No.  Everyone seems to be biding their time.  I don't need to add to their confusion.  

I am going to meet with Sam for lunch.  Maybe I should check again with the princess.  Where do we start?  Can KWF suddenly change course?  Not unless I make a substantial contribution, I suspect.  Someone ought to prime this pump.  
-------------


Physics on distant planets...........?

I've been over this ground before, but it doesn't seem to stick.  

We see the bulk physics, which supports the microscopic physics.  It is phenomenology.  It's the biology we're concerned about.  Is there any?  If not, why not?  It is mesoscopic.  There has to be sapience, in the mix.  Why?

Because there has to be a there, there.  It has to do with a strong form of the II, indentity of indiscernibles.  Ultimately, there can be nothing approaching self-identity w/o sapience.  The rocks on Mars and Pluto seem perfectly 'selfish', w/o any contribution of sapience, or only after the fact.  Do they not have an absolute identity?  It's only a relational identity.  Relational to what?  Cosmic sapience.  

It's similar to the problem of the big Now.  The Earth is just small enough to support a singular now.  'There' also has to have a 'here'.  That requires sapience, with its attendant collective memories and culture.  Not all of that collectivity can be unconscious.  


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

Teleology needs a purchase.  That purchase is obviously sapience.  I wanted to say '... some kind of sapience.'  But how many kinds can there be?  

A lot of the relationalism that comes with physicality has to do with physical proximity, obviously.  That rules out teleology on distant planets.  And thus, all biology is local.  As in real estate, it's location, location.  


2:30------------

I spoke with the Princess, and had lunch with Sam.  He has a transition town trainer, a Buddhist woman, at his home later this week.  

We have to see how many balls we can keep in the air.  The pope is willing/wants to be one.  We'll be fine to go to Rome.  The KWF is starting a new batch of interns, maybe one or two additional will do the small world.  What card will the Footmann put on the table?  I should check with Deborah and Colton.  What about Paul?  The vectors are still aligned.  
-------------


Biology I'm not too worried about.  It's still those darn rocks on Mars and Pluto........  How did they come into the picture?  I don't know why this should be such a big problem, but it still gets under my skin.

How might the rocks on Pluto differ from the tree on the quad?  How does the proximity arguments differ?  

It's probably something like Beehtoven's Ninth.  The notes aren't really there.  I mean they are very subsidiary to the symphony as a whole.  It's relative existence for the notes, as for the rocks.  How does this ontology apply to the pope, or to any of us?  

God writes the symphony, we just fill in the notes, mostly in our imagination.  The notes on the individual sheets of printed music, well, I should not lose sleep over them.  Paleontologists lose sleep over individual fosils.  That's what they get paid to do.  It is an important job, more than they realize, because, telologically speaking, it is part of the co-Creation.  They do the sweat work.  

It's hard to imagine what history would have been without Goddard and NASA.  It would have been a lot less absorbing, that's what it would have been.  

If someone want's to fill in the rocks on the 'dark' side of Pluto, they are welcome to it.  But, like I say, I hope I'm going to be losing less sleep over it in the future.  

Maybe I should quit while I'm still ahead.....before the SETI signal comes in to prove that I'm all wet.  


6:30-----------

I have calls into the Footmann and the Princess, but both them are afraid to talk to Throop.  They have much more to fear from Throop, than Throop has to fear from either of them.  I may be a pushover, but Throop is rather less so, IMHO.  
------------

But, guess what, the 'SETI' signal has already come in, and I'm still here.  The real question is where is here?  That's what we need a 5% puchase on.  Throop would accept that.  


8pm-------------

We seem to have a tentative deal. There would be a meeting with the Pope, probably in Rome in a few weeks, to discuss the vectors, for instance. Throop might come to Rome over a weekend and meet with a Vatican official. At least, we would brief him before and after a meeting. Then I would sign everything over to Throop, and he would get to decide what to do with it, presumably keeping in mind the bigger picture.



(cont.)

It would be useful to know what the vectors represent, before they are to be discussed. Ask the whether-man ;-)

Gary,

We should know by now that the Footmann is very reluctant to do Q&A.  As to the nature of the vectors, he has recommended that we come up with our own.  You have already done this.  We could even collaborate on a joint set, with any others invited to participate.  

But that is not my first priority.  I take the imminent threat of a global breakdown, as a given.  I continue to work on the avoidance side of the issue.  Nothing short of a MoAPS would be commensurate with the problem.  Any lesser proposal is, de-facto, assuming the continuation of the paradigms of materialism and sectarianism.  This is business as usual.  It has a  rapidly dwindling horizon.  We have run out of political and economic solutions.  
------------------


We have to address the most basic issues of existence.  The modern world is comprised of an entirely incoherent combination of materialism/physicalism/informationalism and various sectarianisms.  
There has been a breakdown of communication.  Buddhism/pantheism presents itself as a universal language of tolerance, but it barely impacts the prophetic tradition.  At best it is a form of psychotherapy, for renagades from the above existing sytems.  Alan Watts was the prototypical exponent.  

The BPWH is a radical form of panentheism along with a rational eschatology, if such there be.  

I am still mired in the midst of revamping atomism.  I have been stuck in that mire for forty years.  As far as I know, there are no pure atomists left in world.  Atoms have some form of existence, no one could deny it.  I certainly don't.  

If there is no absolute existence, we are facing some form of relationalism.  Which form?  How many kinds are there?  Panentheism presents a logical compromise between the monism of pantheism/Buddhism proper, and the dualism of deism.  

The BPWH is a structured monism.  It is a pluralistic version of monism that gives substance to prophetic history.  It is, on top of all that, a personalism.  It is fundamentally a relationalism of persons, where I include, especially, a primordial set of such, they might be likened unto the archons.  


5:45---------

There exists, in the logical background of all existence, a primordial set of cosmic persona that could be likened to the archagels, archons, olympiad, zodiac, etc., a cosmic politics that finds it's reflection in many of the ancient mythologies, before the rise of monotheism.  

I find monotheism, per-se, to be an over-refined version of this politics.  It can be simply sterile, bordering on deism.  Historical dynamism, of any sort, seemingly must involve polytheism on some level.  

In the background of this politics must be a cosmic morality, which is shared, to a large degree, by all non-sociopathic, sapient beings.  

In any case, relationalism is not well-suited to any simplistic or dualistic version of monotheism.  There must be a cosmic structure of persons.  Christianity, with it's trinitatrianism and minimal angelology, presents a minimalist verson of such a cosmic polity.  It should not be seen as precluding the logical or background provenance of more complex structures.  


12:45am--------

This minimal, bootstrapped personalism is the logical opposite of atomism.  There is no Big Bang to worry about.  At the most, you have the provenence of metabolism and reproduction to worry about.

So, yes, we have metabolism and atomism to worry about, but it becomes secondary to persons.  The Big Bang is the logical, minimal polity of persons.  The logical alternative is nothingness.  But potentiality logically supercedes nothingness, and the minimal potentiality is the polity of persons.  

What about a polity of sentients?  Fine, but there could be no history.  Who says we need a history?  Only to accommodate sapience.  Who says we need sapience?  Well, would it really be distinguishable from nothingness?  Technically, it would be, but that is only a technicality. It would leave us just short of the BPW.  The BPW serves, then, as the logical cosmic attractor. Maybe I should have said that from the beginning.

We have come full circle from atomism.  This is the only circle that goes anywhere.  Then God is the only logical alternative to the big bang?  That's about it.

What part of this did the scholastics not have figured out?  They didn't have Leibniz.  He came just too late.  He ran smack into science and material progress. It was hard to argue against. We now seem to have come to a logical turning point in our history.  

We certainly have come to _a_ logical end of materialism.  The only question is whether it is the best possible end of materialism.  One could certainly argue that.  I do.

That's all.  To answer Einstein, God had no choice but to create the best possible world.  God is, basically, our cheerleader.  Apokatastasis may not differ terribly from simply taking all this to heart.  The rest is details.  God is in the details.  Every mystic already knows this.

Cynics, of course, say that the devil is in the details, but that is mainly just being flip.

Everyone has rejected the model of democretian atoms in netownian space.  Both such notions are strongly undermined in modern physics.  

We fiddle with many individual models that may be, more or less, loosely based on the, often statiscal, phenomena of physics and biology.  

Many of these phenomena have the appearance of being teleological, and we are often operating in the regime of 'weak' quantum measurements.  Dissipative structures are the lowest common denominator.  

How big of a logical jump is it to a robust regime of quantum measurements?  Usually this question is viwed from the other side......

What is the 'decoherence' time in most systems?  In room temperature systems, it can be very short.  That is why most quantum sytems have to be studied in cryogenic environments.  We are thinking particularly of superconductors and quantum computers. The collective behavior of biolgical/teleological systems may offset this temperature effect.  That possibility has not been well-posed, TBMK.  However, quantum biology covers much more territory than merely photosynthesis.  

Paul Z has gotten Jack, yesterday, to come around to admitting that a single bohmian particle cannot back-react upon its own potential.  It would require many particles, in some sort of dissipative structure, to have the sort of back-reactions that might produce consciousness, at least of a sentient form.  Is there not some overlap here with the BPWH?  Jack's relativistic bohmian model from Rod Sutherland, does include retrocausal propogation, which would, of course be open to teleology.  This may not be a featured part of the model.  The individual particles are still taken to be real.  I'm not sure how compatible this is with dissipative structures.  I need to do more homework, and consult with Paul.
-----------

It appears that I may get to consult with another vector person.  This is instead of meeting with the pope, perhaps.  Ron will meet with him tommorow to set up the rules of engagement.  I will be away the following week, driving back from Savanah.  We would not meet 'til after that.  I didn't ask if Aliyah would be coming.  Ron would have to be present.  I should request her presence, if it is not already understood.  I asked if he had any knowlege of phenomenology.  Yes, the Chinese variety.  Such as chi-gong, I suggested.  So it goes.  I presume we would meet at the Princess', to answer my above question.  But Ron might consider that a little too chummy of a venue.  He would be put off-guard.  
------------------

Not sure what I might be looking for wrt a strategy w/ Jack.  I'm not sure if Paul has anything specific in mind.  We are still worlds apart when it comes to Bohm.  I favor his impicate order, Jack does not.  He sticks strictly to the 'early' Bohm.  

The implied teleology of the relativistic, bi-directional propagation of the quantum potentials should be a big opening.  


3:10---------------

A conversation with Paul............

We're not really sure what Jack is up to.  He is being unusually manic.  We're trying to sus the source.  He is clinging onto Bohm's 'beables'/paticles although the other Bohmians seem to be moving on.  

Paul is not convinced the retrocausality, finality, teleology, backward proagation all point to the same thing.

Jack is using his Bohmian version of a backaction to introduce a nonlinear term into his own lagrangian, to get a post-quantum theory that includes consciousness.  But he is also saying that we need dissipative structures to render this nonlinerarity meaningful.  Paul wants to see if Sutherland has a similar effect, as Jack claims.  

How does all this differ or overlap with the BPWH?  


What am I saying about the cosmic attractor?  In particular, what am I doing to introduce sentience?  

I am saying that non-biological systems hardly support a meansure process.  Significantly, one needs an irreversibe process to record a measurement.  This says nothing of sentience.  Are the Bohmians saying that there is no measurement problem?  Sutherland claims to have resolved the EPR paradox, I believe.  

I am also saying that if we do not have absolutism, we have to introduce some form of relativism/relationalism.  Relationalism is really nothing w/o sapience.  There is world of difference between sentience and sapience, especially when it comes to the robustness of the necessary ontlogies.  The Darwinists have their heads in the sand about this.  

A cosmic attractor makes no sense w/o sapience.  With sapience, it's the only thing that does make sense.  This simple realization vastly simplifies the rationale of the BPWH.  

How does this relate to Jack's problem?  


I should add that this great distinction between sentience and sapience makes use of Leibniz' II.  Space and time are vastly circumscribed w/o sapience.  Yes, it is much more difficult to collapse space and time, with sapience.  This irony is a major component of the self-concealment implied in the prophetic tradition.  


Back to Jack......  back to the bohmians......

The main purpose of the bohmian model is to take the observer out of the measurement problem.  And then Jack takes great pride in slipping the observer back in with his nonlinear term being added to standard QM.  All of this is completely arbitary, of course.  Jack has done nothing to rationalize the connection between back-action and consciousness.  What is going on?  

I think Jack may realize that if he doesn't hang onto the reality of the individual particles, the door is being opened to idealism in this, the last bastion of materialism.  He mainly looks forward to sentient AI.  Without this, progress is blocked.  Does sentient AI depend on a bohmian approach?  Otherwise the quantum computers may just be tuning into a quantum form of dualism.  That was my last gasp before immaterialism.  This is a desperate move on Jack's part.  He wishes to have newtonian physics back.  GR does not present such a challenge to materialism.  





(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 10:02:38 AM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: 16 others......
Subject: What Jack wants, and doesn't want.......

Jack,  

I think we need to put things in perspective.....

I'm not sure that we can tell the forest for all the mathematical trees that you erect.  What is it that you are trying to prove?  

I gather that you are trying to prove the following.......

1.)  Physicalism, broadly interpreted, can easily accommodate various phenomena that are usually taken to be anomalous, paranormal or metaphysical.  These phenomena would include parapsychological data as well as the Visitor/contact phenomena, in particular.  

2.)  Strong AI, in the form of sentient computers, could exist.  It is even suggested that one could, in effect, upload one's consciousness to a post-quantum computer.  There may be a disagreement as to whether this ability should be considered as a form of 'soul' power.  

3.)  That all of the above can be placed on a firm mathematical footing.  

It is less clear as to what you may wish to exclude, hereby, but I'll take a stab at it......

1.)  Religion would likely be at the top of any exclusionary list.  

2.)  But it is less clear, for instance, how you propose to dispose of God.  

3.)  Philosophy that cannot be directly supported by mathematical reasoning, i.e. philosophy that does not conform to the rigor of physics.  

So far, so good.  

This would go a long way toward ridding the world of sectarian factionalism.  The world would be a much safer place, and reasonably minded people could displace fanatics, when it comes to setting policy.  

Furthermore, the material progress that we have experienced, particularly in the last four centuries, could be expected to continue for another four centuries, at the least, particularly if we don't blow ourselves up.  

We would continue to explore exotic forms of computing and space travel.  We would become members in good standing of the cosmic club, as you are of the Cosmos Club.  

Human survival is at stake.  


cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 10:56:38 AM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Paul, Ron, 16 others.......
Subject: Some disturbing information.......

(cont........)


Your goals are obviously long term.  The general assumption is that we can continue the business as usual of material progress for at least the next four centuries.

But there are many on this list, yourself included, who are less than sanguine about our prospects in the nearer term.  

Today, for instance, Ron tells me that he is having a meeting with one of the few other people who is cognizant of the overall situation wrt the 'crisis vectors'.  He is arranging for a meeting of the three or four of us, soon after I return from next week's vacation to the Outer Banks.  Today's concern has to do with a protocol for discussing classified information with an inveterate blogger, namely myself.

Since last March, the Vectors have collectively been pointing to a global crisis, on or about next September.  It has not been made clear to me the nature of the modeling that might be involved.  Ron has not denied that one or more of the Vectors could include anomalous data.

Is this information legitimate?  Why is it being brought to me?  Why am I bringing it to this list?  Does it have anything to do with exotic physics?  


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

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 12:10:56 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 23 others........
Subject: So what.......?

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


Why me, why you.......?

All politics is local, including cosmic politics.  

Not a few of us believe that we may have valuable insights as to the functioning of the cosmos and/or we are familiar with others who do.  

Others may be convinced that they are on this list by an unfortunate series of accidents.  They may wish to be outta here!  Yes, you are particularly unfortunate.  Your desire to be uninvolved happens to reflect the desire of 99.9% of the rest of humanity...... get us outta here!  

Therefore, you may, quite unwittingly, have valuable insights on how to deal with this vast majority.  It's just your cosmic duty, perhaps.  It's a darn shame, sorry.  

What is our protocol?  For the most part, and based on past performance, this will be an exercise in creative listening.  Some of you, for instance, may be quizzed about your reactions, after the fact.  

The next big question has to do with the reliability of the crisis data.......

Don't look at me.  I can only report what I'm told or may suspect.  But, here is what I suspect......

I suspect that at least some of the crisis data is phony, particularly when it comes to the date of next September.  The question is why.  That comes back to the legitimacy of this entire exercise.

First of all, it could all just be Ron's joke.  I will let him speak for himself, on that score.  Secondly, it could be a fire drill.  There are legitimate concerns, even in high places, as to how different people might react to the inevitable crisis, we being one of the focus groups.  Thirdly, there may, indeed, be anomalous input as to a general time frame, and the source is being concealed.  

For the sake of this exercise, I'm going with #2 & #3.  


(cont.......3)  

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 1:13:57 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 23 others.....
Subject: Then what........?

(cont.......3)

Yes, Jack, there are some extraordinary coincidences associated with you and this list.  

But now comes the bad news...........

Time may be running out.  If there is to be a scientific/technological solution to the hypothetical near-term crisis, it remains hidden.  

The same may be said for any terrestrial solution, whatsoever.  

Yet, there are many who feel that the prophetic tradition, for instance, may not have played itself out.  Yes, many of those are ignoramuses wrt modern science, but, perhaps, not all.  This goes back to MJ12 and the Visitor phenomenon.  

Presumably, some sort of information was conveyed.  If so, it seems that it has been ignored, for the past 70 years.  

(Got a therapy session, wouldn't you know......)


(cont.........4)

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 3:59:21 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 28 others.......
Subject: Intervention..........

Yes, Jack, even if you theories are correct, they may not suffice, unto this day.

It may just be that there are too many who cannot fathom the truth of your formulas, especially in the near term.  There are too many others who are not prepared to stick their necks out.

It may be that the message from the stars does corroborate your information.  It would take some considerable intervention to change the thought patterns.  Even so, it's not clear how it could alleviate a near-terms crisis.  

Yes, David, I'm glad we agree that there is something phony about putting out a date...... unless there is already a plan in place.  For instance, if there is a plan of disclosure.  That could be one of the crisis vectors.  

Everyone on this list is open to the possibility that cosmic intelligence can intervene in human affairs, if and when it comes to a global catastrophe.  But many will side with the sectarians in supposing that it will be too late, now, to save all but a chosen or lucky few.  

Let's look at this situation from the point of view of a putative cosmic intelligence.......

1.)  First and foremost, there is a timing problem.  Intervention could come either too early or too late.  

2.)  Too early.....?  Why hasn't this cosmic force been guiding us all along?  

The human condition has been improving, for the most part, particularly in the last few centuries.  Why fix something, if it's not obviously broken?  

Why not intervene in the instances when it obviously is broken, such as in the various genocides?

Some have argued that excessive evil is necessary, on occasion, to spur a human response.  We all agree that, nonetheless, evil could easily get out of hand, in an unprecedented fashion.  


(cont........)

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 8:08:36 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 28 others.......
Subject: Destined for transcendence......

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


We must suppose, if we're not just to abandon all hope, that there is a plan of disclosure.  This plan may be known to any humans, only in very sketchy manner.  

What might possibly be disclosed that would avert an immanent global crisis?  Who would believe it or even comprehend it?  

Well, the message from the stars would have to find a balance between being sufficiently shocking, so as to override immediate concerns and fears, and being sufficiently familiar to facilitate  comprehension.  

What I am suggesting is that material progress came with built-in limitations just due to the finite size of the Earth.  No one suggests that space colonization, by itself, will alleviate the Earth's problems.  

Given the natural limits to material progress, kicking in particularly as the space program stymies and when population limits arise, we have a natural window for cosmic intervention.  

The shock is that we inhabit a virtual reality, no bigee really, and that it is was slated, from the beginning, to have a window of transcendence.

Conventional wisdom dictates that we have become a cancer on the Earth.  The message from the 'stars' is that we are merely entering or final, chrysalis phase.  This final phase happens to follow closely the apocalyptic/eschatological scenarios outlined in the prophetic tradition.  

There are, of course, some very significant differences wrt any given scriptural tradition.......

The main difference is that all of us have been participating in this universal 'plan', whether or not we believed that such a thing might be possible.  

IOW, teleology is a much stronger and more diverse force that most any could have imagined.  Our universal destiny is already written in the stars.  We don't have to venture to the stars for our destiny to be realized.  The fact that we inhabit a closed time-like curve (CTC) is a large part of that picture.  We are all passengers in the virtual cosmic boat.  We just didn't realize that we were bound for glory, from the beginning.  

This knowledge might be sufficient to avert disaster, but, if true, how is it to be conveyed?  


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

From: Dan
Date: September 17, 2015 at 9:05:57 PM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 28 others.....
Subject: Strong AI, the promised land........

Jack,

Wonderful!  

But, for instance, you say that we will first need to invent sentient computers.  That may take several decades, at least.  You don't address the possibility that we don't have that much time.

Perhaps, you are suggesting that merely the strong possibility of strong AI will suffice to avoid global calamity.  Is this what prophecy was all about, the invention of strong AI?  That is our promised land?  Have not the Transhumanists also been saying this for a long time, even more loudly than you have?  

Perhaps the Transhumanists have not been properly informed of your formulas.  But, you say, the Iranians have been, and are now leading the way.  Good for them.  You might rejoice, but, no, you think that they may use this technology to evil ends.  This does not sound like any promised land.  It sounds like business as usual.  

I do believe that technology is a crucial element in the plan of our Transcendence, but mainly to facilitate our communication..... our global communion, if you will.  

You see, Jack, I think we have already been blessed with souls.  You are suggesting that we have to invent them, first.



On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

[Responding to my earlier message.]
Wake up Dan  I did say this for decades.
Crawl back into your teapot.

On Sep 17, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Dan wrote:

[This is the part of my earlier message, posted above, that Jack was responding to.]  
IOW, teleology is a much stronger and more diverse force that most any could have imagined.  Our universal destiny is already written in the stars.  We don't have to venture to the stars for our destiny to be realized.  The fact that we inhabit a closed time-like curve (CTC) is a large part of that picture.  We are all passengers in the virtual cosmic boat.  We just didn't realize that we were bound for glory, from the beginning.  

From: Dan
Date: September 18, 2015 at 11:00:04 AM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: 18 others.......
Subject: The Jack and Dan show.......

Rob,

Jack and I are pursuing similar goals.  There is just one fundamental difference.......

Jack is an anti-personalist, I am a pro-personalist.  

Jack is being consistent, in that he uses mathematics to rid the cosmos of persons.  There is nothing personal about mathematics.  

What am I doing here.....?

Jack and I are both targeting the same audience, namely, people like you.  

We both know that traditional/scriptural religion is dead.  We both know that the world is doomed, if we cannot find a common language and sensibility to address our ultimate concerns.

I frankly do not think that Jack's way has a snowball's chance in hell.  But how can I prove that to people like you?  There's the rub.  So, I hold my friends close, and my 'enemies' even closer.  

The modern world is filled with people, who, like you, know that we must move beyond both science and traditional, sectarian, scriptural religion, if we are to have a prayer, as a species.

How are we to do that........?

Jack wants to do it with the universal language of mathematics, reinterpreted to incorporate some traditional concepts, like 'soul', 'God' and 'Destiny'.  


(cont........)
cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: September 18, 2015 at 12:13:03 PM EDT
To: Robert
Cc: .......
Subject: Re: The Jack and Dan show.......

(cont........)


Jack does have handle on Destiny.  I have already 'plagiarized' some of the concepts involved therein.  Hey, I'm not proud.  I will beg, borrow and steal to get a handle on the larger truth.

See, I believe that, even though mathematics may not be personal, it is organic.  It is holistic, even though it may be the ultimate analytic tool.  And, I can understand mathematical language, even if I may not be able to speak it as well as Jack.  I do have a not so secret weapon, in that regard.  My weapon is Z.  Jack knows this, thus much of the rancor, on his part.  

Yes, I appreciate what Jack is doing, and he does afford me some very strategic cover, up to a point.  We may be reaching that point.......

In any case, I am confident that mathematics cannot incorporate intentions, of any kind, even when placed on Sarfattian steroids.  But persons are nothing but a holistic bundle of intentions and qualities.  Ergo..... Persons cannot be incarnated into any machine, not even a post-quantum computer.  

Jack claims to have a formula for the soul, for instance.  Well, Jack, show me the Formula.  

Take 'zero' as a for instance.........

Yes, mathematicians have a symbol, '0'.  But does that capture the essence of the concept?  That symbol requires a great deal of on-going human interpretation.  Just consider the concept of the 'void'.  Every culture has its own concept of the 'void'.  And, yet, the void is just one of the possible interpretations of the mathematical symbol, '0'.  

Don't get me wrong.  I think that mathematics can provide some very useful maps of the cosmos.  I have even invented a few of my own.

But Jack's problem, one that he shares with many people, is that he confuses the map with the territory.  Jack, and others, have come up with some excellent maps, maps that I am eager to plagiarize, if it were possible.  Well, all is fair in love and war.  

But, pray tell, what is the map for personal monism?  That is the ultimate map that I am pursuing, but I know that at the end of that map is an unanalyzable Singularity, if you will.  That Singularity is blinding.  No thickness of sunglass, not amount of mathematics, can tame it.  That is the essence of the universal soul that we all share.  We are all soul-mates in that shadow.  Like I say, just show me the formula.  

This is the truth that I seek, and even have mapped out, in the language of reason, if not of mathematics.  

No, Rob, not one of us, incarnates, is expendable in that pursuit.  Each of us is a personal microcosm of that 'cosm', if you will.  Was Jesus expendable, on the cross?  No.  His was the ultimate sacrifice, freely given.  

1pm--------

Let's see if I can recap my recap.......

First and foremost, I am a personalist.  Persons come before atoms.  I am also suggeting two things........

1.)  Jesus was our ultimate personalist.  

2.)  Much of Jesus' pesonalism is reflected in Xtianity.  You can take Jesus out of the bible, and I do, but you can't take the Bible out of Jesus, even though many who call themselves Xtians act as if you could.  

The one, universal Soul exists primarily in a discarnate, God-like form.  Each incarnate, sapient being derives it's sapience from that Soul.  

Sentient creatures........?  

They incarnate collectively a species of genius that is reflective of our sapience.  We can and do tap into that genius.  It is a Gaian genius.  The reverse is not so much the case.

Gaia is the supreme Archon. She is our Mother, in a strong sense. Is God our father? Yes, but...... God is more like our uncle. Who is our father? Who was Jesus' father? If truth be known, Jesus was his own father. He is our father. Yes, there is a degree of parthenogenesis.

Got to run to a meeting at Sam's, for Pamela.......
http://midatlantictransition.org/



(cont.)

Hey Dan, just a heads up here...

I had to clean out Hardosi's locker today and evict him from the premises for posting links to porn sites.

I think I got all the content but if you find anything else or if someone complains having found something I missed, go a head and wipe it from the forum.

Keep on truckin'!

Salute!

Cy
Admin