I still struggle to make sense of the "Portal Update" email of Sunday, which I have not been permitted to post. In describing the Portal, he uses the terms........ 'living being' and 'partner', and the phrase, 'product of technology', as applying to the first two terms.
If I take these descriptions at face value, they contradict the notion of personalism, which is the central thesis of the BPWH.
The caveat that I make is that my personalism applies to Creator and Creation, with Creation being the product of persons as co-Creators.
What I have not addressed is the status of the ultra-terrestrials.....
In particular, I should be concerned about the status of the small greys, which are frequently described as androids or cyborgs. As such, they might be the artifactual agents of other beings. They could be semi-autonomous 'drones', with the additional caveat of being non-physical.
As an immaterialist, I'm supposing that there are no physical objects, in the first place, and that all impersonal existence is the product of persons. I am, hereby, only asserting the corollary of personalism, which is holism/monism..... where, as opposed to materialism, existence is conferred only from the top, down..... not bottom, up.
Even these 'drones' would be capable of shape-shifting...... shape-shifting into persons? Or, conversely, persons shape-shifting into drones? And, finally, is there any aspect of shape-shifting that might be considered technological?
The hallmark of technology is replicabilty. The hallmark of persons is non-replicability. We seem to have come to the crux of ontology.
But that's not right......
I have stated that, in the first instance, persons may be the product of symmetry breaking. This is the basic thesis of monism. Might not symmetry breaking be viewed as a form of technology?
2--------
CorCat,
Would that be any fun? We have been playing this cat and mouse game for a quarter century. You wouldn't want us to change our protocol?
Furthermore, I'm doubtful that he is the originating source of that particular missive. Some of the phraseology sounds alien to him.
And who amongst us is the be the ultimate ontological authority? It would seem that this is what is actually at stake, here. The stakes seem to be not small..... there is no rush, just now......
Anyway, symmetry breaking........
Almost always, symmetry breaking is taking to be spontaneous, i.e. random..... but I'm no randomist. I'm not an atomist. Virtually synonymous with personalism is the PSR, principle of sufficient reason.
The type of symmetry breaking that is envisioned with the BPWH is MPD, multiple personality disorder. We are the MPDs of the Monad. In as much as we are not accidents, we are artifacts of the Monad. I guess this to be the import of Sunday's missive.
2:30--------
I've not witnessed foot tickling, only foot kissing, in the royal household. That would seem to be the gentlemanly precedent, here.
If secrets there be, the Princess is the ultimate source. And, if not the Princess, then it would be Kashmir. I would tread cautiously, thereabouts.
My guesstimation is that 'drones' are the product of intersubjective, ad-hoc symmetry breaking. How does that make them any different from persons......?
The difference, then, would have to be 'genetic'. We are chips off the old block. Drones, OTOH, are secondary...... which would be to say that they are unconscious, i.e. zombies.
Are we not ad-hoc......?
We are moral agents. We bear karma. Drones do not. Drones cannot make mistakes, anymore than computers can.
What if we have no free will......?
Only in certain altered states may we excercize free will, but that is enough to...... we can sin only in our hearts.
Drones, like the Tinman, have no hearts...... they have only vicarious hearts, at most...... no more than a guided missile. In that case they manifest the negligent/ignorant heart, which may well be interpersonal.
Let's then return to portals.......
A portal is an intersubjective artifact. The one in question belongs to the Princess, and, in some sense, may be identified with her. The partner in question would, most certainly be the Footmann. Wonderful.
How then might this portal be replicated? It would seem likely that, in this first instance, this would rise to the Monadic level.
Yes, we have other, legacy, portals. They have either been decommissioned, or remain in personal/ad-hoc control.
For such other portals to be reactivated or, more generally, to be recommissioned, would require the personal blessing of the Princess, acting under Monadic aegis. That is my guesstimation.
My further guesstimation is that such will suffice for our extended Rapture event...... extended for up to a Millennium.
At some point, thereafter, we revert to our megalithic past, thereby completing our singular, best possible CTC, under the aegis of eternity.
Any questions?
Yes, raising my hand at the back of the class, I have a question...... what about those SCI-activated actuators that went to NYC.......?
We might think of them as ad-hoc Princess extenders, as if she were not already sufficiently extended.
Last edited by dan on Wed May 03, 2017 1:15 pm; edited 15 times in total
Today at 12:33 am by Mr. Janus
» Why are we here?
Yesterday at 3:23 pm by RealPan
» Livin Your Best Life
Yesterday at 3:18 pm by dan
» WRATH OF THE GODS/TITANS
Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:04 am by Mr. Janus
» Scientists plan DNA hunt for Loch Ness monster next month
Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:32 am by Mr. Janus
» Uanon's Majikal Misery Tour "it's all smiles on the magic school bus"
Thu Mar 21, 2024 2:10 am by Mr. Janus
» OMF STATE OF THE UNION
Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:01 am by Mr. Janus
» Earth Intelligence
Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:04 am by Mr. Janus
» The scariest character in all fiction
Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:54 am by Mr. Janus