Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: Dan
Date: April 8, 2015 at 9:16:23 AM EDT
To: Ron 
Subject: (it's) your call......

Ron, 

If I try to make sense of your gyrations, I chalk them up to your gaming the system.  That's what you get paid to do.  That's not what I get paid to do, so we have an interfacing issue.  

In your phone call yesterday, you spoke of 'vectors of instability'.  You wanted to know if Sam or I had any recent data, and you mentioned Charlie Hall, in that regard.  I reminded you of the incident with Gail Tverberg and Dennis Meadows at the zombie-apocalypse fest at the hippie commune in western Maryland, last spring.  

Gail stated that she expected the fracking investment bubble to collapse this year, leading to the second global financial collapse, a collapse that would not have the sovereign debt cushion that we had in '08.   

The larger point is that we are accelerating into dead-man's curve in our race to oblivion.  These impending instabilities or non-linearities have been foreseen at least since Dennis' 'Limits to Growth' (1972).  

I hope, Ron, that God is watching your backside.  I hope that your deep-black psychic network develops no glitches.  It's ok for God to play chicken with our destiny, but I suspect that game is above your pay-grade.  

OTOH, I am chicken little.  I don't play chicken.  Nor am I going to play the lounge lizard on your May cruise.  I'm still waiting for you to get serious about the future.  In the meantime, I'll be sitting right here, by my phone.  

Dan 

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: April 8, 2015 at 9:30:33 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: Gary, Bill L., David G., Cy, Colton, Sam, John S. 

Subject: message in a bottle......

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t175p900-hello-cy-omf-ii-part-2#6023 

From: Paul 
Date: April 7, 2015 at 7:11:47 PM EDT
To: Dan 
Cc: David
Subject: Your Recent OMF Post

Hi Dan,

Comments below in red.

On Tuesday April 7 Dan Smith wrote:

1:15-------- 

I have finished my rereading of SA/SI, backwards and then forward.  Excellent stuff!  It will help me to flesh out the BPWH.  
Owen's main problem is the lack of the CTC.  There is, therefore, no Omega >> Alpha virtual closure/gap.  

There is no Eschaton, no D-day.  History has just two phases... original and final participation.... BC and AD.  Alpha and beta-
thinking, i.e. science and philosophy, were interlopers of the interim.  

The Eschaton is thoroughly immanentized.  

How could Owen have missed the MoAPS?  Reluctant messiah?  He didn't wish to incarnate the SoT, etc. 

As you say, he has his "final participation" -- in which the use of symbols, metaphor, and allegory is permissive but fully 
aware. It doesn't hypostatize the icon as an object of veneration in its own right -- and is thus not idolatrous.

I'm still not sure what the relationship is to Heidegger's immediate apprehension of Pure Being...

Despite all his talk of the evolution of idols, he did not attempt finally to eradicate the notion of deep space and deep time.  

As a Kantian surely would, considering them to be mere forms of human intuition imposed in sense experience a priori.

Quotes?

Again, missing the crucial CTC.  He does not provide this alternative model for cosmology.  

Well, what kind of "spark gap" would it take to go original participation >> final participation >> original participation? 

But I thought you were now thinking more in terms of Hofstadter strange loops, as opposed to GR CTCs?

A model need not always be an 
idol.  

Isn't that the point of Barfield's concept of "final participation"?

Owen misses our incipient 3rd age.... of the Spirit.  We have the bronze, iron and 'silicon' ages.  Our wireless world brings on 
the final participation, in earnest.  

How so? What do you think Barfield means by "final participation"?

My impression is that he is thinking in terms of a deliberate fully conscious use of icons, distinguishing between that an 
the mistaken belief that the icons are themselves the real McCoy, which Barfield characterizes as a form of "idolatry"?

Owen's greatest leap is to compare and then identify rainbow and tree.  I have failed to be quite so glib.  My bad?  

Barfield's argument here is rather weak if you ask me. Yes the rainbow as perceived is an intersubjective construct (what
Barfield calls an "intersubjective representation"), but the water droplets and the refracted light waves that are the physical
basis for the rainbow effect do not depend on the perception of color -- which Barfield confusingly calls the "unrepresented".

Again, we are talking about primary vs., secondary qualities. You need a Kantian argument -- or something equivalent -- to 
establish that the primary qualities are also fundamentally intersubjective.  Barfield's rainbow conveys the idea, nicely, but 
doesn't actually make the needed argument IMHO.

I am less 
willing to compromise or negotiate with atoms.  My rationale is to be more radical in my construct of space, more Kantian, 
in that sense.  

You just need to establish that primary qualities are also intersubjective constructs aka "collective representations". Then
everything else follows.

IMO Barfield's thesis boils down to the observation that "nature" is defined by the conceptual map the human mind applies
to the territory. Thus as the human mind evolves, so does "nature". Nature is a system of collective representations.  

I'm like the dentist who says, your teeth are fine, but your gums will have to go!  There would be only one atom 
and, maybe, a cell or two.  

Ontologically speaking, there is only One period (according to Parmenides at least).

Atoms are intersubjective constructs. They are no individual substances. Also they are divisible.

So contemporary science does NOT support metaphysical atomism.

The rest is mainly up to our perspicacity.  Space and geography are our doing.  Birds don't migrate 
in their space.  The do so in ours.  Yes?  There is a difference.  We geometrize.  Birds don't, bless their little hearts.  

That doesn't mean they don't have a model in their heads that serve to organize their sense impressions along 
geographical lines.

They just 
flap their wings a lot.  I'm not being just a little bit glib, am I?

Hmmm...

I'm going to scan some Barfield quotes and OCR them, and then post them for discussion. I'd like to pin down what Barfield 
means by "final participation", "unrepresented", etc., a little more precisely.

From: Dan
Date: April 8, 2015 at 11:25:55 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Cc: David, Colton
Subject: Re: Your Recent OMF Post

Paul, 

Immediate apprehension of pure being..........? 

That is pure faith.  That is allowing ourselves, individually and collectively, to be rocked in the bosom of Abraham.  

It is letting ourselves see the world as a love-fest, and not as being red in tooth and claw.  Yes, it will still be that, for a spell, but that spell will be broken, with the spell of love.  Seeing is believing, all we have to do is learn to see with our minds' eye.  We just have to get serious about beta-thinking.  

Deep space, deep time..........? 

Owen simply was not going to throw himself under the NASA juggernaut, not in 1957.  NASA no longer occupies the cosmic Catbird seat.  Psilocybin is making its comeback.... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment .  The Kingdom is within, sports fans!  And that is not just a figure of speech.  


But I thought you were now thinking more in terms of Hofstadter strange loops, as opposed to GR CTCs........?  

Look, Paul, let me remind you of the NWO......  If I like a phrase, I take it, I own it.  I like CTC, I don't like strange-loop.  If the physicists don't like my slanderous plagiarism, then see me in court.  You, Paul, are my fringe-physics lawyer.  All you need to know is how not to blink, when you get caught in the headlights.  It's kinda looking like that might be sooner than later, you know, before the cock crows.  


What do you think Barfield means by "final participation"......? 

See above....... 

You need a Kantian argument -- or something equivalent -- to establish that the primary qualities are also fundamentally intersubjective.  Barfield's rainbow conveys the idea, nicely, but doesn't actually make the needed argument IMHO......... 


Again, Paul, yours is not to reason why, yours is but to fill in the blank spaces.  Yes?  I know you can do it!  


Thus as the human mind evolves, so does "nature". Nature is a system of collective representations......... 


Kinda..... but don't forget the God of the Gap..... the Alpha and Omega/Telos.  Yes, we are One with God, she has our backside and our frontside, as do we, hers.  


So contemporary science does NOT support metaphysical atomism.......


Amen, brother.  


That doesn't mean they don't have a model in their heads that serve[s] to organize their sense impressions along geographical lines....... 


Model in their heads...... that is a mouthful!  But not quite.  There is but one Atom and but one Bird, in the End.  That one bird is Our totem.  Let's not confuse the Bird's map for Our territory.  Yes, birds have a collective consciousness, and that is all they have.  Their CCs is an essential subset of ours.  Who are we to begrudge them that?  


'Nature is our Mirror.' (Rorty?)  That's all I'm trying to say.  Is this what Owen is saying?  


Dan 


cc: OMF 

Foot Mann wrote:Several of these vectors now point in the direction of the brine. Good thing she can bend the line as they emerge in another time. Is the MoAPS a shift in space or mind? With Dan at the helm, the journey will be fine, until he confronts the iceberg slime.

赤い大地の剣 Akai daichi no ken, has a blade that was tempered in the red clay of Japan. It was made for killing -- a warrior's sword, tailored to the body and form of the Princess, deep red with the color or Earth after time is gone.

Peter Berresford Ellis wrote:Then Righbaddan, the royal poet went to Cellachain (Cashel Eoghannocht) and said: "I know the sidh of Drom Collchoille where the lady Aine dwells."

Chellachain looked at the poet-warrior in curiosity, "No one knows that," he said dismissively. "And if anyone did, what good would it avail us?"

"It is a closely guarded secret among poets," agreed Righbaddan. "But good it well do, for isn't it Aine who is the guardian of the Eoghanachta, and isn't it Aine who fortold that Mor would be mother to a dynasty of kings in Cashel?"

Aine who created the Eoghanachta through Oilill Olomh, son of Eoghan Mor; she who was daughter of Mannanan Mac Lir.

Castaneda wrote:He began then an extremely disturbing elucidation about the mold of man. He said that the old seers as well as the mystics of our world have one thing in common -- they have been able to see the mold of man but not understand what it is. Mystics, throughout the centuries, have given us moving accounts of their experiences. But these accounts, however beautiful, are flawed by the gross and despairing mistake of believing the mold of man to be an omnipotent, omniscient creator; and so is the interpretation of the old seers, who called the mold of man a friendly spirit, a protector of man.

GSB/SSR wrote:Ron continues with the assertion that the 'eschatological vectors are coming into alignment', with a time-frame, now, of 16 months.

What is the above based on?

Cyrellys wrote:

GSB/SSR wrote:Ron continues with the assertion that the 'eschatological vectors are coming into alignment', with a time-frame, now, of 16 months.

What is the above based on?

He's talking about the Cyclic Cataclysm.  The one that took out technological civilization 12,000 years ago...and didn't leave much except things like whats in odd spots like Gobekli Tepe, the alpine regions of South America, and a variety of other stone works sites around the world.

There was another incident sometime around 7,000-5,000 years ago too which also resulted in some flooding/water displacement etc.

This time includes the break up of the Earths crust.  The fracking didn't exactly help matters.

Get to solid ground preferably over granite not sand, and be at or above 3,000 feet above sea level...and for heavens sake, stay the heck out of the dumbs...unless you like being the meat in the middle of a concrete pancake.

two months ago, word was 18 months to go...footman is on schedule.

Cy

http://www.allnewspipeline.com/NORAD_Heading_To_Bunkers.php wrote:Admiral William Gortney, head of NORAD and Northern Command, said that "because of the very nature of the way that Cheyenne Mountain's built, it's EMP-hardened."

"And so, there's a lot of movement to put capability into Cheyenne Mountain and to be able to communicate in there," Gortney told reporters.

"My primary concern was... are we going to have the space inside the mountain for everybody who wants to move in there, and I'm not at liberty to discuss who's moving in there," he said.

Q-Alerts wrote:She said she has personally delivered many truckloads of supplies to the underground facilities. For each DHS shipment/delivery, there was a stack of non-disclosure forms about (by her description) six inches thick she had to sign.

Dan Smith wrote:I, OTOH, take seriously the Atlantis stories, putting them in the context of our CTC.  Atlantis is our ancestors' recollection of our future temporary 'disengagement' from the Earth.

What 'moderns' call Atlantis, we have no word for...the old draoi/drui only referred to as the 'truth of the ancients.'  Meaning the truth of the ancestors.  This must be differentiated from the use of "Ancients" meaning a different group of Beings altogether.  Atlantis was real enough, global, and far longer-lived than our current technological rise, Dan.

 What we see in prospect, they see in retrospect.  That is how the closed-timelike-curve appears to us mortals, constrained to a linear view of what is actually our singular temporal circuit, of some 12 thousand years.  144 million depart from 12 megalopolises, some thousand years hence, and 144 thousand return to the original 12 megalithic centers.  

This does not match the narrative I have Dan.  But if it were to be used to get people on the 'ships' some might buy it.

What you refer to as our 'external passage', others refer to as the 'photon belt', Nibiru passage, etc., I refer to as the Omega >> Alpha gap in our ouroboric circuit.  I.e. what others see as an extra-terrestrial event, I see as an intra-terrestial event, which can best be understood in the context of the Small World or hollow-earth hypotheses, which are other descriptions of our best possible CTC.

The Universal Source allows all beings to play with hypothesis as they see fit.  It's a part of evolving consciousness...but doesn't make the hypothesis 100% accurate.  For example the cosmology of Xtians was once thought beneficial for mankind, but look at the dismay of the Others today and how the DHS system lords manipulate the Others by giving them a video that depicts the need for martial law and red/blue/green list round ups because the VIDEO showed the Others Xtians massacre'ing their children to keep them from participating in the Greater Community and the Other's activities here among humans?  The VIDEO rightly horrified them and they're decisions to support the illicit DHS/military activities to "sort" the population were made based upon it...there is NOTHING in the record of Xtians that supports that kind of supposition...the System Lords lied to them in order to get the cooperation of the OTHERS on eradicating the humans carrying the strongest degree of "POTENTIAL"...most of whom are of high percentage Celtic stock tracing their ancestry back to the ATLANTIS survivors who fought against corruption during the global war of THAT TIME...i.e. who fought against the ancestors of the Illumined.

I wonder what the outcome of this information will be when the Others are finished reviewing it?  They already do not approve of the NWO crowd.

Cyrellys  

But, so far, not a single person has been able to get their head around this alternative cosmology.  Would you like to be the first?  

I already understand a good portion of your cosmology Dan...I did even in 2008.  Remember when I mentioned to you:  MIND is not limited by TIME, SPACE(distance), or PLACE?

But that does not mean I agree entirely with your cosmology.  I do NOT >  The universe is more complicated than your theory.  Many things are always occurring at every point/location.  There is lineal sequencing  AND non-lineal...but your neat little nutshell is too constrained and entirely too tiny in terms of time and the rest of the cosmos.  I also have an issue with your concept of beginning and ending.


The meetup, yesterday, with Ron, Aliyah and Colton was mainly a social affair.  The only 'current event' was Ron's notice of your interest in the clathrates, as mentioned.  So, yes, as per usual, there was no follow-up on matters eschatological.  Ron should know better than to wave a red flag in front of a bull.  I don't even have to charge at it.  I just sit and watch him make the inevitable feints.  



there was no follow-up on matters eschatological.

Ah!  But Dan, he did!  Set aside ego for just a moment and rethink what he said.  

Just like in 1975 a request of that moment was responded to more than 6 years prior...And what she told him was that 'what was sent was not what was sought, it was what was needed.'

Cyrellys

skaizlimit wrote:"
there was no follow-up on matters eschatological.

Ah!  But Dan, he did!  Set aside ego for just a moment and rethink what he said.  "

DITTO

From: Dan
Date: April 12, 2015 at 12:51:15 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Subject: Probability of coherence....??

Or is it the coherence of probability...... 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html

People have their own favorite measures of probability in the multiverse, said Raphael Bousso of the University of California, Berkeley. “So Boltzmann brains are just one example of how measures can predict nonsense; anytime your measure predicts that something we see has extremely small probability, you can throw it out,” he wrote in an e-mail message.

Another contentious issue is whether the cosmologists in their calculations could consider only the observable universe, which is all we can ever see or be influenced by, or whether they should take into account the vast and ever-growing assemblage of other bubbles forever out of our view predicted by eternal inflation. In the latter case, as Alex Vilenkin of Tufts University pointed out, “The numbers of regular and freak observers are both infinite.” Which kind predominate depends on how you do the counting, he said.

What would Parmenides think about this nonsense?