Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: Dan
Date: March 20, 2015 at 3:14:26 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Colton and David
Subject: Re: Metaphysics..... form or content?

(cont.....)

The main thing going on here is about the Visitations.  

It is about Fermi's paradox...... if we can go there, why haven't they come here?  

My answer to Enrico is that 'they' have come here, so we don't need to go there.  And Ron is my witness to this effect.  

This is what we need to convey to the Princess.  Easier said than done.  

The main point about Visitation is that it has to do with UT's rather than ET's.  

(Paul and I need to explain this to Colton so that he can write the BPWH executive summary, for the Princess.  Ron admits that he has not, briefed the Princess on the BPWH.)  

E.g. does anyone suggest that the Andeans have not been visited?  

Just got off the phone with the Princess, and she is looking forward to the executive summary.

Dan



On Mar 20, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Dan wrote:

Paul,

Colton is not answering either of his phones......

We do wish to set up a conference call with Colton in about an hour......

One purpose is for Colton to help write an executive summary of the BPWH for the Princess, which Ron would endorse.  The Princess is very busy, but Ron agrees that he could help us with her focus on saving the world.  

Dan


On Mar 20, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul wrote:

Dan, I was answering Colton's questions about classical metaphysics and its relationship to what you call "metaphysics".

Kant is a very influential philosopher in this context and I think it's important for all of us -- not just Colton -- to be clear about
what he actually said about "noumena" and what his criticisms of classical metaphysics actually were.

Or do you not believe that any of this is relevant to your "immaterialism"?

On 3/20/2015 9:03 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
Paul,

I take your points here.  They are important points........

BUT, again, you are getting hung-up on forms and formalities......

My concern with metaphysics has never been about its form.... only ever about its content.  
The distinction that I'm making here is between what you are calling "metaphysics" and what I'm calling "classical metaphysics".

It's not about form vs. content, it's about certain truth arrived at by a priori reasoning vs. hypothesis. That is hardly a pedantic quibble.


IMHO, Kant, like too many german philosophers, was a windbag, an obscurantist.
A very influential windbag.

He put compromise way ahead of truth and coherence.
But he argued that our phenomenal reality has more to do with the unity of our understanding than with the nature of things in themselves --
which, for all we can know, may not exist. For example, for Kant, material objects are purely phenomenal, and the supposed ground of their
existence is purely hypothetical.

I think that is very close to your own version of coherentism. It is also a cornerstone of Bohr's "Copenhagen" philosophy of quantum mechanics,
which is the basis for Wheeler's observer-participant event ontology.


I'm taking back philosophy and metaphysics.  I am not here to analyze them to death.  I am here to breathe new life into them.  Yes, to resurrect them from their premature grave.
Could what you are doing be described as "natural philosophy"?


Intellectual heads are going to be smashed, intellectually.  Your job, Paul, should you choose to accept it, is to pick up those pieces.
I think Hume and Kant did quite a lot intellectual smashing of their own Dan.

You can stand on the shoulders of giants.


I'm not here to draw more distinctions.  I'm here to connect every last dot.  No one escapes the cosmic dragnet of the BPWH.  If I cannot represent the Monad, what can I do?  I am a one-trick pony, and this is a one-ring circus, whether we like it or not.
Colton was asking about "metaphysics".


Please, Paul, we are here as Constructivists, not as deconstructionists.  That job has already been done.  We stand on that rubble.  Do not nit-pick.  Find a stone to add to the edifice.  Find some cement to seal up the chinks.  Is this asking too much?
Colton is the one asking the questions Dan. What you mean by "metaphysics" is not what is usually meant by "metaphysics".
Colton  wants to understand the difference.

Do you  not approve of Colton's questions?


Dan


On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

As a theory of certain knowledge, empiricism is an epistemological thesis and as such comes under the
heading "metaphysics" (= ontology + epistemology + ....).

Epsitemology per se has been abandoned in modern fallibilist theories of science wherein methodology
replaces classical epistemology.

So no one, including you Dan, is now talking about a priori reasoning that leads to certain truths about
ultimate realities lying beyond phenomenal appearances.

So the definition of "ontology" has shifted. However, I think one must still make a distinction between
ontological models supported by hypothetico-deductive reasoning tested against experience, on the one
hand, and sheer speculation on the other.

As I've previously suggested, I think the best approach is sophisticated coherence theory of truth, which
"saves the phenomena" by requiring consonance of theory with empirical observations.

From: Dan 

To: Colton 
Cc: 3 others...... 
Subject: Re: Relativity and Metaphysics

Colton, 

Where angels fear to tread......... 

Cherchez la Femme..... Sophia..... 

Albert was closer to the truth than anyone has realized, IMHO. 

1.)  He, single handedly, smashed the Newtonian Idol of absolute space-time.  

1a.)  And, yes, Paul is right.  Albert, at first, threw out the Ether-baby with that bathwater. 

2.)  How did he accomplish this iconoclastic feat?  He rode on a photon.  Seriously.  Does this have something to do with photo(n)-electrics?  If it does not, Sophia will have to eat her hat.  

3.)  Yes, Albert was the Mother of all deconstructionists.  All we have to do is pick up those pieces.  

This is the One lesson we need to learn from Einstein....... Iconoclasm!  

Put that in your Academia section.  If the Princess does not like it, tell her to talk to me.  

On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Depends on which version of "relativity theory" you're talking about.

In my view Einstein's Machian 1905 theory of relativity was superseded, first by Minkowski's 1907
geometric model, and then  by Einstein's own 1916 theory of gravity (which it turns out is not Machian).

If you simply want to expound the (erroneous and historically false) standard textbook view -- the 
triumphal narrative of relativity -- that Einstein proved in 1905 that there is no such thing as the "ether",
or that the idea of an ether is scientifically meaningless, then maybe I'm not the one to ask.  

This is a big subject Colton.

On 3/19/2015 2:51 PM, Colton Fagundes wrote:

Dan, Paul David: As for the metaphysical implications of relativity theory... any recommendations there?

From: Dan 
Date: March 20, 2015 at 12:03:02 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Metaphysics..... form or content?

Paul, 

I take your points here.  They are important points........

BUT, again, you are getting hung-up on forms and formalities...... 

My concern with metaphysics has never been about its form.... only ever about its content.  

IMHO, Kant, like too many german philosophers, was a windbag, an obscurantist.  He put compromise way ahead of truth and coherence.  

I'm taking back philosophy and metaphysics.  I am not here to analyze them to death.  I am here to breathe new life into them.  Yes, to resurrect them from their premature grave.  

Intellectual heads are going to be smashed, intellectually.  Your job, Paul, should you choose to accept it, is to pick up those pieces.  

I'm not here to draw more distinctions.  I'm here to connect every last dot.  No one escapes the cosmic dragnet of the BPWH.  If I cannot represent the Monad, what can I do?  I am a one-trick pony, and this is a one-ring circus, whether we like it or not. 

Please, Paul, we are here as Constructivists, not as deconstructionists.  That job has already been done.  We stand on that rubble.  Do not nit-pick.  Find a stone to add to the edifice.  Find some cement to seal up the chinks.  Is this asking too much?  

Dan 

On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

As a theory of certain knowledge, empiricism is an epistemological thesis and as such comes under the
heading "metaphysics" (= ontology + epistemology + ....).

Epsitemology per se has been abandoned in modern fallibilist theories of science wherein methodology 
replaces classical epistemology.

So no one, including you Dan, is now talking about a priori reasoning that leads to certain truths about 
ultimate realities lying beyond phenomenal appearances.

So the definition of "ontology" has shifted. However, I think one must still make a distinction between 
ontological models supported by hypothetico-deductive reasoning tested against experience, on the one 
hand, and sheer speculation on the other.

As I've previously suggested, I think the best approach is sophisticated coherence theory of truth, which
"saves the phenomena" by requiring consonance of theory with empirical observations.

From: Dan
Date: March 20, 2015 at 11:19:39 AM EDT
To: Colton 
Cc: 3 others
Subject: Re: Einsteinianity.......?

(cont.......2) 

How about this........ the whole point of Einsteinianity and Christianity is not that we should turn them into idols, but that we should be inspired by our shared personhood.  'All you, who come after me, will do much greater things.'   

We have the Hero with a thousand faces?  True, and never faceless!  

Hero worship..... bad.  Hero inspiration...... good!  And, yes, it is a very fine line, and far too many have crossed over it.  I know, I spent three years at Grace Fellowship.  Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to bring them back.  

I'm inspired by Einstein.  Paul, being further ahead of that curve, is inspired by Minkowski.  Does Minkowski negate Einstein?  Is there not room for a little synergy?  Inviting more people to the Party need not turn it into a proletarian mob.  Without heroes and without cold facts, are we not fascists?  Been there..... done that!  

Charisma.......?  Can't live with it..... can't live without it.  Are we not all the anointed ones?  Is that bad?  

Back to Albert....... In 1905 he wrote two 'obscure' papers..... photo-electric and relativity.  It may be very cogently argued that all of physics since then may be construed as footnotes to those two papers.  His was the hand, writing on the wall of physics.  

Me?  All I have is my little bloggy-blog..... BPWH/SWH/MoAPS/(4M/K/SoT/X2).  Where would any of us be without all those other 'giants'?  Am I here to suck the wind out of any sails?  Or am I here to let 'er blow......?!! 

On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Dan wrote:

(cont........) 

Even according to my very 'own' BPWH, God is almost a nobody, IMHO, kinda like the j-man, before Saul/Paul hit the road, in both senses.  David points out, as do many, that we should call it Paulianity.  

Am I proposing Einsteinianity?  

Again, that is not my point, but I'm still struggling, right now, to figure out what is the point...... 

I think that the point is Inspiration.  We need Inspiration.  Inspiration is nothing if it is not essentially and intensely personal.  

We have always needed heroes.  Paul and David will say that we should outgrow our need for such.  They could point to the psychology of lotteries, with all the poor suckers, each thinking that he or she is going to win!  

But what is life about, if it is not about dreams?  Should we stop dreaming/hoping when we turn 21?  

And what does this have to do with metaphysics and relativity?  Where are the facts, here?  

My point is, and can Paul and David disagree, that, without cold, hard Facts, are we not lost in the Apeiron?  


(cont........2) 

cc: OMF 

On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Dan wrote:

Colton, 

Let us not get ahead of ourselves, Paul.  Let's try to look at this historically and historiographically.......  

Yes, Paul and David will disagree with my segmental approach to history, and, yes, the devil is in the details.  Paul and David do say that we would barely have heard of either Einstein or Jesus, respectively, had it not been for the subsequent PR campaigns that were mounted in their behalf.  

I can accept this assessment, up to a point...... 

Einstein and Jesus have both been transformed into Icons, after the fact.  In fact, I have told my former colleagues at Grace Fellowship that, to me, the putative physical resurrection of Jesus is rather beside the point.  

What is the point.......? 

There are two theories of history..... Carlyle (Great 'Man') v. Spencer (boots on the ground).  Spencer won the argument, but where would history still be without visions and visionaries?  Marx is a case in point.  With all his proletarianism, did he not roll over in his grave, when Marxism became the identifying mark?  

Immaterialism is nothing w/o idealism.  Idealism is nothing w/o personalism.  

But is personalism not just a crutch for us weak-minded myopians?  


(cont......)  

On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Paul wrote:

Depends on which version of "relativity theory" you're talking about.

In my view Einstein's Machian 1905 theory of relativity was superseded, first by Minkowski's 1907
geometric model, and then  by Einstein's own 1916 theory of gravity (which it turns out is not Machian).

If you simply want to expound the (erroneous and historically false) standard textbook view -- the 
triumphal narrative of relativity -- that Einstein proved in 1905 that there is no such thing as the "ether",
or that the idea of an ether is scientifically meaningless, then maybe I'm not the one to ask.  

This is a big subject Colton.

On 3/19/2015 2:51 PM, Colton Fagundes wrote:

Dan, Paul David: As for the metaphysical implications of relativity theory... any recommendations there?

From: Dan
Date: March 22, 2015 at 10:49:42 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David and Colton
Subject: Re: Barfield, "The other postmodern philosopher"

Paul, 

Thanks for this link, I'm just getting into it.  

In return, I recommend the Encyclopedia Barfieldiana .... http://davidlavery.net/Encyclopedia%5FBarfieldiana/ 

My original copy of SA/SI (1957) is in storage, acquired in the early '80's.  My second copy is due this afternoon.  

Even Owen's eschatology is a prefiguration of my Chicken Little version.  

In retrospect, we should have encouraged Colton to use Owen as his mentor for the KWF philosophy site.  Hindsight...... 

On Mar 21, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Paul wrote:

Here' s an article that compares Barfield with Polanyi as "post-modern philosophers":

[url=https://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD WEB ARCHIVE/TAD18-1/TAD18-1-fnl-pg27-38-pdf.pdf]https://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD18-1/TAD18-1-fnl-pg27-38-pdf.pdf[/url]

From: Dan
Date: March 22, 2015 at 11:47:43 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David and Colton
Subject: Re: Barfield, "The other postmodern philosopher"

(cont.......) 

Paul also recommended Fichte, usually just seen as the bridge from Kant to Hegel.  

Fichte was an outright idealist.  Hegel's Dialectic was too easily assimilated to Marx's.  

What I'm not clear on is Barfield's 'unrepresented'.  How does it differ from Kant's noumenon?  

Also, Owen speaks frequently of 'particles' as if synonymous with the unrepresented.  How are we to distinguish SA/SI from some species of epiphenomenalism, a-la Teilhard.  He does criticize Teilhard's material take on evolutionism.  

I came across a passage today speaking of animals as having 'devolved' from the human.  I don't think Barfield ever actually said this.  But, yes, this is my view.  This is in line with Plotinus and Parmenides, IMHO.  We have the great chain of being (GCB).  

Animals our our agents in the reification of the BPW.  Totemism/shamanism speaks, somewhat, to this.  


(cont........2)  

From: Dan
Date: March 22, 2015 at 12:22:21 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David and Colton
Subject: Re: Barfield, "The other postmodern philosopher"

(cont......2) 

And, yes, Polanyi is also important, mainly as an early anti-reductionist.  I was introduced to his thought through my earlier Loyola contact with Fr Jim Salmon, in the founding of the Cosmos and Creation lecture series (early '80's), which continues today.  

Barfield's mentor was Rudolph Steiner, founder of Antrhoposophy, e.g. Waldorf schools, out of Theosophy.  What these two schools have in common is a denial of eschatology.  Need we say more?  

Backward (from the future) causation, teleology, downward causation, is well represented in the anti-Darwinian GCB.  Post-modern physics is our royal road to the GCB.  This is where Thomas Nagel is tentatively pointing.  Very tentatively.  

Back to the books........  


(cont........3) 

From: Dan 
Date: March 23, 2015 at 2:10:19 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: Executive summary discussion

Paul, 

Yes, in some ways, I'm seeing Schopenhauer as a more pivotal figure than Fichte.  Certainly he had more influence on 20thC thought, viz. Nietzsche and Freud.   And his debt to Eastern thought is more explicit.  

The noumenon is our CuCs.  The supposed external world is a 'projection' of the CuCs.  'Representation' is a poor, passive translation of 'vorstellung', IMHO

And what was Hegel's noumenal bootstrap that you mentioned?? 

The various dialectical paths back to the noumenon (CuCs) is where the original telepathic monologue of the gods is turned around into a conscious dialectic.  Yes?  

Animals as agents of the vorstellung/outpouring........? 

This is the crux of the GCB, which is an extended version of the outsourcing of Creation a-la the demiurge and the Plotinian/kabbalistic tzim-tzum.  Animals, down to the minuscule, play a great role in the shaping of the world, whether from a darwinian or anti-darwinian PoV.  


David, 

You say that Part 2 will transition to Rome....... 

How will the HREmpire figure?  IOW, what are we to make of the unique features, or the very idea of a 'universal' Church?  


(cont......) 

On Mar 23, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont.......) 

Perhaps the crucial observation of Owen's is the X-event, quite literally, marked the death of God.  Jesus might have been resurrected externally/literally, but the crucial resurrection was as the living Christ within, along with the Kingdom.  This marks the transition from alpha to beta-thinking, IMHO.  

Something very similar may be said about the (nearly) simultaneous transition from temple-worship to rabbinical judaism.  Yes?  

Thus do we complete the death of the bicameral/transpersonal/telepathic voices of the gods that defined our original participation.  

The all-important (gospel) parables mark this inward turn, wherein we are required to engage in our dialog with god, within our (individual) consciousness, rather than unconsciously/tribally, as we did originally.  


(cont.......2)  

On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Dan wrote:

David, 

Excellent, thank you!  

Now, we just need to provide additional continuity between the two halves of your summary.  

IMHO, a good deal of this continuity you will find in Owen's SA/SI.  For instance, he refers to the X-event as the historical null-point between the original and final participation.  

The Thera-event as a marker for the transition from original participation to figurational (alpha/beta) thinking.  

It could be that the X-event also serves as a transition/trigger from alpha >> beta thought.  This is what Owen is trying to point out in his discussion of the crucial significance of the parables in the gospels.  I suspect that existentialism, even, is a very delayed reaction to this transition.  Let's give ourselves ample latitude in exploring the deeper currents that combine to produce the more obvious but superficial facade of history.  It need not be a tale as told by an idiot!  Yes?  

On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:27 AM, David wrote:

This is an attempt to try to put in a few pages the reasons for what we are engaged in, the historical and the phenomenological roots  of Eschatology and some of the philosophies that help guide the way as Barfield does along with many others who must be included. This is just part 1, so the word summary is becoming theoretical at this point. If you think it sucks don't hold back!;] 

Perhaps no question better grounds the human observer in the conundrum of existence, than the eternally unanswered, "What are we?"  

People uninclined to let the question go unanswered often find themselves at odds in a sea of indifference. Some of us get dragged out of our churches in chains for daring toask the question. So when asked for an executive summary one can answer in two words. Life and death, that's what this is about and rebirth too.  

Those of us who find under the general rubrics of religion or philosophy hope to find the why and the wherefore of human existence and to answer that first question, What are we? Some of us are pulled to the Eschaton, as if by a massive black hole. The Eschaton, the end of time, the end of days. Just now I entered a search term and what came up before I even noticed it, was the name Dan Troop Smith! I know this is the end times!:] The thing about the end times is the idea of a sudden transformation that remakes the world in front of us to be unrecognizable to our former eyes and sensibilities. Everyone hopes to be among those who survive this and enjoy what comes after. 

One also looks at the world differently if one reads Owen Barfield with some small understanding. A humanist and a man of great understanding, Barfield's writing enlarges the readers understanding of himself, even if one does not immediately find himself in accord with the ideas at first; they are compellingly espoused and intriguingly posed. He shines a bright light on that other world we occupy merely as passengers or unwilling hostages of a foreign and random universe of particles that wink in and out of existence in a billionth of a second. Barfield holds that man has become estranged from what might be called the ground of being, but that this world which he called the unrepresented world can be perceived by some of us at least and that it is possible to participate in that world and vice versa. This idea is certainly at the core of Wheeler's similar idea. 

From: Dan
Date: March 24, 2015 at 11:44:48 AM EDT
To: Paul and David
Subject: Owen Barfield

Paul and David, 

I have nearly completed my reprise of OB's SA/SI....... 

Owen made a splash, but, somehow it never reverberated outside of the creative writing seminars or classics departments, as where I encountered him, via a graduate student at JHU.  

I recall noticing a department for the study/history of consciousness.  This was back in the '80's at one of the UC schools, Santa Cruz, I believe.  It might even have been inspired by OB, and might even still exist, for all I know.  

But, in anglophone/analytic philosophy, Barfield would have been a square peg in a round hole.  

Continental Philosophy.....?  Back in his day, that would have been a difficult crossover.  

Another detriment was the obviously Xian PoV.  Could it have been written from another PoV?  Could it have been better disguised?  Perhaps, but much of its dramatic structure would have been lost, and so there would have been less notice.  

SA/SI had a wide influence in a limited, academic setting, but there has been no school of Barfieldian thought, as such.  It would seem that he has been reabsorbed back into the Anthroposophical movement, which remains a quite insular institution.  


(cont......)   

From: Dan
Date: March 24, 2015 at 12:17:04 PM EDT
To: Paul, David and Colton
Subject: Re: Owen Barfield

(cont.......) 

How much influence has SA/SI had on my BPWH?  Over the years, I have frequently mentioned the notion of original and final participation.  The former is usually subsumed in the rubric of the primordial Dreamtime, and in the context of Jaynes' BBM.  The latter comes under the rubric of the MoAPS and the millennial kingdom-come.  I had come to my immaterialism just a few years before being introduced to SA/SI.  

Teilhard's Omega was perhaps a bigger influence on my eschatological thought.  

It seems to me that OB remains agnostic wrt the SWH, and wrt to his noumenal 'unrepresented'. To that extent, he remains a residual dualist.  

I note that his chapter on Space and Time comes late in the book, and, again, seems dualistic, and almost an afterthought.  

I could draw up a considerable list of items that seem crucial to the BPWH, which OB never mentions. 

Furthermore, he is going to be of almost no direct use vis-a-vis Jack&Co.  

Nonetheless, wrt to a wider audience, OB could be a crucial addition, and clearly I should keep him high on my list of Sources.  


Colton, 

I think we can all highly recommend Owen Barfield to you, especially wrt supporting any sort of anthropological notions of cosmology.  Is it too late to include him on your philosophy site?  

From: Dan 
Date: March 24, 2015 at 2:42:56 PM EDT
To: Paul and 3 others
Subject: Re: Owen Barfield

(cont........2) 

UC/SC has the only History of Cs program that can be googled.  

There is no mention of Barfield.  It's course listing has a distinctly marxist/feminist slant.  

Then see...... Neumann 'The Origins and History of Cs' (1949).  Following Jung, Neumann depicts consciousness as having arisen from the Heroic struggle of the ego against the Ouroboric embrace of the matriarchal/feminine unconscious.  He depicts consciousness, even in women, as being male oriented.  

We can feel badly for poor Owen, being submerged by some very murky politics.  

I'm now reading..... THE SAD AND SORRY HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS: BEING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A CHALLENGE TO THE ‘CONSCIOUSNESS-STUDIES COMMUNITY’ 

From: Dan
Date: March 25, 2015 at 1:14:35 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: D & C
Subject: Barfield's 'unrepresented'?

I am still struggling with this concept, or, at least, with Owen's use thereof....... 

In several places, in SA/SI, OB insists that he is not engaging in metaphysical/ontological speculation. 

The question then is whether or not he is begging the question.  I have a hard time thinking that he is not, in fact, engaged in more than a bit of subterfuge, in this respect.  

His best attempt to cover his tracks is when he is most dismissive of any eschatological speculation, almost as though denying that such a thought had ever crossed his mind.  Doth he protesteth too much?!  

Either by quote or statement........ 'Pan has closed up shop and gone inside.... us.' 

IOW, we have met the Monad, and it is us!?  Is this not the only logical result of applying the dialectic to his noumenal unrepresented?  How does this not smack of finality?  Paul......?  

And speaking of eschatology, Ron wondered whether I had resolved my dispute with the Princess over the tone of Colton's philosophical section, i.e. pedagogical v. speculative.  I said that I had pleaded nolo-contendere..... kicking that can down the road.  Instead, I preferred to focus on my interaction with Ron, and I may have been slightly more specific.  But, in any case, he volunteered that, in the world at large, there was a disturbing increment in the 'vectors relating to eschatology'.  Could I have come up with such a phrase?  Will he next deny this?  Or does this mean I should be waiting by the phone, for Rome?  Hey, I've already packed my toothbrush.  

From: Dan
Date: March 25, 2015 at 2:27:38 AM EDT
To: David
Cc: Paul
Subject: Re: Barfield's 'unrepresented'?

Had he actually meant to kick that can down the road, might he not rather have kept his mouth shut?

On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:33 AM, David > wrote:
I think he meant it. I agree. I don't blame anyone for kicking that Eschatological can down the road, it's going to be messy..

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 10:36:32 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

Paul, 

I gather that you remain skeptical that I and/or we could convince anyone else on the Sarfatti list to take seriously the R&D 'show'.  

This show has been in progress for 20+ years, and, so far, no one has (spontaneously) admitted to doing so.  So, yes, the evidence is on your side.  And I do appreciate your sincerity and caution wrt attempting to persuade other individuals of these speculations.  By merely consulting with you, in this regard, and reporting your skepticism, my own balance and integrity is enhanced, thereby.  

Nonetheless, I would be remiss to not report my speculations on this matter, since, even if aimed to no one else, and if they are supposed to have any serious intent, then they are aimed, at the least, to elicit such response from me.  And it is my long established protocol to post the resulting speculations in public.  

There are several points to be made concerning the R&D show, in relation to any wider concerns about eschatology...... 


(cont........) 

cc: OMF 

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 11:25:59 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

(cont.........) 

# I would very likely have devoted considerably less attention to this topic, had there not been the involvement of CK.  

# What is most notably missing in other discussions about a possible MoAPS, is any sense of immediacy or currency.  A sense of urgency is going to be the crucial factor in capturing any wider audience.  

# The outstanding feature of R&D has been it's apparent tie-in to particular events, over the years.....  
** Besides the explicit link to the papal resignation, there were explicit links to two previous air incidents..... 9/11 and MH370.  
** The most recent and most provocative statement to-date, concerning the "omega"-vectors, came within hours of the alpine crash, but, so far, without any explicit linkage.  
** All three air incidents are effectively 'hi-jackings'.  

# Am I saying that there are no accidents and no (individual) depravity?  
** I take seriously the prophetic tradition wherein God is assumed to be active in history.  
** The question before us is the possible or optimal nature of that activity......... 


(cont.......2)  

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 12:54:09 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David
Subject: Re: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

(cont.......2) 

I submit that R&D provides an optimal conveyance between VALIS and humanity, given a few reasonable caveats......... 

#  Minimal intervention - prime-directive 

#  R&D is predicated on the existence of an insider/MJ12-type group.  

# The point of the minimal intervention is to prime the internal pump of human intelligence toward our independent assessment of what would constitute a BPW. 

#  This would include our realization that, in the postulated best possible Creation, we would be the essential co-Creators.  

#  What is the alternative?  Suggest a better world, and a better plan of disclosure.  Any takers?  
** none of this is rocket science, is it?  

In a separate communication, David suggests the following alternative......... 
"I think when the time comes, that it really happens, people will accept the truth of it."

This is the most widely held view, and, on the face of it, the most reasonable view, but it does not meet with the above criteria........  


(cont.......3)  

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 1:22:21 PM EDT
To: David 
Cc: Paul 
Subject: Re: omega 'vectors' - R&D 'show'

(cont.......3) 

I think I can explain what David is trying to say, albeit in his laconic fashion...... 

#  Let's not worry our little heads about this.  Clearly, the fate of humanity lies far above our (individual) pay-grades. 

#  If and when VALIS wishes to wake us from our dogmatic/materialist slumbers, it will have ample means at its disposal to do so, means that will be very unlikely to include individual human actors to any significant degree.  

Yes, David, maybe 'salvation' is meant to be a spectator sport.  But is this the lesson of history?  Is this in keeping with the history of the prophetic tradition?  True, scripture does seem to imply that VALIS will come upon a cloud, and in glory.  But does that make sense?  Would it be the best possible 'apocalypse'?  


(cont........4) 

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 2:55:40 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Do we have an inkling?

Paul, 

I had a lengthy convo with David about these matters, but any onus is upon me, of course....... 

The question before us is whether we, individually or collectively, are being called upon.  Or, at the least, should that possibility not be given a degree of practical credence?  

Practicality.......? 

The practical matter is concerned entirely with the 'trans-portability' of this putative collective calling.  

Do you agree, Paul, that without this communicability, our exercise remains strictly academic.  Nothing wrong therewith, but it does tend toward the ivory/ivy encrusted.  This, we may suppose, is what transpired with Owen's Inklings.  They kept the flame burning, they kept the inkling alive, but the times, they were not yet ripe.  Were they?  


(cont.) 

From: Dan
Date: March 26, 2015 at 5:37:56 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: Do we have an inkling?

(cont.......) 

Paul, earlier......... 

"Yes I think David agrees that it is necessary to formulate this MoAPS so that it can be 'triggered' in advance of the anticipated apocalyptic event(s)." 

Formulation.........  well, I do keep trying....... 

The BPWH, almost by definition, is the only coherent alternative to materialism, physicalism or dualism.  

The BPWH is radical, from any historical, philosophical or political PoV.  We cannot soft-peddle its contrarian nature.  

We will need to invoke CK.  Has he not been 'asking for it?'  The clear objective is to use CK's involvement to raise a ruckus.  This should be expected to result in his resignation, in order to protect the others who, as it will soon transpire, were almost certainly cognizant.  Anything less than this would be an academic exercise.  Yes?  

From: Dan
Date: March 28, 2015 at 10:16:57 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David
Subject: Re: Do we have an inkling?

Paul, 

***Citing "Barfield" won't be enough IMHO.*** 

Yes, I agree, and that was not my point.  Owen is mainly for the three of us, insiders.  He helps us to better formulate our own thinking.  

And that is what you want us to do, but you want us to do it 'externally'.  You want there to be a 500 page book, complete with bibliography, footnotes and index.  

That will happen, sooner than we think, but that is not 'our' main job.  That will be the job of the instant historians.  Our job is to be out in front of this beast.  Owen and the j-man are our two best (personal) 'authorities', the best that the three of us are gonna get.  Am I wrong?  

But, yes, the Princess and I will both be riding shotgun, as it now appears.  I think it is meant to be a twosome, where I am mainly her tutor.  She has 'presenter' written all over her.  We just have to keep her pointed in the right direction.  

To wit: it now appears that we will be going to the WH, sooner than later, with the usual TACP/KWF cover.  How does that work?  This is what the Princess and I are just waking up to.  


(cont.......) 

On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Paul wrote:

I didn't mean a bare list of bullet points. It will take arguments and authorities.

Citing "Barfield" won't be enough IMHO.

But then, I haven't yet read his book. So let's see.

From: Dan 
Date: March 28, 2015 at 11:37:47 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David 
Subject: Re: Do we have an inkling?

(cont........) 

'Cute as a button, smart as a whip.'  That's what I said, when Ron asked me, five years ago.    
 
Yesterday, afternoon........ well, I was informed after the meeting, that Ron had called the WH to arrange for the Princess meet, on short notice, with the Dir of F&W, Dept of Interior, Bryan Arroyo.  We were expecting others to be present, but, no, just the three of us, and Aliyah's intern, Mara, from CK.  

Hold that thought, one second........ I just received two JW's, inviting me to their Easter service.  It occurs to me that they should be my next church.  Yes?  Perfect follow-up to GFC.  Yes?  

Basically, Bryan rolled out the red carpet........ what can we do for you, Princess?  

Anyway, after the meeting, after dinner, we're back at the ranch......  A. says that this was a prep for a soon to be meeting at the WH.  Under what cover??  


(cont.......2) 

Date: March 30, 2015 at 4:06:40 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David, Colton 
Subject: NYT - Stone blog

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/heideggers-philosophy-why-our-presence-matters/ 

We may be falling behind the curve.  Does Barfield mention Heidegger?