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.)

Thanks for mentioning that scripture Jake. I've always wondered how different Protestant and non-denominational Christian factions will prophesize that the world is going to end on such and such date even though, at least as far as I knew, it says in the Bible that Jesus said that we will never know.

I wonder what Jesus' direct statement on this matter is? If He said that we will never know but Paul is saying that some in fact WILL know, then I would be more apt to place more weight on Jesus' statement on that... of course.

All I DO know is that it seems like the general consensus in mainstream Christianity supports what Dan just said about it in his last post which is interpreted as 'we will never know' and without exception.

Jake,

Well, if the false premise in question happens to include the falsity of materialism, then Christians will be in the same boat as every other modern-minded Millie.

To my fellow Christians...... keep your seat belts fastened, and just remember that it is Jesus who saves, not the Bible..... nor the Koran.

Thief in the night........? I cannot prove that Jesus will come back like a thief in the night, nor can you prove that he won't.

Plausibility, Ellie, plausibility.........


99,

We will never know.........? Never know what, pray tell? Is God not omniscient and omnipotent? Are we not far on our way to becoming One with God? Or am I all wet?



So what about that sky Cloud..... the super-duper computer in the Sky? Where does it plug in? And where does all that silicon come from? Silicon Valley?


10:30----------

But back to Jake, for one minute......... Do I imply that you are in the Darkness.... not in the Light?

Love is always a surprise. It never grows old, especially not Agape, or cosmic love. IOW, we cannot always be in love, but we can always be ready to be surprised by love. I think, if you look again at Corinthians, you will see that this is the gist of Paul's letter.



Computer in the Sky........?

If we know how to bootstrap Creation, do we also know how to bootstrap the Computer? I have suggested that our minds work like networked pc's, with the cosmic programs running in the background, in our uCs. The leaf-pile and car-wreck are being computed in our collective uCs.

Well, this is only a very inadequate analogy, in a space where even inadequate analogies are few and far between.

Should we be concerned that even a super-computer cannot compute a car-wreck? But even a super-computer cannot compute our simplest intention. And is there such a thing as a non-intentional thought? Does, or can(!), our uCs harbor anything that is non-intentional? OTOH, is there anything in our minds that is composed purely of logic or quantity?

But what are the qualities and intentionalities of a car-wreck? And how might they differ from those of an unobserved volcano on an unobservable planet? Yet, we are able to super-compute all the observations of eruptions on the most distant of neutron stars.



(cont.)

99 wrote:
All I DO know is that it seems like the general consensus in mainstream Christianity supports what Dan just said about it in his last post which is interpreted as 'we will never know' and without exception.

Yes, all virtually Christianity believes "we will never know" the time of His return. And so do I.

This might get a bit confusing as you may not understand Dan's view. The point of my response to Dan, was not concerning the timing of the "Return of Christ". Nor was Apostle Paul referring to the 'timing'. And Nor was Dan!

Dan does not believe there will be a "return of Christ" that all Christianity is expecting. There is no "return of Christ" in the BPWH. Dan IS the 'return'. The BPWH to Dan, is the WORD of the Spirit of God.

You'll notice in Dan's post immediately above, that he does not talk about the "Return of Christ", but only about "becoming one with God". This is because there isn't going to be a return of Christ, like Christianity expects as per the scriptures. In Dan's view, He has already arrived! like a thief in the night.

I know this about Dan's view and so I was responding to his context.

I asked Dan:

Dan, if all is interconnected and panpsychism is a realism, then why are there no other great minds collaborating in your hypothesis?"

He responded:

Why just me, Lord........?

1.) The BPWH is all wet.

2.) One vision, one visionary. Too many cooks spoil the broth. It was designed this way.

3.) Being left alone, to my own devices is a surprising, surpassing luxury/necessity.

4.) God outdid himself in covering his immaterial tracks, and in giving our theological imaginations a free reign. God walks softly and carries a big stick, which is the Telos. And he knows us much better than we know ourselves.

5.) Didn't he say that he would come like a thief in the night?

You see, it's all about him and the BPWH. He/it being the "one vision" and "one visionary".

Dan concludes with #5, as he believes He is like a thief in the night, that no one is expecting.

He explicitly believes that there will be NO 'return of Christ" as foretold by 'Jesus' and the Bible. But rather that all that Jesus said about his return, is to be interpreted symbolically. And the "surprise" unexpected "return of Christ", is the surprise that the BPWH is it, and Dan is the prophesied "Spirit of Truth" revealing it.

Dan believes when people realize that the BPWH/Chicken Little is the Final Truth, they will experience it symbolically like the "return of Christ".

And so having said all that....

I showed him what Paul said.- "But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief."

This is because Christians know the truth and Christ's return will not "overtake them" like an unexpected thief, as they are prepared in their heart for Him.

But Dan however thinks that even all Christians will be surprised and caught off guard when they realize there isn't going to be any Return of Christ as believed, but that Dan's BPWH revelation has taken its place.

I call these views of Dan - false premises.

And that's why he has no adherents. Not even panpsychism can attract other minds to collaborate with Dan's hypothesis. If Dan was correct, the Spirit of God would move others toward him. If God inspired Dan, in 30 years God would have attracted countless people to hear Dan's teaching of the WORD of God. His BPWH.

So the point of my dialog with Dan above, was that the very premises of his own hypothesis, prove it to be incoherent.

His fundamental premises of his hypothesis are flawed, and no manner of reasoning can congeal it. I said that to Dan, because he is struggling over certain aspects of creation, (atoms, photons, blowing leaves and car wrecks,etc) and trying to figure out how to interpret how God is working creation and how to fit them into his BPWH.

I'm pointing out to Dan, that he will never be able to congeal it, without first changing his premises.

Jake,

I do appreciate that you do not mince your words, and do not beat around the bush. And it is entirely possible that everything you have said is God's own truth. Nay, if anyone were to say that they disbelieved what you have just said, then I would suggest that they might wish to consult with a psychiatrist.

What you do fail to grasp is the subtle distinction between belief and plausibility. And, yes, wrt the BPWH, you do well to maintain a plausible deniability, and so should everyone else.

Do I so maintain? Sure, I do, because, hey, I do also try to maintain a modicum of sanity, despite all appearances to the contrary!

But, just so long as there is a finite probability that the BPWH is correct, then is it wrong for me to continue to pursue it? Am I not even morally obliged to do so?

Would God condemn me for doing what I believe to be right? Should any of us have the slightest desire to align ourselves with anyone who does not encourage us to be guided, first and foremost, by our own conscience?


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

Back to the heavy metal in the sky, and how can intentions help us to compute a car-wreck.......? How do intentions help us to fill in our own blind spots?

Well, they don't, but they can. If I'm looking at someone, slightly askance, I may notice that they appear headless. This does not bode well for the notion of direct perception. Should I not, therefore, believe in the objectivity of photons? Isn't God trying to tell me, gently, that the BPWH is all wet? Why do I have to be so stubborn about this silliness? Why can't I believe my own eyes? If my eyes offend me, shouldn't I pluck them out? I'm sure Jake would agree.

Look, I'm pretty good at rationalization..... as even my critics might concur. I'm pretty good at finding gaps and loopholes in materialism. But who wants a Philadelphia lawyer to be their savior? I do need to take the high road, and it's not always easy to find.



(cont.)

Ok Dan here's the deal. And why I don't simply class you as another Anti-Christ want-a-be and toss you to the wolves on a cold dark night in the thick of winter.

I've said this numerous times before, but it's been awhile, so recap...

I think your philosophical hypothesis concerning the disillusion of scientific materialism - is Brilliant!

If you simply stuck to that, you'd be a guest speaker on TED, and Robert Lawrence Kuhn would request several interviews with you, and Ron might even invite you to attend a JASON meeting.

But your religious views destroy any chance of you being anything other than an also-ran failure. Your life work will be tossed in the shredder. What a waste!

You were inspired to see immateralism, and gifted on how to argue your hypothesis against the standard view of Science.

But you err in presuming that your understanding of immateralism somehow resolves all religious philosophy. Which it doesn't even come close to doing that.

You need to separate the two, or you fail God.

And I doubt he'll be all hunky dory about that! He bakes a cake, gives it to you to share, and then you gobble it all up. Leaving nothing but a messy face, and shame.

Stick to the first mission - Immateralism and how Disclosure changes everything. Discard your religious gobbly-goop. It doesn't cohere. Sure, you can tell people you have some religious beliefs, but they are not as important as the major errors in the Standard Scientific Model.

You can still call it the Best Possible World Hypothesis, because for mankind's purposes this IS the Best Possible World. But you being the "Spirit of Truth"!? With this, you slam the door in your own face. What good is an inspiration that will not be shared? There is no revelation without recipients!

Who has spent more time writing about and correcting the errs of scientific materialism? Who reads it? What impact is it making? What signs are there that give any indication your writing will ever see the light of day?

You ponder if God would forgive you for this waste. Would you forgive you if you were God?

The clock is ticking



edit to fix spelling errors

Good one, Jake!

And what you are saying makes a great deal of sense, but if God had wanted a sensible person to debunk materialism, then he came to the wrong guy, way back there on a cold winter's night, in 1977. So maybe it was the Devil, but also I feel bound to follow the advice of my third-grade baseball coach....... if you're going to make a mistake, you might as well make it a big one. Does that sound perverse? Yes, in many cases it would be, but not if you're holding the ball, with two outs, and the bases are loaded! Which is kinda where I think we are, just now.

We who hesitate are lost. We are playing for the highest possible stakes. This is not a game for the feint hearted. And since when is an ounce of truth worth less than a ton of opinions?

Truth is a package deal. Either I am a logical part of that package, or I'm all wet.

You commit the error of objectivism, if you suppose the truth is not personal. I happen to take the truth very personally....... far too personally, most sane people would say. But I'm not most people, and, very likely, I'm not sane, either. Hey, I have a certificate to prove it!


The only thing standing between us and a potentially very large truth is an an uncomputably wrecked car. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit still for that. It is a personal affront!

Where is the intentionality in a junk heap? Sure, there is a cosmic intentionality in the third law of thermodynamics, but, as usual, the devil is in the details.


5:10----------

I am suggesting that the same sort of teleology present in the decaying tree may also be found in the car wreck. That would be a rather indirect from of intentionality.

Trees end up as rotten logs, and cars end up on the scrap heap, one way or another. Both cycles may be expected to run to completion, the details being long forgotten. So, need I not worry about the 'Irenic'-induced leak in my Toyota? Is it somehow less real than........ what? Than agape?

The leak in the rear window frame of the Toyota is personal, and, so, it is relative to my personhood. It is a significant part of my personal space. Once it departs from my space, it will have a scant purchase on reality. Is there some way to quantify this ontological relativity? I only wish.

But pretty soon, the leak will exist only in my memory. In whose memory will I exist? Well, isn't that kind of what Theism is about? I exist in the mind of the Creator, perhaps, and the Creator exists in perpetuity, perhaps. The reality of my leaky Toyota is quite secondary, even tertiary, in that case. It's like three degrees of separation. Hey, there's a quantity..... 3!

How can I prove this? Only by the coherence theory of truth (CohTT). I have to prove that all truth is relative to love. But is this implausible? Or is it the only thing that is plausible, in the End?

The leaky window might get my feet wet, and it might cause the floor of the car to rust an fall out. The leaky window screen might afford entry to a mosquito bearing the West Nile virus that is the death of me. The devil is in the details.



(cont.)

dan wrote:Good one, Jake!

And what you are saying makes a great deal of sense, but if God had wanted a sensible person to debunk materialism, then he came to the wrong guy, way back there on a cold winter's night, in 1977. So maybe it was the Devil, but also I feel bound to follow the advice of my third-grade baseball coach....... if you're going to make a mistake, you might as well make it a big one. Does that sound perverse? Yes, in many cases it would be, but not if you're holding the ball, with two outs, and the bases are loaded! Which is kinda where I think we are, just now.

We who hesitate are lost. We are playing for the highest possible stakes. This is not a game for the feint hearted. And since when is an ounce of truth worth less than a ton of opinions?

Right! So all the more reason to make it work. You crafted the snow ball, and you have to kick it down the hill. So that it can naturally grow into an avalanche.

You don't have to become a conference speaker. Like Einstein or Galileo, that's not required of you. Maybe a couple times here and there.

But you have to kick the ball off. Only you can do it. Only you know which hill to stand on, and how much a nudge it needs, and which direction it should point. Gravity will do the rest.

Truth is a package deal. Either I am a logical part of that package, or I'm all wet.

You commit the error of objectivism, if you suppose the truth is not personal. I happen to take the truth very personally....... far too personally, most sane people would say. But I'm not most people, and, very likely, I'm not sane, either. Hey, I have a certificate to prove it!

I truly understand this. And yes there is a package deal. In fact (your fact as well) we're all in that package deal. But you need to make a decision about what comes first, the chicken or the egg. Scientific Immateralism or Eschaton? You know the answer to that. So why put the eschaton first? That's like asking Johnny to peddle fast, while he's still only eying the bike.

Immateralism first. Disclosure second. Eschaton third.

When you pitch "Eschaton et Moi" as your door opener, it becomes your door slammer. Can you blame them?

So then Science doesn't even discuss it. Not even Science Philosophers will give it a inch.

Defeated from the get-go.

And if you are sure of your religious interpretation of your philosophy, it doesn't matter one hoot. You yourself close the gates of heaven, just like the Pharisees did. If 'Jesus' was peeved by that, wouldn't his Father be, too? But 'Jesus' didn't close the door. He took it on the road. And kicked that snowball down the hill.

I keep pointing out that I'm just a one-trick pony. If God wanted me to do PR, he could send me a PR agent. I just don't have the patience for it. I have all the time in the world to explain a leaky window, but no time to make phone calls. That's just how it is. Chalk it up to my insanity.

It was only a few weeks ago that Ron told me I was grandstanding, and that was just a couple of weeks before he told me to quit blogging. Look, if God is not my PR agent, then I am way up a lonely creek. You don't have to tell me that!

I also keep saying that this is all about the timing, and I'm going to be in Time's Square, at 12:12 on 12/12/12, but, no, I won't be wearing a placard. Being right here, and kicking this same little can down this same lonely road is the only thing that has ever floated my boat. If God wants to kick a snowball down the hill, well, my only job is to make sure he has the best little snowball in Creation.

And, so, Jake, I have to make sure that this snowball is as round as possible. Half of a snowball is not going to roll. This is what the CohTT is about. It is a package deal, a nice round little package, at that. And when she rolls, she ain't gonna stop for nothing. This is also our Glory Train, or it's not the whole truth, and I'm all wet.

I know that you and a lot of folks would like for there to be more baby steps. And maybe God will arrange for that. But that's not what I signed up for, God knows!

You want to teach me a new Trick? Well, let's wait 'til I finish this one, and then see.

.

Ok, fair enough, Dan. I just get the impression that you work to make a change on a Godly scale. A history changer. At least, that is the context in which you apparently communicate yourself.

As you know, to Ron, you are merely an Intel tool, and perhaps entertainment from time to time. The splattering of craziness helps make it more effective.

If your dollar a year is worth your life, then let it be. To each their own. And you might even make a small difference in some OP from time to time. This is good. To some. Perhaps your work will even make as much a difference as one of the thousands of others who worked for man's world, while thinking they were paramount in saving all humanity.

I just think that would be a waste for your toils, Dan. That's all. Whatever floats your boat.

God's measuring stick isn't fashioned nor interpreted like man's.

So your choice is ... onward Eschaton and slammed doors.

Oy vey, I need a glass of wine.

God's measuring stick isn't fashioned nor interpreted like man's.

This is so incredibly true, Jake.

I agree with you Jake that Dan has some concepts which are indeed brilliant and yes on the one you named. I will add one more to the list...where Dan noted that mankind is akin to computers which are all networked together. This is true. But broaden it to include all lifeforms to make it more accurate.

@ Dan, yes Truth is a package deal. It is both real and tangible. And you are a part of logical part of the package same as Ron is and everyone else is. It is only how you see and understand the package which differs. That does not make you intrinsically all wet but at the same time it does not make the whole of your concept Truth.

I support your efforts because in striving for Truth you are participating in the learning process and being intelligent, intuitive, and diligent you can't help but make discoveries as Jake has acknowledged your more obvious accomplishments. This does not mean I subscribe to any particular part in the way you present it. It means I recognize your capacity and successes and spirit of the chase. This is what the Creative Source loves most about mankind, it's spirit which so mirrors its own and has the capacity to reach forward toward it in ways so many others have not yet grasped. While you and I disagree on many points I can see the strides and the potential at hand here.

Jake mentioned there is a lack of other minds to collaborate with...

Not even panpsychism can attract other minds to collaborate with Dan's hypothesis.

Not precisely true. What stands as collaboration is probably not being noticed as such. It is here. I have weighed in on occasion as I do now. Like you have said Jake, Dan's life's work is not wholly without value. There is much to be valued in many of his wanderings and then there is also the necessity to respect inequity. If one is to learn from mistakes then the mistakes must first be made or traveled; that ground must also be covered. Time and the Creative Source's Synchronicity will encourage the learning and string out the pieces of value.

This is Dan's Journey and where his intersects with ours do not all present benefit from considerate introspection instigated by his pondering...thus there is a value even if it is not the epitome of Truth or only contains pieces of Truth as so many other ideas and doctrines do.

@ Ron, I don't I don't think Dan's difficulties warrant his ceasing blogging...even if it makes you and your group uncomfortable...be mindful that in an interconnected reality there is no such thing as secrets. There is only Time which is the Measured Journey of the traveler between two points of expression and has nothing to do with Knowing.

Mind is not limited by Time, Space (Distance), and Place - Triad. Where are you?

Cyrellys

Why am I thinking that "Ignorance is Bliss" after reading over these last several posts in this thread? And come to think of it, why was Satan wrapped around The Tree of Knowledge when he enticed Eve to eat that apple anyway? Isn't KNOWLEDGE a good thing? There was a time when I used to think that but now I'm not so sure.

I am now wondering if the evolution of our own intelligence will be the ultimate source of mankind's demise. Where information overload will cause our brains to implode on a mass scale waaaay before the Moon is in the 7th house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

Oh wait. Isn't that planetary alignment already less than a month away? Yup, last I heard, it is. In that case, never mind.

-----------------------------------

Anyway, interesting read and if I comment on anything, I will insert it in this box as by then Dan will have moved on to other topics under the sun.

Cy,

Before going any further, I wish to reiterate that I am perfectly happy here, with or without the critiques and attention, and I thank you for your continued hospitality. I definitely prefer to not have to start my own forum, where I would almost certainly be the only contributor. If nothing else, I need to afford the occasional passerby with the cover of there being other voices.

To find a better or perfect forum, for my purposes, would require a lengthy and distracting process of trial and error, for which I have neither the stomach nor the patience.

Wonderful. The upshot is that I don't want to, in any way, abuse your hospitality. It is entirely possible that my presence here might be discouraging the participation on the part of others. Perhaps, as an experiment, we should, at least temporarily, put me in another, less visible cubby hole, and see if that would allow others to feel more comfortable here. If that does not seem to help, then we can revisit my status. I'll be glad to discuss this issue further, right here on the blog, or the interested parties my wish to have a more private discussion.

Ok, enough with the formalities, already. I hate formalities........


I see two substantive issues presently being pointed to by you and Jake, respectively.......

1.) Status of humans within and/or without Nature.

2.) Linkage between immaterialism and the Eschaton.

#1...... Yes, I do subscribe to the peculiar notion that we humans have been endowed by our Creator with certain special and inalienable talents and responsibilities, the primary one of which is our sharing of the Cosmic soul with each other, with our Creator, and with virtually no one else. This is our special Source, which is also the Source of our conscience and free will.


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

99........ I do thank you for your generous $0.02! But, let's be clear that my intent here is not to rally the troops, but rather to foster cogent dissent........ And, it does appear that I have had some, albeit limited, success, on that score.


Back to topic #1.........

And, yes, the view I express is peculiar to Christianity, among all beliefs that have ever existed. Is this human self-promotion the primary motivation behind Christendom? It certainly is a significant part of it. In my own case, I think there is something larger at 'stake' wrt the X-event.

It mainly has to do with a sense of a potential personal integrity. As far as I've been able to ascertain, it is this sense of transcendental potency, which best defines the core of every human being. And this is precisely what is at the core of the X-event.

It may well be that the aspirations engendered by this sense of personal transcendental potency are an illusion, and a pernicious one, at that. If that truly is the case, then it will, equally truly, be the end of us. Hey, good riddance!

But that, equally well, may be exactly who and what we are...... transcendental potentates.

Does science have a better explanation of who we are, from whence we came, and whither we go? Well, they can sure muster a lot more facts than I can, but I do believe that I am well on the way to proving the plausibility of the Fact that their vast panoply of facts posses only a tertiary level of being, not entirely unlike the being of that 'Irenicly'-induced leak in my Toyota.

We're hardly finished with #1, but as an exercise in connecting the BPW dots, let us move on to.........

#2..... immaterialism & eschatology.........

Can we have one with out the other? Can there be a horse without a carriage?

Of course, there can be a horse without a carriage, but that's not really the point of the ditty, now, is it?

The point of the ditty was that there could not be love without marriage. Whoa! What the heck was that about? Well, it is entirely about Corinthians..... nay, it is all about the Bible, both old and new Testaments, and not about either the Koran nor the Rg Veda.

It is, in short, about Covenantalism and Dispensationalism, and, quite obviously, has everything to do with the Eschaton. Does it have anything to do with immaterialism? Admittedly, that is somewhat less obvious.


10:45----------

Md02.......... Yes, that is an interesting link, and I should peruse the Disinfo website further.

My buddy, and fellow avian, Ingo, is a real case. Worthy of some detailed attention.


#2.......

Eschaton..... yes, it is about the wedding feast in the sky, about the Hieros Gamos. The lead-up to the HG necessitates our various Covenants. Are they just formalities? Well, they are the most substantive formalities in history.

Immaterialism...... The HG is also the Rapture, and the new heaven and new Earth, or so we are told. Why is there this linkage in the bible?

The very idea of the New Heaven and the New Earth is nothing if not Theo-, Geo-, Anthropo-centric. It is very decidedly incompatible with our modern angst about being lost in time and space.

Where does matter fit into this equation? Quite frankly, it does not.

I see the scientific cosmos the way a Protestant sees the Pope....... he makes a better window than a door. When the Time comes, the Pope ought best to have the good grace to step graciously aside. For all I know, that is the intent behind the alleged R&A Audience, on or about 12/12. Would any of the parties be aware of the deeper significance? Only if they had an absolute need to know, on or before 12/12.


Noon---------

As I offer to the Pope, I also offer to the Scientific/secular Establishment....... the most gracious possible opportunity to step graciously aside, and remove their plethora of tertiary factoids from the straight path between us and our transcendental destiny. The Time is Ripe. The time is awasting.

Right now, my friends, the only thing that stands between us and a global financial panic, of biblical proportions, is fracking. Neither the Pope, the PtB nor the Scientific Establishment should sleep peacefully while we are living off the last fractured dregs of the fossil fuels.

For a full century, we were blessed with free energy. In that century our population quintupled, with no small thanks to the Pope and his pederastic minions. So be it. The Lord permitted it.

Chicken Little has had enough. I believe that the Lord has had just about enough.

I don't relish the role of the party-pooper, and neither does the Lord, IMHO.

That is one very good reason, Cy, why I continue to hang out here at OMF II. As Larry Bryant has frequently admonished, I do keep my eye on the skies. Were any Cargo to appear, I would be amongst the first to join my neighborhood cargo-cult.

But, alack alas, still no cargo. Not even a word from the wise, beyond ye-olde Urantia Book.

So here we are, all revved up, and nowhere to go. If nature abhors a spiritual vacuum, then nature must love chicken little. The BPWH is a round peg, all I have to do is find the round hole. Well, with a little cooperation from the Pope and the Visitors. They do, those MIB's, have Ron's number. And I know for a fact that he sits, oh so patiently, by his phone.



(cont.)

I'm one of many who come here to this forum with the express purpose of reading your posts Dan and I can't see that anyone would be not be stopping by here because you are here. That's ridiculous because it is exactly the opposite! I find your blog here very informative and entertaining. Your take on reality is a little different than most but that's what makes your insights on this and that so much more interesting too!

Just my .02 on this. thanks

Dan

Your presence is always welcomed here. There is no need to believe an exile is required.

I believe the silver corded message most are trying to convey is that – we are here together and in doing so – we are attempting to make each other better people or at a minimum, understand.

Just last night a phrase you used somewhere in your musings, the ‘brain cell of God’ came to my recollection when I saw this:

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

And Cy’s comment: “Dan noted that mankind is akin to computers which are all networked together. This is true. But broaden it to include all lifeforms to make it more accurate.”

Neurons are matter we can visually study unlike the unseen elements that stretch out into infinity. They are not ‘perceived’ by sense of vision, but we know them to be there.

Are there hidden connections and pathways for information to travel within this brain cell of God? Those unseen connections as Einstein phrased, ‘spooky action at a distance’ commonly known as quantum entanglement could tangibly be the invisible fire wire directly to the human soul.

I just found a copy of Ingo’s book to digest this weekend.

I was trying to tell you last night Dan that I agree with the others. There is nothing in your blogging that abuses your home here. Part of dialog is that not everyone will agree at all times. People have their reasons for seeing things the way they do and in voicing what they see and why is part of contributing to the discourse. What is here is healthy debates and gives you more material to work with and consider. It is the benefit of seeing also through the eyes of others at the same time as your own.

If other visitors cannot handle sharing OMF with a variety of perspectives which may or may not be agreeable to them (enough so that they would choose not to use any of OMF) then they are not ready for this level of thinking where we consider everything not just what fits our desired reality.

And if Ron and Company do not like your postings, well I would inform them they do not have a say in the matter unless you allow them to influence you by your own choice. You have the freedom here to make your own decisions. This is my umbrella and not theirs; and as a member here you have the benefit of being a protectorate. They can try attacking it again like the original OMF but I will only reconstitute it to the Nth Power just to see them with heart burn for having done so. So it is in their best interest to leave well enough alone.

You have nothing to be concerned about. This is your space and it is well defended.

*****

Just last night a phrase you used somewhere in your musings, the ‘brain cell of God’ came to my recollection when I saw this:

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

And Cy’s comment: “Dan noted that mankind is akin to computers which are all networked together. This is true. But broaden it to include all lifeforms to make it more accurate.”

Neurons are matter we can visually study unlike the unseen elements that stretch out into infinity. They are not ‘perceived’ by sense of vision, but we know them to be there.

Are there hidden connections and pathways for information to travel within this brain cell of God? Those unseen connections as Einstein phrased, ‘spooky action at a distance’ commonly known as quantum entanglement could tangibly be the invisible fire wire directly to the human soul.

YES!

Thanks Cy,
Yes, an eclectic mix of people we are.

DisinfoTV, New York City experienced its first day in history without any violent crime.. That's peculiar.

Dan, don't worry I'll ease up on you.

Hmmm, can an exorcist be exorcised? A quirky quiet sort of fellow, our Pope is. Unusual eyes. Don't see those kind of windows too often.

Just pondering... does evil grow in cracks and holes and live in people's minds? Or are there really UTs tinkering about. You never hear of scientists talking about this. Psychiatrists perhaps. Though I'll bet Jack has thought about it. Is it merely quarks and bosons bumping in the dark. Or is there something interdenominational.

There is a rule in exorcism. It can not be successful unless the party is inherently willing. Like the placebo effect. The only other option is a private eschaton.

I think the world misses John Paul II. Is there another waiting in the wings?

Oh, I see Dan that you've added to your post.

Is the seal on Fatima III being opened? I don't think its Mystery Babylon's time yet. But I guess I could be wrong.

Or wait, maybe its rebuild the Temple in Palestine time. Or excuse me, I mean Israel. Whatever. Have you seen the architectural plans. Its magnificent. And apparently they've got the shekels arranged too. Come to think of it, Petrus Romanus is supposed to play a role in that. Gloria Olivie too. But then he'd need to step aside soon thereafter.

Put a silver shovel in the temple mount? Whoa Nelly, that would be game changer.

Cy,

I do thank you for your Montana hospitality. I will have to work hard to earn it.


Jake,

I believe that the seal on Fatima III was opened some time ago, and that it does still cast a shadow on the Papacy, on the Holy Roman See. If it is not about the Endtimes, then it's hard to understand what Fatima was about. Surely it must, somehow, arise to biblical proportions.


Now we're headed out to see Anna K, the movie......

.

dan wrote:Jake,

I believe that the seal on Fatima III was opened some time ago, and that it does still cast a shadow on the Papacy, on the Holy Roman See. If it is not about the Endtimes, then it's hard to understand what Fatima was about. Surely it must, somehow, arise to biblical proportions.

Yes it was opened. However I meant the enactment of it. Like the Biblical seals, which are cloaked in prose, and known. But not opened (effected) until an appointed time.

Fatima III reflects John of Patmos' prophecy of the fall of Mystery Babylon that sits on seven hills. The seat of the Holy Roman empire. The timeline coincides with the rebuilding of the Temple. The last Pope gives the nod to make way for the rebuilding. Once completed, Bye bye Pope.

The above is a synergy of several Prophetic sources. Which I trust you understand, are taken very seriously in high offices. Especially during these times, as the levy runs dry.

Well, I did take my Toyota to levy, and the back seat was not dry.

But I'm not real sure what that might mean.

I'm sure we'll enjoy the show.......


6pm---------

Yes, Anna K is almost a must see. Another big contender for awards. Tom Stoppard is one of our favorite playwrights. Were the Russian nobility neurotic sociopaths? Well, you'll just have to ask Leo.


.

Direct perception may be viewed as an extreme form of Platonism, but, quite famously, Platonism does not sit well wrt the very mundane phenomena of entropy, wherein the archetypes would have to undergo 'degradation'.

May not, then, the idea of archetypes be broadened to include a dynamical or a cyclical dimension? Mathematical physics would seem to point the way, although the underlying mathematical objects remain timless.

Certainly, we have the seasonal archetypes, which form a cycle. They would make no sense without the cyclic context. The same may be said for our other numerous temporal, diurnal archetypes, particularly with the sun moving through the zodiac, the mother of all archetypes. Entropy becomes a special issue mainly in the context of artifacts, and the degradation thereof.

Much of our technology has been devoted to extending the lifetime of our products and/or facilitating their maintenance or planned obsolescence. Mortality is just biology's version of planned obsolescence. Where would we be without it? Heaven? That is only the most naive view on the matter.

Is Heaven our ultimate artifact, consisting mainly of our Co-Creator? It does seem that Heaven is getting short-shrift, within the BPWH. It is getting squeezed out, from between the Millennium and the Apokatastasis. At best, it would be a minor addendum to the Millennium. Even the New Jerusalem is largely being subsumed, therein.

Why did the Bible not make more of the Millennium? And haven't I said that the reason for the foreshortening of the Millennium, to just a few centuries, would due to our desire to move on to Heaven? Well, clearly I'm suggesting that Apokatastasis, at-One-ment, is paramount wrt Eternity.

But perhaps I should exercise caution, in this scheme of cosmic reapportionment, lest I short-change the portion that is Creation. It is not immediately obvious why an expanded Millennium could not subsume any residual functions of the rest of Creation. Is it?

This juncture may be more than a little ironic, because only now am I recalling my original rationale for Creation, seen back on the BPW site. I'll try to remember where. The rationale was that the Creator was using Creation as a means of 'recycling' itself. This insight must not be casually dismissed. How does this align with the paramount notion of co-Creation?

I believe it is safe to say that my original notion of 'recycling' is properly subsumed with the larger rubric of co-Creation. But I do need to keep both of these perspectives in mind...... one helps to explain the other.


Noon---------

And, yes, this 'recycling' insight provides the main rationale for a multistage Creation.

Ego development is, then, the primary function of Creation. IOW, the 'megacept' here is that the Macrocosm, God, is recirculated through the microcosm, i.e. through our creaturely egos.

This may be seen as simply a further explanation for the bootstrap hypothesis that is at the heart of the BPWH. I had been letting that significant portion of the pedagogy slip.

Let me think about whether the taking up of this slack can help with any of the current issues.......

It does seem that, in this scheme of cosmic recycling, there will be an imbalance or impasse between the temporal/ego side and the atemporal/Creator side. How can the temporal properly interface with the atemporal? Clearly this should be no small lacuna, neglectful of it, though I may have been. If seen in the large, is this not just the world-knot?

I speak often of the macro- and micro-cosms, but in the archetypal, more than in the temporal, sense. Are the archetypes also being recirculated? How might that be? Note-bene..... that this recirculation is not a repeated recycling. It is a singular affair. It is only the cosmic Soul that makes more than one trip. It makes 10^10 trips! Whoa, now I am getting into the thick of the recirculation.

Here is part of the problem........ with the original idea of recirculation, I was maintaining a major distinction between a cosmic Soul and our ego-souls. Now the distinction is between the cosmic Mind and our egos. It is the cosmic uCs, or akashic record, that provides the interface. No?


1:20-----------

BTW, tomorrow, at the SfA, we have our second session on the YEH v. the OEH. I was hoping that I would have made more progress, by now. I don't know if this will be the last session. Perhaps my strategy should be a kind of filibuster, to keep the story going....... give myself another week to come up with a new insight.


And also, BTW, I have told Jack S that I am thinking about a return engagement with him in SF. But, in my mind, it is very iffy, at this point. Again, I need to put together a new scenario, to go beyond where we left off in August(?)..... see lensman137.


2:20----------

Here's a question that I've been mostly avoiding........ Is there a cosmic Self or cosmic Consciousness, in any strict sense of those words? Now, clearly I am a theist, so does that not imply a Self?

What would be the sense of the Apokatastasis, without a cosmic Self? Is there an orchestra without a Conductor? Is this not the slippery slope on which the BPWH finds itself, with all of its recirculations?

It is a big deal for me, that we are the braincells of God. Surely that mind includes a conscious Self? Or is God just going to be the Cheerleader, and not actually the Conductor? And then disappearing halfway through the performance?

I have also said that there should be an eternal aspect of God that would likely be rather less personal.





(cont.)

From: Ronald 
Date: December 1, 2012 6:07:57 PM EST
To: Dan Smith 
Subject: Fwd: Assistance with Introduction

Hi Dan,

I read a bit of your blog today. There was a reference to me not wanting you to blog.  My only significant concern is that you not reveal anything about our spatial temporal location.  This is to protect Aliyah and Kashmir from those who  would do us harm.  You can mention we are traveling to Rome, Greece, and Kashmir, but please do not indicate when or how we will be traveling.  We would appreciate any guidance you might provide regarding meeting with the Pope.  We will have a preliminary meeting with several seniors in the Vatican about two weeks before the meeting with the Pope.

Ron

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ronald 
Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Assistance with Introduction
To: xxx 

Hi xxx,

We have been busy preparing for the trip to Rome beginning [xxx].  Princess AliyahN has learned that her ancestors lived on an Island off Greece before they moved to Kashmir.  We will attempt to locate that Island during this trip where she will found her school for special children.  Upon our return to Rome, she will meet with the Pope to discuss freedoms she hopes to introduce to Kashmir.  The Pope is aware of the unusual activities ongoing in Kashmir (http://www.examiner.com/article/ufo-indian-army-reports-unusual-activities-over-kashmir).  Hopefully then can be explained soon.

Ron

Hmmm.........


10am------------

There are some noteworthy points in the above. It is not totally clear as to whether or not there will also be a UFO briefing at the Vatican, and, if so, it is not clear who might be briefing whom.

It was several weeks ago that Ron solicited my opinion on the UFO sightings on the Indian/Kashmir boarder, which also happened to be rather near to Aliyah's ancestral home in Kashmir. Has there ever been a UFO sighting that was not portentous, to one degree or another?


The above communication does encourage me to be a bit more proactive in today's GFC/SfA discussion on the YEH vs the OEH. What do UFO's have to do with the age of the Earth. From my first 'personal' encounter with immaterialism, in 1982, I have posited a close connection between the UTH and the YEH. Should it not be obvious? Should we suppose that Pandolfi and Benedict are so clueless that, between them, they have no clue as to this connection? If so, why am I being asked to provide input? And why is he asking me to announce the meeting on a public forum? Ok, then, here's my input.......

First of all, I wish to thank the Pope for his continued strenuous efforts to hold Roman Catholicism together, especially in these latter days. Now, more than ever, enlightened institutions need to maintain a balance between change and integrity. This Pope, more than anyone else, is likely to find himself at the fulcrum of that balance. God speed! Whatever I can do to make his onerous task easier, I will endeavor to do so.

I also understand that, more than any other institution, the Roman Catholic Church has found itself at the forefront of the controversy between the ETH and the UTH. And, I am very grateful that the Church has taken every precaution to maintain a balance in that domain, as well. I trust that it will continue to do, up until the final Hour of Disclosure.


OTOH, we have the Protestant version of the Vatican Observatory, which is Reasons to Believe, headed by Hugh Ross, which alleges to be where "science and faith converge". Hey, I can honestly appreciate their earnest lack of modesty!

The SfA remains an unofficial affiliate of the RtB. It is not totally clear to me why Bill S. has procrastinated wrt the affiliation.

Two of the RtB books by Hugh Ross & Co. will constitute my Exhibits A&B, today......

A.) The Creator and the Cosmos

B.) Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men.

All I have to do is point out the florid contradictions between A & B. C&C endorses the OEH. LGM, however, endorses the UTH, to the exclusion of the ETH. The entire fate of Christianity may be read in the difference between the Vatican's 'balance' and the Evangelical's 'balance' wrt these two cosmic Questions.

And before going any further, allow me, please, to extend my gratitude wrt the Vatican's balance to include the Evangelical's balance. Taken together, these two balances ought to define the straight path for Chicken Little, into ground zero of Disclosure. If the Lord had blessed me with a better balance between intra- and extro-version, it would be a no-brainer. It would be a walk in the Park. As it is, Sophia will have to shine her ever lovin' light on me, in just about another hour. Do ya hear me, Girl?!

.

I appreciate your thoughtful post here today, Dan. And sharing Ron's message.

dan wrote:All I have to do is point out the florid contradictions between A & B. C&C endorses the OEH. LGM, however, endorses the UTH, to the exclusion of the ETH. The entire fate of Christianity may be read in the difference between the Vatican's 'balance' and the Evangelical's 'balance' wrt these two cosmic Questions.

This seems to be reasonable. However it is framed within a non-informed context.

As there are "insiders" who have direct experienced irrefutable knowledge concerning Visitors;- the fate of Christianity on earth, rather resides with those who possess this knowledge. As while parts or whole of this knowledge are selectively hidden, Christianity's definitive choices are compromised and easily influenced.

And so your statements Dan, are strictly valuable for purposes of politicking and global propagandist indoctrination initiatives.

If Global Political and Religious Leaders are not fully informed;- their positions, views, directives and influence, are entirely under the manipulative control of those who withhold hidden knowledge.

Jake,

Yes, all too true. Very often, partial knowledge can be dangerous. It is our fate, as mortals, to be rather less than omniscient. However, the Creator has endowed us with virtually miraculous means of sharing our knowledge. Are we then, together, potentially omniscient? Perhaps that was God's intent, all along.

Is it true that there are Insiders who are not so sharing? All of us have deliberately withheld information, at one time or another, for reasons that have not always been pure. But who is the primary withholder of information? Has it not always been God? Why would God want us to be ignorant? What does the Bible say about this?

I only know of one place in the Bible where this question is directly addressed. I'm referring to John 16:12ff. The answer given is that we are not yet ready for the Truth, however, that time will come, like it or not. More than a few of us believe that this time may now be upon us. I refer to this as D-day.

But then what about those Insiders? Why should they be given inside information..... advanced warning? Would this not be valuable information? Could they not make a killing?

My father was given inside information about D-day...... the other day, the other father. Some folks have to be trusted, whether they deserve it or not........ and depending on the nature of the D-day.

Most people don't like most surprises. Surprises tend to be upsetting, even if it is that you have won the lottery. Most of us would prefer to get paid weekly...... a little bit at a time. That is much less upsetting.

Why can't God do it this way? Why would God like to play the drama queen?

IMHO, we have become so smart and so interconnected that God and we do not have the luxury of indefinite time, of continually procrastinating about the Truth.


Out to hear a concert..........

.

Certainly the primary withholder is G-d. The Creator even limits the minds of men, for one to comprehend what another can not.

We agree however that the stakes are high with regards to Visitor Disclosure. And considering all implications, there is an obligation of historical proportions, that 'hidden knowledge' should be shared with globally sufficient representation of humanity to aid in a successful transition.

I am not an advocate for full public Disclosure. The world simply is not ready. But neither are its Leading Elders of Influence. There is an insufficient number of them to successfully guide humankind. The majority of Global Elders still remain at the speculation stage of understanding, lacking real knowledge required to crystallize wisdom. This is perhaps the biggest problem now facing the world.

If the figurative MJ12 group of minds, continues its currently selective policies, they face the possibility of baring the wrath of G-d (if you will), and historical universal damnation, for preventable horrendous calamity upon the human species and this planet.

The world's Leading Elders, across nation, race, creed and tongue, require this knowledge in order to avoid erroneous speculation, so they may prepare, advise and guide with sound wisdom.