Hello, Cy, hello, OMF II

First topic message reminder :

Testing.......

Yes, it is working.

Congratulations to Cyrellys & Co.!

I will be continuing the BPWH blog from Compass Morainn, which was a continuation from the original OMF site on ProBoards, which is in the process of being re-archived from that site.



(cont.)

Yesterday, I started out to explore the technicalities of the infrared catastrophe, in its relation to atomism. Overnight, that gambit turned into a rather more general critique of the very notion of atomism...........

Yes, we have heard of holism in various contexts, but I'm not aware that there is a philosophical position that speaks generally to the 'complementarity' between holism and atomism.

The wiki entry on complementarity points only to its various special applications. It is not a philosophical category, generally. Yet, I do believe that complementarity lies at the heart of the BPWH.........

Besides holism, I frequently refer to relationalism, a closely related philosophical position. However, if we take holism to its logical end, we are left with a monism of the Monad, which is the cosmic Atom. And I do give much credence to the human soul, which may be thought of as an atomic chip off of the Monad. And this was Leibniz' view, taking that atomism all the way down to atoms/monads of consciousness. And these monads had no relations, but were subject only to the occasionalism of a cosmic synchrony. Perhaps Wilhelm's problem was that he did not have a concept of the Telos. A similar problem arose with Whitehead's monadic 'prehensions', each in their splendid isolation, and for the same reason..... his eschewal of the Telos of final cause.

According to the BPWH, theism and pantheism must be seen as complementary. ANW attempted this with his panentheism, but the holism of it fell rather short.

The notion of complementarity was formalized in quantum physics by Niels Bohr, in his Copenhagen Interpretation, wherein the elementary entities may behave as both particles and waves, depending on the observational context. The BPWH attempts to universalize this notion.

A robust testing ground for this universal complementarity is mathematics. Here we see, in particular, the interplay between the basic categories of numbers vs functions, or the discrete and the continuous.

Only within the last century have mathematicians had to recognize that this complementarity was an essential and binding feature of their subject. This is seem particularly in the crucial role of number theory throughout the field, and that most recent advances in number theory have arisen from the study of esoteric functions. An outstanding example is Wile's proof of Fermat's last theorem.

Prime numbers are the atoms of mathematics, but they can hardly exist in isolation. If you and I were the prime numbers of Creation. What would that make God? Andrew Wiles?! There may be more than a little truth in this syllogism.

Yes, the basic complementarity is between the Creator and Creaton. The complementation is the bootstrap.

The complementarity of the quantum is just a symptom of this cosmic complementarity. This points to a cosmic subjectivity and, so, to a cosmic Subject, of which we all partake, and that does even include the atoms.

This complementarity is seen in the mind, as illustrated in the tension in language between the atomism and holism of words. A similar tension exists in the notion of information, as composed of both meaning and binary bits. Can information exist without informing? That there might exist a library of unread books is only somewhat beside this point.

Can there be subjects without objects, or vice-versa? Can there be thoughts without thinkers? Can there be a universe that is not participatory?

All of the above seem to be rather straight forward assertions. Why do philosophers continue to shy away from them? One can easily surmise that the disdain shown toward Complementarity is, perhaps, the main symptom of philosophical aversion toward theism. This leaves a big gap between them and the theologians who remain gun-shy about tackling any subject that smacks of cosmology.



(cont.)

Hi Dan,
I'm about a quarter way through reading this. It's right up your alley.


http://larouchepac.com/node/24227

"The possibility of an actual science fit for today’s needs now requires something much better than persons afflicted with outworn, pragmatic limitations. The experimentally truthful knowledge traced from roots in the principles of Nicholas of Cusa and his follower Johannes Kepler, which are typified by emphasis on what has remained, in fact, as the true foundations of all competent modern science, is in opposition to all reductionist novelties uttered since that time."

"So, for now, “we see as through a glass, darkly; but then, face to face; now I know in part; but, then I shall know even as I am known.”"

Jake,

I have skimmed over the LLR article that you linked, above........

I refer us to the following wiki section........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#History_as_a_struggle_between_Platonism_and_Aristotelianism

With my complementarity and occasionalism, I thread the needle between Plato and Aristotle. Both of us find substance in Liebniz. I put some store in Hegel, but I'm not sure how LLR deals with him.

Along with LLR and RAW, I believe that reality is the sum of all conspiracies ever imagined, and that the master conspiracy is just that which leads us to the Telos/Omega, avoid it though we try.


4:45----------

I wonder if LLR is even a theist. This was certainly not the case with Plato.

How was Plato not a theist........? The mundane realm was primarily one of corruption. Only in his heavenly realm did the uncorrupted forms exist, as dimly reflected in our souls. This is the essence of deism and gnosticism, as seen particularly in Neoplatonism. The gospel/evangel, OTOH, sees the transcendental essence of the body of the faithful. This is the Kingdom Coming or the Millennium.

Why bother with this intermediate heaven? This comes from the prophetic messianism of Israel, and nowhere else, I believe. Not in Islam, not in Zoroastrianism.

How did Judaism come by it.......?



(cont.)

Well, it does appear that if there is anything serious that might wish to exploit 12^3, that CL will be able to remain on the sidelines. Another time stamp is passed. It may be a while before another such comparable date. I'm not sure if anything can be made of the bit of non-information. One more distraction is surmounted.


My recent digression into occasionalism and complementarity may be seen as my continung attempt to provide an answer to atomism/reductionism. We're still a long way from having an antidote to the analytic tradition of academia. Almost be definition, there can be no smoking gun wrt holism.


And now there is another digression, into the roots of Millennialism..........

If there was a received wisdom, on this matter, it was that an aboriginal Golden Age had given way to a downward spiral into decay and ignorance. This is why our modern notion of progress is such an anomaly, historically.

Perhaps the original counter to this negative wisdom, was the nearly universal myth of the Flood. According to the rationale of the BPWH, the primordial flood was just the global reset from the Omega, back to the Alpha.

Another exception to the rule of degeneration was the notion of the Fall and/or the Original Sin. And finally there was the messianic notion embedded in the prophetic tradition.

If there has been an attempt to find a rationale to tie together these various mythic elements, I'm not aware of it. I need to fill out the BPWH, in this regard........

The basic idea of the prophetic tradition is that of the eventual triumph of good over evil. This directly contradicts the pantheist teaching of degeneration.

We see a similar tension within science, between the twin cosmological notions of entropy vs. evolution. In that case, entropy is guaranteed to triumph over complexity, unless you care to posit that our world is a simulacrum within an infinitely complex informational background, which is the view of a increasing number of cosmologists, and which is not that far removed from the BPWH. And, actually, this should also be the more consistent view of any pantheism.

Well, have I finished connecting the dots? That was not so painful.


But, here is another tension, just within the prophetic tradition........ that between messianism and....... what.....? How about..... between tribulationism and the lack thereof? Tribulationism can be seen as a setup for messianism, even though that is true more within Christianity than with Judaism.


11:30---------

Golly, here's another thing I didn't realize........ the doctrine of original sin is to be found only within Christianity. Can this be true.....?!

BTW, do not miss this....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Original_sin_and_extraterrestrials

A closely related doctrine is that of the fall of man, and, again, it is almost entirely Christian. Only within this tradition, may the nadir of the Fall be located within history, at the X-event, although the Tribulation does come in as a close second.

This last entry claims that the Fall is not to be found in Gnosticism, but this statement relies on an overly narrow definition of the Fall, IMHO. In Gnosticism, there is a more general notion, which is that of emanationism, bringing that divine creative spark to a further remove from the original monad.

Within gnosticism, however, there is a great tension between it's monistic and dualistic tendencies. The BPWH may be seen as coming down on the monistic side of that tradition, particularly via the bootstrap hypothesis, which is its central feature.

There is, within gnosticism, a nearly universal denigration of matter. At best, the material world is seen as a simulacrum that seems real only to those of us lacking in gnosis. Thus do we have the notion of seeing, as through a glass, darkly. Nonetheless, the very idea of an incarnation seems to refute the unredeemable negativity of matter. The notion of spiritual density reflects the ambiguities of incarnation.

It is important to note the prevalent view that there is no such thing as pre-christian gnosticism. I am more than a bit skeptical.

What seems to be lacking in gnosticism is any form of eschatology. There is only a pneumatology, focused on the individual. But what, then, is the source of our souls? And, golly, what is the pantheist Source, while we're at it?

My cursory exploration finds that, within gnosticism, as within pantheism generally, there is no sense of restitution/apokatastasis. There is no communion. Of all the religions, only Christianity has an explicit notion of fraternity. Think of BOMFOG.

This is of no little note....... only xianity even comes close to the bpwh. Where I differ most from x'y is in its 'failure' to distinguish sufficiently between being in and out of time. In this regard, x'y is falls much too far into gnostic dualism. In this sense, the bpwh is very far into pantheistic monism. But pantheism has no positive notion of Creation, which is where it most strongly overlaps with gnosticism. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Within pantheism/gnosis there is no rationale for the Emanation. It is timeless. But still, how do we then account for the myth of the Golden Age?

Clearly I need to explore....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth


3pm---------

There is virtually no tradition that does not have a creation story, but I don't see a category for the gnostic notion of emanationism.


6:20---------

We will be on the road, for the next several days, mainly on the Natchez Trace, in case anyone wants a trace.

Otherwise, I leave you with the above observations concerning some of the singularities of x'y relative to bomfog and the eschaton, and how the bootstrap is just not represented in creation.



(cont.)

This morning it'll be the CMHF, then we hit the Trace, down to Tupelo.

Quote of the day.........

Skeptics say Ryan owes his superwonk standing as much to comparisons with his colleagues than to any great knowledge or depth. In a recent profile of Ryan by Alec McGillis in The New Republic, Barney Frank dismissed his colleague’s brainy reputation as being relative to that of other House Republicans, some of whom had just been implicated in a late-night escapade during a Congressional trip to Israel last summer. “He is being graded on a curve,” Frank said of Ryan, “with a bunch of guys who jump into the Sea of Galilee because they want to be closer to God.”

We've made it to Natchez, and we'll start heading back tomorrow. The Trace has been a lesson in early American/Mississipian history and prehistory. The mound culture was big down here. The River is looking peaceful.

Jerry Pippin does a tribute broadcast to the life and times of Private Investigator Gordon Novel. Joining Jerry in this show is Gordon's son, Sur Novel,



...and the discussion concerns some personal history of Gordon, his scrapes with the law, secret agencies, and a fact that he was a major player in several high profile cases including his son's inside story of Gordon Novel and his involvement with the players in the JFK assassination.


http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_gordon_novel.htm
Podcast - 60 minutes

Jerry contacted Ron Pandolfi to ask if he might join Jerry on his show in tribute to Gordon Novel. Ron Pandolfi kindly forwarded a statement for Jerry to read on the show.

From Ron Pandolfi, October 6, 2012:
"I met Gordon at an off beat place at night were people might meet to have a private conversation and perhaps where only one might walk away, but I had known of Gordon for many years, well at least I knew of a shadowy figure that might have been Gordon. We did walk away that night into the shadows, at different times and directions, but somewhat in step, with a shared vision of accessing the truth and making the world a better place. Gordon's path thereafter was a tangled web with many falls, and there were times when I received or made a call. He loved and respected the Princess and served as Godfather to Kashmir. He climbed up the mountains, spoke with the Wise Yak, and butted heads with the Blue Goat. Gordon was always ready for a fight, ready to win the fight, with confidence that he was right. My confidence in a better world inspired by Gordon during that night, that now in the shadows there are more of us meeting tonight."

dan wrote:We've made it to Natchez, and we'll start heading back tomorrow. The Trace has been a lesson in early American/Mississipian history and prehistory. The mound culture was big down here. The River is looking peaceful.

Thanks Dan,
I hope the trip graced you with whatever hopes you may have had for the journey. Pleasant travels.

And thank you, Jake, for this update. It does seem that Ron has taken a lesson in obscurantism, from a master craftsman. I was present at that meeting, nay, I brought Gordon to that meeting, much to Ron's initial trepidation. The rest is, yes, history.......

And we are heading back, by way of Vicksburg and Oxford.

On Wednesday, coming from Natchez, up to Oxford, we were traveling mostly through cotton fields, out to the horizon of the Mississippi flats. There were 14-row pickers, whose cages are swapped out, and dumped into stationary bailers, making tractor-trailer sized (10-ton) modules. It's a lotta cotton.......

Now, from Hatteras to Halifax, we are warned of a possible triple convergence of..... an Ohio Valley trough, Sandy, and a north-Atlantic oscillation that could lead to another perfect storm. Better get an extra tank of propane........ http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2012/10/25/perfect-storm-set-to-occur-on-21st-anniversary-of-original-historic-event/


In the last few days, I occasionally reappraised what ought to be the main obstacle to immaterialism....... Yes, Samuel Johnson was close to the mark.......

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

Another significant refutation might come from the rotting tree, fallen in the forest. Both of these involve the law of entropy. Entropy is the prime refuter of idealism, and it largely invokes atomism. Atoms, per se, are a godsend for us immaterialists. They pose a problem only in 'defect' mode, i.e. when they start falling-out of regularity and/or functionality.

The stone was once a part of a mountain, and the decaying tree once a part of a forest. Neither mountain nor forrest need concern the idealist. Nor need the cotton field. But how do we explain the fertility of the Mississippi delta, without a generous portion of prehistoric entropy?

Thus, when we speak of vitalism and teleology, we would be up a creek, were it not for the Third Law. The more specific problem with that law is that it seems to be a memory-hog, on a cosmic scale. Much too much bandwidth is being devoted to a seemingly trivial pursuit. We have to decrease the triviality and/or the bandwidth.

Triviality is not a problem, once we understand that positive and negative entropy are complementary. Bandwidth......? Can we not subsume the bandwidth of decay within the bandwidth of life, as just another aspect of their complementarity?

Which is greater...... the bandwidth of a mountain or of a beach? The bandwidth of Shakespeare or of a Shakespearian library? According to an atomist, the beach and library should overwhelm the mountain and the man. I'm not quite so sure about that.......




(cont.)

the answer to your question about the fertility is dynamic diverse interconnection. This pertains to consciousness in all its forms. The system you seek already exists.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/sag-fact/pdf/0016.pdf

and yet I can play a game called "capture the flag - cross country" in old Oregon's ancient forests and sit upon a log in plain sight of a path on the other team's side of the dividing boundary and not be seen by a single individual in a group of seven because one can think oneself as much a part of the log as one can a part of any other level of God/Perceived Reality. My sister called it cheating...go figure.

Thank you for that link, Cy. I had forgotten about the biome aspect of soil fertility.

There are plant micro-biomes, and there is the human microbiome. And then there is the hologenome.


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

It is difficult to find an example of a beneficial role for viruses within the biosphere, that is in a contemporary context. Certainly they had a big and positive role in the archaic period, but, now, they seem mainly parasitic.

I'm trying to understand the connection between the microbiome and capture the flag. Most of what goes on in the world is not immediately evident to us. And, it might seem that, if Cy can hide in plain sight, then, probably God could do the same thing. I'm not sure if this is what Cy was alluding to.

Are atoms hiding in plain sight? Is it possible to distinguish between Adam and Atom? It might not be as easy as the reductionist would like to have us think. If, indeed, the reductionist would even have us think, at all?




(cont.)

A further perusal of viral evolution has them as endemic within the so-called RNA-world of prebiotic evolution. Do they still have a useful role to play, or are they merely opportunistic atavists? If viruses had ever ceased to exist, they would have quickly been reinvented as rogue/renegade bits of RNA and DNA. Can we blame them for being so roguish? Had they not existed, would their absence not have been a major mystery? Could God not have outlawed these outlaws? Viruses are the mosquitoes of the molecular world. Placentas may have developed as the mosquito nets of that world. Clearly, God has a soft spot for ecology and history. Call it coherence, if you will.


Back to decay...... of mountains and forests..... Our fruited plains, breadbaskets, were the result of that detritus. The Earth is nothing if not a recycling machine. Our ouroboric cosmos is nothing if not a 're-circuited', bootstrapped Creator. The Alpha and Omega are embryonic to each other. The Telos must include this bootstrap, this umbilical. Atoms are the emergent integers of our prime-numbered, proteinated reality. The BPWH is the Riemann's hypothesis of that regime.

Yes, atoms are the essential interchangeable parts for reproduction, a role that cannot be fulfilled without a robust and complementary decay cycle. So what about the bandwidth hogging by all this 'detritus', wrt the cosmic memory? Can that not be alleviated?

Could there not be a 'teleological' alleviation, whatever that might be? What is the bandwidth of the Telos? Conceivably, for the cosmic Monad, it could be zero. Can the telic Monad not also subsume every crack in every sidewalk? Cracks be subsumed under crackishness? Or am I just being a crank?

The telos is like a reverse Big Bang, which had zero entropy. Or what about the alleged heat death?


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

An ultimate heat-death would be a bath of red-shifting photons, with dispersing brown dwarfs and evaporating black holes. Would even the dwarfs evaporate? Neutron stars? Frozen planets? Cracked sidewalks and petrified forests might remain, indefinitely, on the orphaned planets.

But, needless to say, I don't believe in the heat death. Rather, our circuit back to the megalithic communities is completed. Nature is restored to its original, 'Edenic' condition..... the sidewalks are, essentially, rolled up.

Our deeds, good and bad, are preserved in the cosmic memory, which, in the end, is merely the rainbow of the shining Presence. Can the 'defects' be subsumed within that rainbow? I'd like to know how...... how does this 'illusion' preserve its photo realism? How can information be subsumed by meaning?

Somehow, meaning became subsumed by information. How can we reverse that process? What effect does the collapse of the wave-function have on its information content? Does it depend on how it collapses? Does not each microcosm contain all of the information? Does not the eternal present contain all of history? How much information is contained in the Mandelbrot? In the Riemann zeroes? In the primes? In mathematics? Does this not depend on the PoV?



(cont.)

This morning is Grace, this afternoon is the Green forum, and, tonight, Sandy is expected to be rolling in. Sam and Will are driving back from the Biophysical Economics conference in Burlington, VT. If the electric is off for an extended period, we'll have to charge the phones in the car, and use them for the Internet.


I'm having difficulty understanding the mathematics of copied information and compression coding. Surely, two volumes of Shakespeare, side by side, do not contain double the information of one volume, but how is this accounted for, other than with an extended notion of optimal compression coding? How much information is in a URL link? Is information on my iPad to be treated differently from the same information in the Cloud? You have to go back to the source, but what is the ultimate Source?


3pm-----------

It may be that God is our ultimate data compressor, being the Monad, after all. Cracks in the sidewalk have scant individual significance, yet they do consume entropic bandwidth. A brick and sand construction reduces the phenomenological aspect of this bandwidth. Should we revert to brick sidewalks so as to alleviate the burden on the cosmic memory? This will come about, 'naturally', with the Omega. Are we in a hurry?

.

Sandy seems to have spread out to become a regional north-easter, and conditions may not get much worse than they are now, the rain and wind are remaining tolerable, the power is still on.

It appears that Maryland got off relatively easily, compared to New York and New Jersey. It seems that the Atlantic is already starting to reclaim Manhattan. It was a 14' storm surge near midnight that took its toll.


I'm looking at the knowledge implosion, eidetic memory combined with NDE's, the akashic record, apokatastasis, etc., as means of cosmic data compression to alleviate the bandwidth of photo realism. At some point, our data explosion turns into a data implosion, but I can't say when or how. This may be the biggest obstacle to immatialism.

I would suggest that our data explosion is akin the that of the Mandelbrot, and that underneath it all is a relatively simple BPW-type of algorithm. This may be a useful analogy to pursue.


7pm-----------

Am I not thereby implying that every crack in every sidewalk is predestined? Am I suggesting that God cannot play dice with the universe?

Would either hypothesis be testable? Can Creator and creatures choose not to exercize their collective omniscience? Use it or lose it? Perhaps. But then what? What about the photo-realism? What about the photos?

Suppose that some cracks were found to shift, between observations. At the least, we would have to deal with an effect, without a cause. What cause could there be, other than God? Cosmic orneriness? But that's not quite the problem...... It's not the lack of jitter, it's more the fact of definiteness, in the first place. There is nothing indefinite about cracks. They are just as objective and as well defined as they can be. But what would a fuzzy crack look like? Fuzzy electrons have an overriding rationale. Not so, fuzzy cracks. What then of mountains on unobservable planets? Should that be God's problem?



(cont.)

On MARC, headed to DC to see the Janis Joplin play.


So, is it harder to explain the micro or the macro-cosm? Can a similar rationale be used for both stars and atoms? Is it harder to explain sunburn or the northern lights? On my BPW site, I used heliotropism to explain the Sun. This is part of relationalism...... everything explains everything else. Existence is holistic. Atoms and stars are emergent properties...... emerging from the meso-cosm.

Once emerged, is there a maintenance cost? On my understanding, this emergence is non-temporal. It is 'sub specie aeternitas'.



(cont.)

dan wrote:Thank you for that link, Cy. I had forgotten about the biome aspect of soil fertility.

You're welcome.

dan wrote:
It is difficult to find an example of a beneficial role for viruses within the biosphere, that is in a contemporary context. Certainly they had a big and positive role in the archaic period, but, now, they seem mainly parasitic.

I think that part of the current purpose of viruses are two-fold. A form of planetary security. Makes it difficult for other species to find it worthwhile to move in and try to claim squatters rights?

And secondly it continually challenges life here; keeps genomes on their toes and encourages small natural modifications that fine tunes life here on this world to adapt to this world. They are a part of a dynamic self-sustaining system same as weather/climate is a part of a dynamic self-balancing system. The whole thing is designed to keep itself in motion. That dynamism encourages an insight rich environment which makes it the perfect developmental playpen for babies of all kinds. Humans are not the only youngsters under development here, even though many among our population like to assume we are only ones.

dan wrote:
I'm trying to understand the connection between the microbiome and capture the flag. Most of what goes on in the world is not immediately evident to us. And, it might seem that, if Cy can hide in plain sight, then, probably God could do the same thing. I'm not sure if this is what Cy was alluding to.

Bingo. That's precisely what I was alluding to. This is NOT a closed system and since we participate in more than the strictly physical aspects of the Tree of Life there is an entire realm of power and landscape we are only just becoming technically aware of and finding ways of exploring. We are no longer limited strictly to iarrairdeall (an alternate sensory perception beyond the basic physical - requires special training) methods of perceiving it.

So many think we are far removed from God/Creative Source. On the contrary those who are taught to recognize and work with Synchronicity know first-hand otherwise. But in our modern day the greater population will not recognize/acknowledge that first-hand experience without tangible experience with it. It then has to spread through both societal and consciousness networks within our biosphere. That is already underway as people rediscover idircheo areas between fogs where the fabric between worlds/relative realities is thin and energized enough for one or more to express in the same space. Higher/more complex reality is everwhere. Our interaction with it is only limited by our understanding, perceptional development and collective experience.

Here is a thought, how does society and cultures limit or have limited in the past individuals and groups capable of perceiving and interacting with other worlds/realities?

How have they limited our interaction with Synchronicity? Or unambiguous Contact?

Much of developmental evolution is laid waste by these limiting factors. And various versions of these factors exist in EVERY society, culture, and religion. This is the problem with basing our existence and choices on absolutes or any set thereof.

dan wrote:
Are atoms hiding in plain sight? Is it possible to distinguish between Adam and Atom? It might not be as easy as the reductionist would like to have us think. If, indeed, the reductionist would even have us think, at all?

Yes atoms hide within reach, not sight. You need some knarly equipment to reach/view them right? I'm sorry I don't know the first thing about reductionism. But I am aware of energies and their behavior beyond what current science lists in physics texts. So I am prevented from holding many absolute ideas high because I can perceive first hand a good many holes in our matrix of knowledge and collective awareness. Articulating those are problematic when everyone on the plant is proverbially speaking a different knowledge and situational set. I understand your struggle in that sense.

Cy

Cy,

More on viruses..........

Bacteriophage viruses play a major role in sequestering carbon in the oceans. And, yes, they continue to play a major role in horizontal gene transfer in the simpler life forms.


Open system....... other realities.......?

Yes, for sure. Creation is an open system. Creator + Creation........? Is Eternity an open system?

Eternity is what exists beyond space and time. Eternity does not evolve. It does not have a history. Time, such as it may exist, is multidimensional and non-linear. Time down here is illusory. Creation is fully embedded within eternity. It was not created within time. Time emerged within 'creation'. It is a perspectival entity, relative to us creatures.

Does this mean that there is no Creator? It means that God and Creation are bootstrapped, outside of space and time. The best possible Creation is inevitable and eternal, from God's PoV.

How can love exist without free-will? How can free-will exist, if time is just an illusion.....?

The cosmic mind/monad is. It encompasses both love and hate, joy and sorrow. It cannot cease to exist, except from particular perspectives, e.g. within the X-event, i.e. with the death of God.

Potentiality exists. Potency is real. Love is omnipotentiality. It is as open as open can be. Our destiny is written in the stars, and in our hearts. The Monad is the great Attractor.

Evil exists as the shadows of love, and those shadows point invariably to the Dawn. And the shadows are deepest, just before the Dawn.

We never could escape from the event horizon of God's love. Is there a perpetual chaos beyond that pale? Where does Occasionalism reside, within eternity..... within the final Cause? Our ultimate act of free-will is our Sati within the Monad. This is just our hierogamic Rapture. All ye, all ye, in free!

Sati is coming, ASAP. Jake and I can't decide if it will be within two centuries or two millennia. What is your preference?


Every act of love is a microcosmic recreation. It is our participation...... our one path to transcendence, to the unobstructed universe. The event horizon is simply where we come to find ourselves, for the first time, in-extremis.


Is history/culture an obstacle in our long march to cosmic Sati?


1:40-----------

We are on a launch pad, and there is a count-down. There are built-in holds. The time needs to be ripe for disclosure. Being premature would result in a fizzle on the pad. Our collective uCs is saturated with Sati. We are in a pressure cooker. The heat is being turned up. The best possible path to Disclosure is to adjust the acclimation safety valve. It is to take full advantage of distributed communication via the Internet.

At this point, God has only to lift a finger. She is holding her breath, but not quite turning blue in the face. Where does the microcosm end, and the cosmos begin? It is a thin blue line. The Rupert Murdochs of the world may or may not have been briefed. That is an academic question. Are the Bilderbergers keeping their finger in the d*ke? Well, God has a thumb on the scale. Do you suppose that the former are betting against the latter? Can they be quite that obtuse?




(cont.)

dan wrote:Cy,

More on viruses..........

Bacteriophage viruses play a major role in sequestering carbon in the oceans. And, yes, they continue to play a major role in horizontal gene transfer in the simpler life forms.

Pardon the synchroncity between this conversation and the other but since everyone is a member of the human collective consciousness it should not be so surprising when similar points of importance crop up in tiered conversations....yes viruses play a rol in carbon sequestration and also in nitrogen sequestration. Both necessary components in the life construction process. But my point was that they play a major role in gene sequencing in all life here. To understand this from my perspective you would need to have a basic understanding of Bri & Bau. Two energies I have yet to see a corresponding description for in modern science. Bri is an intrinsic energy that is variable depending upon present components and is a life-force constructor. It is present everywhere in varying degrees but various locations have a higher Bri than others. It is also slow to accumulate. Bau is also an energy, but is one created by intent/action. It is a product of beings and event dynamics which use Bri for variant purposes. Both of these energies can be 'keyed' or programmed. And they can each possess a 'nature' or patterned quality. Modern science is just now rediscovering this part of the biological/dimensional reality. It can be viewed in the research of ghost hunters who are learning to identify these energies and the inhabitants of that part of reality and how it is related to us and ours.

Viruses use both Bri & Bau. They seem most in balance with other lifeforms in a Bri rich environment but when in a Bau rich environment it is noticeable an exponential increase is sometimes present, akin to a child who has had too many sweets. And an imbalance or dissonance then has a higher opportunity to occur. Well the reason I mention this is because it is through the bau interaction of both complex biological lifeforms and viruses that genetic immune changes seem to occur. Viruses become the 'messengers' of the biosphere bringing the impetus for minute adjustments. Thus it is true that we are interconnected and interdependent with other lifeforms in the system.

dan wrote:
Open system....... other realities.......?

It's an old way of describing it. That energy and matter are interwoven and so are various expressions. It is like asking if insulation boards in a house contribute to structural integrity to the calculations in the framing...the answer is yes. It is small but it is there and it is necessary to include it when constructing for a certain wind resistance or seismic resistance integrity of a house.

dan wrote:
Yes, for sure. Creation is an open system. Creator + Creation........? Is Eternity an open system?

Eternity is what exists beyond space and time. Eternity does not evolve. It does not have a history. Time, such as it may exist, is multidimensional and non-linear. Time down here is illusory. Creation is fully embedded within eternity. It was not created within time. Time emerged within 'creation'. It is a perspectival entity, relative to us creatures.

I see time as being little more than a unit of measurement. Yes I agree with you in that description of it being a perspectival entity, relative to us creatures. The old saying Mind is not limited by time, space (distance), or place (point of reference) still seems to hold true.

dan wrote:

Does this mean that there is no Creator? It means that God and Creation are bootstrapped, outside of space and time. The best possible Creation is inevitable and eternal, from God's PoV.

This is where there is a diversion because you are using space (definition), and time (definition) as being different from mine (definition). You are using space & time as nouns or objects rather than adjectives as I do in my perception. In my perception the universe is made up of place and energy and tiers of expression rather than time, space, and place. In an Irish Triad the first two objects are descriptive or supportive to the final which is the crux of the matter to be understood. This is the context in which I use the terms time and space ON the subject of PLACE. And the same for place & energy ON the subject of tiers of expression. And Bri & Bau on the subject of UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCT ENERGY. Universal Construct Energy not being the same as that which comprises physical matter. Our basic physics terms suffice for the construct of matter with which we are most familiar. But our concept of reality is incomplete. There is realms of material we have not yet adequately explored. Let alone how all of it is related.

dan wrote:
How can love exist without free-will? How can free-will exist, if time is just an illusion.....?

Love is the proof of free-will. It is a choice in favor of Life...all manners of Life. And we have not defined half of the expressions of Life. That is why participation in the Greater Community is necessary. It is to lay the foundation for a greater, more complex, or adequate (triad again!) understanding of reality/life/consciousness(triad again!).

Here is a question that can be the impetus for search and discovery: What effect does Free Will have on the tiers of expression? How is the Bri & Bau involved? How is place involved? How important are each part of its components and in what percentage are they necessary to result in a Free Will that has a measurable effect on our physical matter?

A complex question, I agree but when you can answer that in a lab or other controlled environment as those investigating MPO/LERM. see next quote:

"To Manifest Production Observership (MPO) a Light-Encoded Reality Matrix (LERM) is a sum-over event, derived and produced by an internal psychophysiology working with one degree of freedom and functioning as an overunity sink with maxima of up to 1.23 x 1015 volts. And to produce it - that is, to MPO a LERM - we need to rediscover the algorithm already inscribed in each of us humans to produce exactly what Jesus presaged for all of us some 2,000 years ago: that the Creator Source of everything inscribed in our DNA the ability to create a thing out of no-thing."

dan wrote:
The cosmic mind/monad is. It encompasses both love and hate, joy and sorrow. It cannot cease to exist, except from particular perspectives, e.g. within the X-event, i.e. with the death of God.

Those emotions are constructs of Bau. The are "keyed" and are capable of producing a minute effect on "place". But while they are keyed they do not contain "intent"...there is no instructions placed upon those energy constructs. Places with extreme collections of Bau, usually keyed, with an emotion or sets of emotions, and often continually fueled by beings that have slipped out of synch with the revolution of life-times/development process of the souls, can become highly energized and trauma causing environments far from healthy for the human in physical soul-body expression.

dan wrote:
Potentiality exists. Potency is real. Love is omnipotentiality. It is as open as open can be. Our destiny is written in the stars, and in our hearts. The Monad is the great Attractor.

Yes Potentiality exists. It is a construct for a set of patterns. Generally massive in a size sense of view. And can be interlocked with other Potentialities enabling augmentation or continuation of development. Yes I would agree in a sense of Love being an omnipotentiality, but I also see it a product of Consciousness partnered with Free-Will's Choice.

And yes our Potentiality because of its tremendous reach, power, and effect is truly a great attractor. It is also a responsibility to nurture and protect. That effect I mentioned encompasses many other Beings. Thus in a way making their welfare a responsibility of our own. Although most humans of Earth have not reached a degree of development capable of realizing this just yet.

dan wrote:
Evil exists as the shadows of love, and those shadows point invariably to the Dawn.

Evil is a matter of perspective and choice matrices. And unfortunately it carries a great deal of its own power (Bau type). Remember the definition I gave of Bau places it as a type of Creative Source power which is a product of Life/Conscious Beings use of Bri. It is akin to making Vinegar out of Apples. And it is subjective in that even evil can become the impetus for great good. So why would the Creative Source allow evil to co-exist in the Tree of Life with great Good? Lol. Only if Free-Will is present and of great value to the development of Souls and their Expressions.

How can one soul participate over many lifetimes in both good and bad, learning and developing through free-will, choice, and its effects a nature, an expression, and a closer step to All Being which enables a journey to places many would like to go and a return because on obscure world has a Potential that reaches into the lives of a substantial number of other Beings in the Universe in their own journeys of development and so deeply into the heart of the Creative Source that things thought impossible can actually change? And from another perspective that someone who believed in that initial perception of Potential so long ago was proven correct. Food for thought.

Cy

Sati is coming, ASAP. Jake and I can't decide if it will be within two centuries or two millennia. What is your preference?

no such thing. Every experience and choice made is part of the construct of nature within the construct of All Being. While you can choose to forgive someone their trespasses you cannot wipe those choices and that nature. It is already part of the construct of that individual who is part of a collective or series of collectives which is really more the case. What you can do is engage each new life in a way as to improve or alter the subtle collection for the better in each nature. This is only done through presentation and utilization of Opportunity. This is where Jake in my opinion is closer to being correct because without Opportunity in the course of Soul development, you have no Potential or deconstruction of it. When you steal from someone you are taking away a degree of their Opportunity in life. This is why stealing is such a horrendous act even if it is something seemingly small.

Does not the choice of brushing one's teeth in the morning despite being late to work enable the potential to survive a scheduled car crash enroute? Investment in free will, opportunity, and thus Potential is a key component in Outcome or the end result of the Soul construct/development.

Causing or enabling traumatic event or limitation of opportunity, or placing an Absolutism upon the construct of Life steals Potential from the capacity to eventually reach All Being.

Cy,

You and Jake continue to see the Earth as a cosmic experiment that may very well turn out badly. Most experiments do. Just ask Thomas Edison. And you may be correct in holding that view. I certainly cannot prove otherwise.

Can love be meaningful if it cannot fail, either locally or globally?

Love must be tested to its utmost. It must always appear fallible. Only faith can measure up, and, finally, they are the same.

But....... can any life, any planet be said to be a failure? Under what circumstances is it permitted to curse the Creator?

If I were a creature of the second best creation, would I not have cause to curse?

Why, Cy, should you and I have been relegated to the Second best creation? Can you explain this to me? What sort of Creator would do that to any creature? Should we consider ourselves to be Second-rate?

You and I know that both of us are reflections of God. Are some reflections better than others? Are some reflections expendable? I can't prove otherwise, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially not from God's PoV. As long as we can maintain plausible deniability wrt God's putative incompetence, then we are ahead of the cosmic game.

What may be supposed of creatures may also be supposed of creations. Would you rather be the most fortunate creature in the second best creation, or the least fortunate in the best?

Is this a trick question? It is not an easy question. It all depends on whether you are an atomist or a holist........

Let's put it another way....... Simply substitute creator for creation....... How much would you sacrifice to be allowed to commit Sati wrt the #1 Creator, as opposed to #2? Does anyone not understand this hypothetical choice?


3:20----------

If the idea of a second best creator makes no sense, then how does the notion of a second best Creation make any sense?

If it is possible that there be isolated creations, then must there not also be isolated creators? But, by almost every coherent definition, there cannot be an isolated Creator. To suppose that we were created in a physics 101 lab section just seems to be a very big stretch of anyone's imagination. No?! Since when is that not a reductio ad absurdum of......... reductionism?!

Do we not inhabit a prophetic planet? On that planet, there are but three prophetic traditions. If we were to ask Jimmy the Greek for the odds, would there even be a contest?

How about for the odds of design vs. accident? Ask the physicists........ Where is the contest? Is it not nolo-contendere? The atheist-posing science fiction writers wish not to turn their collars around..... not in public. Good for them. What about the Bilderbergers? Are they dumber than Jimmy? Can they not read the wiki on their wall?


4:20------------

Then there is this.......... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/politics/a-better-poll-question-to-predict-the-election.html?hp Only briefly did this article appear on the front page.


Back to immaterialism........ It's still a tough sell. It does imply that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun goes around it. How many flat-young-Earthers are left in the world? About as many as there are materialists.

Well, there are many soft materialists...... those who actually are semi-hard-core existentialists, who believe that they are lost in space and time. And, IMHO, they simply suffer from cosmic stage-fright. IOW, they do not believe that they are zombies, i.e. they take consciousness seriously.


5:55------------

Mortality is a key issue for the idealist. But it need only tell us that we are on a cosmic team. That we are not solipsists, and that we all have bigger fish to fry, in the great beyond. So let us not tary for too long in this vale of tears. We have many miles before we are rocked in the cosmic bosom.

This is from Gail C.........

“People do like being the center of the universe. And Ohio — when does that happen?” asked P.G. Sittenfeld gleefully. He is a member of the Cincinnati City Council who went to battle recently over a series of billboards that popped up in minority neighborhoods announcing “VOTER FRAUD IS A FELONY!” with a picture of a gavel banging down.

The ads, which certainly seemed less than encouraging, were paid for by a foundation led by a big Republican donor from Wisconsin. Now they’re down, and thanks in part to Sittenfeld’s yelps, there are new billboards in the same neighborhoods saying, “Hey, Cincinnati: Voting Is a Right, Not a Crime.”

The Romney-Ryan Real Recovery Road Rally will begin in John Boehner’s hometown of West Chester. Then everybody will fan out across the land to distract the country from the fact that Mitt Romney once said he wanted to get rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And, actually, it’s not very fair to bring that up. That was during the primaries, and Romney did not mean a single thing he said during the primaries. The person currently running for president is the late-fall Mitt Romney, who is mainly concerned with China. And “change.”

Change is so 2008. Right now, we are just looking for a president who will nudge things a tad toward the right general direction. Bring us the guy who won’t totally screw things up. We want a “No New Disasters” rally.

So...... is the Earth flat, or is it hollow? I lean toward hollow. But that is a rather academic question. What happens on its flat-like surface is where the cosmic apokatastaic action is at. I know that my egg-headed colleagues are gun-shy. Don't count on them to pull our iron out of the fire. They struggle to find their next grant and next grad student. I sympathize. I have never had a grad student.



(cont.)

Dan Said (Cy response in orange):

Cy,

You and Jake continue to see the Earth as a cosmic experiment that may very well turn out badly. Most experiments do. Just ask Thomas Edison. And you may be correct in holding that view. I certainly cannot prove otherwise.

I don't see it as a cosmic experiment. The Creative Source has been at this game a tremendous length of time. I think it knows precisely what it's doing. And maybe it will turn out badly or maybe not. I only know the message in the bottle about the Potential of Earth's Humanity. There's a tremendous amount of time involved before that message is fully realized and so it encompasses alot of history yet to be made for good or bad. Part of my geis is to "help them remember who they are." I've done my best to voice it, but generally it goes in one ear and out the other of most people within earshot. Everyone is too wrapped up in their own little world to pay attention, let alone understand what it means. Exasperated shrug.

Can love be meaningful if it cannot fail, either locally or globally?

There are many components that go into an over-all success story. Love is very much a part of it but not all of it. It is very important. Can love fail or not fail seems to me a question out of context. Love is an expression of a Soul Nature. If the Creative Source so loves then what does that tell us about it? If the Creative Source can act with ruthlessness in defense of its purposes but holds to principles such as respect of free-will, then what does that tell us about it?

Explain to me precisely what failure you think is bound to occur? This fatalism I keep seeing in your perceptions has a root in personal fear. Is this why you spend so much time trying to make it make sense?



Love must be tested to its utmost. It must always appear fallible. Only faith can measure up, and, finally, they are the same.

Agreed in the great measure Love and Faith are one in the same. Faith can only fail in being the same if it is based on self-interest. When it is service-to-other then it is a component of Love. Love stands on it's own. The only purpose I can see for testing is if there is a doubt in whether faith is expressed in self-interest rather than as service-to-other. Then testing makes sense.

But....... can any life, any planet be said to be a failure? Under what circumstances is it permitted to curse the Creator?

How can you measure what constitutes failure in the eyes of the Creative Source? We're talking about a consciousness so complex that it has already reached All Being and we cannot in our smallness/youthfulness measure how long it has existed in that state. So how can we truly measure its perception and perceive wholly as it does at this point? We cannot. We can only trust any action perceived belonging to it, or trust any form of communication that can be sourced to it. And we have difficult enough time recognizing such things do we not? So then how can we judge what it would call a failure. Why fret ourselves silly? We are still here. The world and the universe has not be snuffed out and there is a message in the bottle about mankind's potential. What's this talk about man or the world being no good?


If I were a creature of the second best creation, would I not have cause to curse?

Why, Cy, should you and I have been relegated to the Second best creation? Can you explain this to me? What sort of Creator would do that to any creature? Should we consider ourselves to be Second-rate?

Who said anything about being second best creation or first best creation, or umpteenth best creation? You are a part of THE CREATION! Is that not enough to participate in a UNIVERSAL adventure? This numerical hierarchy is a human construct not one of the Creative Source to my knowledge and experience. This is a part of THE CREATION and it encompasses all worlds and all creatures; all peoples. IT IS. And all creatures great and small are very fine regarded. The diversity is cherished. That is what it means to be a family. There are kindred there. And like all families it has its issues. I'll be the last to say all of Creation is peachy keen. There are things out there that would have no qualm eating you given the opportunity. Do we not learn But the opposite is true too; not all is without appreciation and common ground. What sort of Creator would do that for any creature? What sort of parent builds the greatest house and playground for its offspring it can contrive? What school would a parent choose for its offspring if it could have any possibility?

You and I know that both of us are reflections of God. Are some reflections better than others? Are some reflections expendable? I can't prove otherwise, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially not from God's PoV. As long as we can maintain plausible deniability wrt God's putative incompetence, then we are ahead of the cosmic game.

What is good, better, best or any category are entirely human values. I personally think people should spend less time thinking what someone else thinks, thus cease putting words into the mouth of one who is fully capable of its own opinions, and more time focusing on being the best one can strive to be based on what one knows is right. Leave the rest in peace. LOL God's putative incompetence? That's like asking the earthworm to judge bridge construction. Isn't that presuming a little out of ones current league?

What may be supposed of creatures may also be supposed of creations. Would you rather be the most fortunate creature in the second best creation, or the least fortunate in the best?

Again, by my perception this is all one creation and it encompasses all of this universe and probably beyond. There is no second best or first best. There is just Creation. We are here and so are so many others. Why do you insist on numerically categorizing everything into a restrictive box? Are you so terribly unhappy with being you? Seems to me that the you here is pretty darn cool as a physical being on the uphill climb can be. You've a great gift participating in this Creation, why so much dissatisfaction? Is it not a great enough piece of art this Creation? Do you feel you no longer have anything to contribute to it to help improve it? Does not your very presence improve it? Perhaps you think mine or my neighbors does not improve it? Or the next being a few worlds over? What darkness can sight cast masking Light?

What if the heaven you sought was the very Creation you were born into but it is your expression which defines the nature of it? Would you change for the better? Would you treat everything around you as though it were the best possible in this moment and cherish it and all in it? Forever? If you cannot do this for this magnificent Creation then how can you assume you are ready to do it for anything else or anyone else? Cy


Is this a trick question? It is not an easy question. It all depends on whether you are an atomist or a holist........

Let's put it another way....... Simply substitute creator for creation....... How much would you sacrifice to be allowed to commit Sati wrt the #1 Creator, as opposed to #2? Does anyone not understand this hypothetical choice?


3:20----------

If the idea of a second best creator makes no sense, then how does the notion of a second best Creation make any sense?

If it is possible that there be isolated creations, then must there not also be isolated creators? But, by almost every coherent definition, there cannot be an isolated Creator. To suppose that we were created in a physics 101 lab section just seems to be a very big stretch of anyone's imagination. No?! Since when is that not a reductio ad absurdum of......... reductionism?!

Do we not inhabit a prophetic planet? On that planet, there are but three prophetic traditions. If we were to ask Jimmy the Greek for the odds, would there even be a contest?

How about for the odds of design vs. accident? Ask the physicists........ Where is the contest? Is it not nolo-contendere? The atheist-posing science fiction writers wish not to turn their collars around..... not in public. Good for them. What about the Bilderbergers? Are they dumber than Jimmy? Can they not read the wiki on their wall?


One of humanity's greatest issues is the tendancy to drive pendulums through the roof when a nudge in one direction or another would suffice to set something in motion. It's like standing on a highway with a sign in hand that reads, "you over-shot your destination by two-hundred" and deliberately refuse to specify if that number was in inches or miles. Cy

Cy,

I am a fatalist, but only in the positive sense of universal Salvation. I gather that you are also such a universalist. You do not wish to see your enemies burn in hell. Very few of us do seriously entertain such a desire, despite the occasional fire and brimstone that still emanates from our pulpits. And it is even harder for us to imagine that God could or would.

My concerns are more mundane and practical, despite or, perhaps, because of the relevant metaphysics..........

I continue to labor under the impression that the world does need to be saved, otherwise all of us are headed into a future that could nasty, brutish and short. Would this not be Hell on wheels? It could be, and I doubt that even the Bilderbergers could escape it...... only prolong it.

There is simply a numbers game here......... more consumers than consumables, especially in the arena of non-renewables.

I gather that your view of this situation is within the mainstream of ufology...... there is a cosmic Federation that is standing by to rescue us, but that we are being held hostage by the Bilderbergers, who are rather comfortable with the status quo, and who are not averse to playing brinksmanship with the lives of the rest of us.

I can hardly prove otherwise. Nonetheless, the above scenario does not stand up to much scrutiny, IMHO. But I'm not here to poke holes in other's beliefs. I am already overtaxed with defending my own.

But I'm not sure why it should be as taxing as it is. To me, it's mostly just common sense, but to most others it is the height of folly........


The biggest obstacle to anyone's acceptance of the the BPWH is Darwin. And the biggest problem wrt Darwin is that most folks have grown accustomed to his seeming hegemony wrt the obvious facts of life. We carry on with our mundane lives, mostly managing to ignore the Darwinian shadow being cast upon us, and not wishing to be reminded of it. Denial is the name of it. The irrationality of existentialism is our port in the storm.


I'm not here to teach Darwinists the facts of life. I am here, however, to steal their lunch. They have the right facts, but the wrong story. They're not seeing the forest, for all the trees. But, if you are going to see the forest, you have to want to see it. It is not just going to pop out at you.




(cont.)

dan wrote:Cy,

I am a fatalist, but only in the positive sense of universal Salvation. I gather that you are also such a universalist. You do not wish to see your enemies burn in hell. Very few of us do seriously entertain such a desire, despite the occasional fire and brimstone that still emanates from our pulpits. And it is even harder for us to imagine that God could or would.

I certainly don't think G-d would want His enemies to pollute heaven. Nor permit earth destroyers to get out of jail free, to destroy heaven with their same spin doctrine.

There can be No salvation without repentance. Otherwise Heaven is just another Hell. Repentance is not optional, it is a required curriculum. And allowances have been provided for this process.

I think Cyrellys has been winning this debate.

Good day