Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: July 13, 2015 at 10:40:24 AM EDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
Cc: 7 others
Subject: Re: Dan Smith is blind to his own soul

Jack,  

Are you suggesting that the human soul evolved, along with the biological body, from the basic physics/chemistry, i.e. non-linear QM.  Thus, there is no intelligent source to account for the anthropics or for personhood?  Consciousness and sapience, therefore, are natural products of random evolution.  

Philosophers find it difficult to account for the truth value of any statements, including the above, on that score.  

If you simply allow time to be a construct of consciousness, then teleology could be a natural part of the background, and the universe, or the appearance thereof, becomes a part of a naturally self-excited circuit, a-la Wheeler.  I think that this what you suggest wrt your future horizon.  If mind exists independently of matter, then the stress is upon saving the background appearances.  That is what physicists are paid to do.  



On Jul 12, 2015, at 4:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

And so are many others

From: Dan
Date: July 13, 2015 at 2:49:41 PM EDT
To: JACK
Cc: 14 others
Subject: Re: Dan Smith is blind to his own soul

Jack,  

I have not seen you come so close to putting mind before matter.  

There must be a primordial mind/information field.  What is the meaning of space-time without consciousness?  There must be some sort of Presence to give rise to the present.  All elsewhere has to logically depend upon some here and now.  

There could be no unobservable universes......  the only real phenomenon is an observed phenomenon.  

The big-bang model is as much a logical construct as it is a physical construct.  

If life is not to be an absurdity in a meaningless universe, then mind is an inevitability.  Nay, mind can only be its own source.  We physicists gave people the means to destroy themselves..... do we have to take away their meaning/purpose as well?  



On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:04 PM, JACK wrote:

[...]
In the holographic model cosmic consciousness is already there in the quantum information field that pilots Einstein's gravitational field. Space-time itself is conscious in that model.
[...]  

From: Dan
Date: July 14, 2015 at 12:04:06 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 12 others......
Subject: Re: "If your pilot waves don't support self-reflection of mind on itself ..."

Somebody has to do it....... Jack is sticking entirely with the physics.

I think his course is the best possible one. He has a pseudo-dualism with the particles and the pilot wave. And he has some degree of teleology with the future horizon. I don't quite understand his argument with Ruth. Evidently, she is not making the grandiose claims that he is.

Ruth is only claiming to solve the quantum problem, whereas Jack is going for broke.

I think that we should let Jack have his time in the Sun..... We don't need to contest him on the details. Let him have his details. This is the state of the art for physicalism. Anybody following Copenhagen is just themselves up for Cartesian dualism. The TI.... I'm not so sure.

We need to be more clear about the claims of PTI.......

We've read Ruth's book, UOUR, and she is more subtle about her claims. Allow me to review her conclusions once more......


(cont.......)
cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 15, 2015 at 9:36:00 AM EDT
To: Ruth Kastner
Cc: 17 others.......
Subject: Best possible......

Ruth and Paul,

What I was averring, yesterday, was that Jack's model was the best possible Physicalist model.  Obviously, it has serious problems with relativity, and any correction thereto is liable to have a pure field ontology.  But, still, it would be a purely physicalist model.  

Not so with Copenhagen.  Copenhagenism invites a quantum dualist interpretation.  There has been a, not so small, industry surrounding Copenhagenism, which is touting a modern version of Cartesian dualism, with the HUP supplanting the pineal gland as the bridge between mind and matter.  

This is where I was, in 1981, trying to make sense of a dualist evolutionary cosmology, with an multi-world evolution converging teleologically and telepathically toward an Omega Point.  

This is what Jack's pure physicalism could also be leading to, with its 'mind of God' future horizon.  

But then I discovered Coherence.  Dualism of any sort is simply incoherent.  

I realized that everything that is not touchy-feely is an abstraction therefrom.  Abstractions can be wonderful things, as long as we don't take them too seriously, too ontologically.  But it seems as though an Atom Bomb is not an abstraction.  Honestly, it was those bombs that enticed me into physics, back in the late '50's..... my dad was a colleague of Donald Menzel.  

But really, A-bombs are just a form of nihilism.  They are fire on steroids, ontologically....... stolen lightning, if you will.  They brought down the furies, almost literally, over Trinity flats.  My guy, Ron, results therefrom.  

Now we count the days to Armageddon..... last estimate was Sept, 2016.  Ron is checking the alignment of the 32 'apocalyptic' vectors again, today.

All I ask for, Ruth and Paul, is little coherence.  A little coherence can go a long way.  Jack, with his physicalism, is striving for a form of monism, i.e. coherentism.  

But with Ruth, I'm not so sure.  Her Quantumland sounds rather dualistic.  At least it sounds rather noumenal, in the Kantian sense.  Or like the Implicate Order, in the late Bohmian sense.  

Yes, there are atoms, but in what sense?  They look real enough, through a tunneling electron microscope.  What would we have thought, if we had come up with a blank?  What would we think, if the night sky were a blank?  But, when we look deep enough into space, are we not seeing the backs of our own heads, teleologically speaking...... the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics?

I am only suggesting a strong form of idealism/immaterialism.  I will give Jack his form of coherentism, if you give me, mine.  It may be our last defense against nihilism.  

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: July 15, 2015 at 2:42:05 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 17 others......
Subject: Sounds foolish.......

Ruth,

I think Paul described this as a neutral monism.  

What say you of a Multiverse vs. the Anthropic principle?  Is there some selection effect in play?  

What of John Wheeler's self-excited universe?  What of Penrose's triangle of mind > math > matter?  What of teleology?  

Your neutral monism is low bar for coherence.   Do you feel professionally restrained from raising it further?  

We give people the Bomb, and then tell them that life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe.  Is it grandiose to go a step further?  

I am telling you, Ruth and the rest, that someone in the government claims to be tracking the alignment of vectors of the 'apocalypse'.  With that in mind, can we raise the bar on the meaning of life?  Or does that sound foolish to you?  Is there any coherence that does not include life?

From: Dan
Date: July 15, 2015 at 4:57:25 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: others.......
Subject: Re: Sounds foolish.......

[This was drafted before receiving Ruth's response to the previous email, in which she invites us to carry on with our speculation.  I will respond to that invitation, specifically.]

Ok, let's leave global security on the side for [the] moment........ You likely feel that it is above your pay-grade........ it should be, but politicians and academicians would not touch it with a ten-foot pole......  

In the meantime, my other interlocutor advises me that what we may be dealing with here is a species of structural realism, namely........

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/#OntStrReaOSR  

..... radical or ontic structural realism.  It's relations all the way down.... there are no relata.  

We could be speaking of a species of monadism, of internal relations, of relationalism, per se.  

Ok, what are we to make of OSR?  According to Ladyman, it's mathematics all the way down.  I once had an encounter with a follower of Ladyman.  They are serious folks.  It is also a species of informationallism, perhaps.  

We have all heard of Pythagoras and Spinoza.  They were also pantheists.  They are all trying to avoid personalism.  It was also a species of deism, if you will.  

You have no need of that hypothesis?  Even if we hold your feet to a global apocalypse?  Oh, right, we weren't supposed to go there.  

But tell me, anyone, does '1' compute?  Does '0' compute?  Can any computation capture the full meaning of zero?  What is the full meaning of zero?  Have not dissertations been written on that subject?  You see the problem with pure mathematicism....... mathematicism without mind.  

From: Dan
Date: July 17, 2015 at 11:10:55 AM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: ~35 others......
Subject: Being nice to Jack........

Ruth and Paul,

Let's be nice to Jack. He is our MC.

He is the closest of us to being a pure physicalist. If we are to honor physics, we should honor Jack. The rest of us are hedging our bets, or going for immaterialism.

Let's give Jack some sort non-linear Bohmian, back-acting, volitional, pilot/mind field.......

Then we need to ask Jack what else he might need or want. How robust does he want his non-linear pilot/mind field to be? And let's not forget his back-acting/teleological future horizon that he also refers to as the 'mind of God/GOD(D).

Then the question of dualism becomes more refined........

IOW, can his God take on a personality or soul? Do our personalities (souls?) derive, in anyway, therefrom? What role does evolution still play, now that we have teleology and GOD(D), but I've already forgotten what that stands for? How does a designer God relate to the Anthropic principle?

What sort of connection can we, or do we, have with GOD(D)?

There are plenty of other questions to ask of Jack, but why don't we start there? Hopefully, he will deign to entertain us with some answers, be they straight or otherwise. Of course, he doesn't always need to come up with an answer. He could say that some of it is still a work in progress.

From: Dan
Date: July 19, 2015 at 9:51:10 AM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others.......
Subject: Ruth and Jack agree..........

Ruth and Jack agree that there is a reaction from the future.......

In Ruth's case it is in the general confirmation waves from the future.  In Jack's case it is from the future horizon.  

They are also both relying on a sort of ether, which is a background grid that exists beyond space and time.  In Ruth's case this is the grid of virtual transactions, the ones that aren't completed.  In Jack's case it is the general influence of the horizon itself.  

They also both accept the notion of a CTC, I believe.  

So why aren't we putting one and one together?  We can get a lot more than 1+1.  We get a singular circuit that is stitched together by the weak transactions, both advanced and retarded.  This Singular Circuit allows free will, on the micro-scale, but it conforms to a maximal, Leibnizian, action, on the macro-scale.  

This would be Leibniz', much abused, best possible world.  It may seem much less than the best, now, but that does not yet include a Millennial ending, or closure, in the case of a CTC.

This is the most rational way to put together John Wheeler's self-excited, Singular Circuit.

Or am I jumping too far ahead of the game, for our professionalists........?  How much time do we have to wake up to the possibility the we may be a Chrysalis, beyond space and time, rather than just a Cancer on the Earth?  Are you, collectively, determined to be the Katechon?  

From: Dan
Date: July 19, 2015 at 2:14:34 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others......
Subject: Re: Ruth and Jack agree....... (sort of....)

Ruth,

I am talking about teleology, in general.  I'm talking about an Omega point, in specific.  

The 'future', in my mind, could exist outside of space-time.  It is, more generally, simply not a construct or part of our space-time.  It could be the realm of the possible or potential, or your subquantum realm, if you will.

I am suggesting that we construct space-time intersubjectively.  We are its co-creators.  This is a top-down process, as you suggest.  You suggest a 'superior being' actualizing the future by doing the 'final measurements'.  I suggest something similar.  

As far as CTC's are concerned, I'm not quite sure why you are being so picky.  They could, most simply, be some form of causal loop, with the spacetime as an ad-hoc, or holographic afterthought.  

I'm just trying to point out that we don't have to see ourselves as a cancer upon the Earth.  I'm loosely employing modern/'fringe' concepts to get across the basic possibility that, in a larger scheme, we could view ourselves as much more like a Chrysalis.  I am trying to project optimism about a very grim looking future.  Help me out, please!

From: Dan
Date: July 19, 2015 at 4:18:43 PM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others.......
Subject: Optimism......

Ruth,

I would characterize that as a rather weak form of optimism. What if 99% of those possibilities are catastrophic? Can we up the odds for optimism?

Let us enquire after Leibniz, Wheeler and teleology.......

You say, in your universe, that you have no need of observers, past, present or future. Our universe could have been devoid of life from the beginning, you suggest. But what then of the Anthropic principle? You are not a Multiverser, are you? You are trying to get away from Everett's version, certainly.

You do want the world to be safe for volition.

But, Ruth, in Quantumland, is volition only local? You seem to have the whole universe participating in the transactions. Could there still not be a maximal action principle that operates on a larger, even universal, scale?

I'm asking you for a heartfelt opinion, not just your professional opinion. Perhaps I'm asking for your prophetic opinion. Not to put you on the spot, or anything!

From: Dan
Date: July 22, 2015 at 8:59:24 AM EDT
To: Deepak and Ruth
Cc: 30+ others
Subject: Re: a field of infinite possibilities?

Deepak and Ruth,

When you go beyond Jack, you will hear from the other side.........

The entire edifice of science is built upon the notion of deep space and deep time.  Without those 'objectivities', you'll have to deal with a whole new ballgame.  I'm not sure that either of you are prepared to venture into those deep waters.  

Jack, and Fred, wrote the book, Space-time and Beyond (1975).  He put his toe in those waters, probably in a partly drug-induced state.  Evidently, he had a bad trip, back then.  He has never ventured there, since.  Now, the 'mathematics' is his security blanket.  

I have asked him many times, whether, in a holographic universe, it makes sense to speak of a future horizon that is some billions of years hence.  With all his mathematics, he could never embrace the fact that a horizon could be part of the holograph/illusion.  

Deepak is part of tradition that also clings to deep space and deep time.  That tradition did so, in a rather arbitrary manner, simply by adding zeroes to the 'mythical' numbers.  Read Giorgio de Santillana's Hamlet's Mill, if you want to get a more accurate picture of the traditions.  

Yes, you probably want to play it safe wrt scientific cosmology.  But don't kid yourselves, you will have made a pact with the materialist 'devil', much as did Descartes.  This is immaterialism-lite.

You might ask yourselves if our Visitors have been space astronauts, or have been trans-dimensional beings?  From Planet X, or from Dimension X?

When you eventually venture into the deeper waters, beyond spacetime, you will find that you are not the first to have done so.  You will find that there may be a plan, already in place.  We may not just be a cancer upon a random planet.  Rather, we may be a Chrysalis, about to be born.  We may not be God's spawn, but, rather, God's children.  We may all be soulmates, in that regard.  Co-Creators of the world.  

But this is liable to be much too radical for your educated/politicized sensibilities.  In that case, stick with your 'cancer upon the planet' scenario.  When the situation is dire, you may then run for cover.

From: Dan
Date: July 22, 2015 at 10:55:41 AM EDT
To: Ruth
Cc: 30+ others........
Subject: A little teleology could go a long way......

Ruth,

Well, you do keep your cards close to your vest........

Yes, I have made a close reading of UOUR, and your emails. Yes, spacetime may be the tip of an iceberg, and you speak of Quantumland as the next frontier, and that it is open to 'infinite possibilities'.

Wonderful, but........... That says nothing positive about life not being an absurdity in a meaningless universe.

I understand that you do not want to be more than a step or two ahead of the crowd. You are helping to make the world safe for other possibilities.

Do you understand that the world is rapidly becoming more vulnerable to negative possibilities? The positive possibilities may be much more limited than the negative ones.

There is the possibility of a coherence theory of truth, CohTT, as opposed to the correspondence theory. But this CohTT is minuscule amongst the random universes.

But, if there is coherence, there can be teleology. I don't see a single mention of that word, Ruth.
Chris is ahead of you here, and maybe Deepak, I hope. What is the Quantum good for if it does not make the world safe for teleology?

You may feel that you may have achieved your life goal if you have made the world safe for volition. But, as Janis famously said, 'freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose'. Except now, with all our bombs, we have everything to lose. Maybe there is a plan for us that does not involve Armageddon. Maybe we are a Chrysalis, and not a cancer. But, yes, that involves some heavy duty teleology. Is it too heavy for your Quantumland? Not ready, yet, to go there......?

From: Dan
Date: July 24, 2015 at 11:38:51 AM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others
Subject: What if........

Let's try another tack.........

Let's suppose that civilization is on the brink of collapse. Many people on this list suppose that it is. Technology may not be destined to save us. It may be putting us in harm's way.

Let's suppose that we have been visited, and that those Visitors are trans-dimensional beings, not just astronauts. Another likely possibility.

Then consider the possibility that mind is not an epiphenomenon of reality. Rather, that the Anthropic principle points to a Wheelerian self-creating world, or to a 'holographic' world, one that is dominated by consciousness. Unlikely? I'm doubting it.

Why haven't our visitors pointed this out to us? Perhaps they have, to some, but they realize that they will have to play brinksmanship. They will have to wait 'til the last minute, if they don't wish to be perceived as spoilers.

We need to calculate how close to the brink we will have to come. Yes, if we constitute a necessary cornerstone of reality, we will inevitably be saved, even if we ignore all the signs. But, even in the best possible world, there are real consequences.

Again, how close must we come to the edge before we awaken to our status as a Chrysalis? How much of an external intervention would be required? In the best possible world, would not a minimalist intervention be the most desirable? Would any of you be prepared to lift a finger toward that end? What additional information or proof would you need?

From: Dan
Date: July 24, 2015 at 6:03:34 PM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others......
Subject: Beyond catastrophe............

So much for the first premise...... a catastrophic end!

The next premise, that we have been visited........ Most on this list would agree, also........

Yet, the message, if any, has not been conveyed, widely. (Might we not make contact with those who have received the message?)

First, though, what might this message be? Very possibly it is prophetic. It is that we have reached the logical climax of our material phase of existence. It is time for the next phase, beyond our slumber of materialism. It is time to awaken to our true destiny. But waking a sleeping person can be tricky.

Our destiny is to return to our Source, to complete our cycle of creation. This is our logical end, for all those who are not confirmed in their materialism. It is to conquer outer space, or inner space, and to do so collectively, as a species. It is time to manufacture replicas of ourselves, as Jack would have us do, or find out who we are and where we are going. Because we are afraid to ask these questions of ourselves, we pass them on to our replicas.

Non-materialists believe this, instinctively, about our destiny. Does even science not point us more in this direction, than toward outer space? Are we not meant, rather, to colonize Quantumland?

Can we not testify to our destiny? Are we afraid to act the fools? Must we wait for Godot?

From: Dan
Date: July 25, 2015 at 11:46:52 AM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others........
Subject: Have we been visited..........?

We have an imminent catastrophe........ yes, we agree that the human species is in a spot of trouble, a spot that is growing bigger with each passing year, no relief in sight.  

The next question is whether we have bee visited.......... if so, by whom?  

Science says no.  I agree.  There is no accessible, physical evidence that we have been visited by extraterrestrial astronauts.  Ron has lately been trying to keep that possibility alive, but is very sketchy with the details.  If anyone is curious I'll provide what I've heard.  Most of it appears already on the OMF site.  Where are they, is still the question?  You have to get very deep into conspiracy theory to think otherwise.  

But what about the UT's, the ultraterrestrials?  This where the sheep and goats get separated.  This is where the rubber meets the metaphysical hi-way.  

We can go out there, up there, out of body, as virtually everyone on this list agrees.  Can they come here, in body, or telepathically?  It's a hard-core materialist who says that we've never been haunted.  Would anyone wish to defend the fact that there is not a mind-body problem, besides Jack?  And Jack just stated a couple of days ago that he is predicting that our consciousness will be transplanted to machines, for immortality...... a soul transplant, if you will.  

If the UT's can come here, most of the motivation to build interstellar craft disappears.  All the information can already be transferred, probably instantaneously.  Much of the motivation for technological development gets transferred to Jack's quest of transferring souls, and most of us believe that this possibility was built-in to our world, from the git-go.  You were beaten to the punch, Jack.  Get over it.  

But then a bigger question looms........  Where is everybody else.....?  


(cont.)

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 25, 2015 at 12:32:21 PM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others......
Subject: Re: Have we been visited..........?

(cont..........)


Where are they........?  

They are here, but mostly disorganized.  Why?  Mainly they are dead and confused.  They didn't go toward the light.

But what about the other civilizations?  Why can't they get it together to send us a message, in bottle, at the least?  

This where the feint of heart usually fear to tread.......

What if we're alone?  What if we, in accord with an extreme Rare Earth Hypothesis, are totally rare?  Should we be surprised?  

I was, at first, but then I wasn't..... I read up on my Leibniz.........

Once I came to the conclusion that there really was an Anthropic problem, and there really was a mind-body problem, it occurred to me that mind, like biology, must have been built-in to the world from the beginning.  And so Darwin, bless his heart, was taking the fossils a bit too seriously.  Seriously?  

(cont........2)  

From: Dan
Sent: July 25, 2015 at 1:11:51 PM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others.....
Subject: How to overcome the Design problem......?

(cont.......2)


Seriously........?

Well, it may be very difficult to design a world that is conducive to biology. Just to get past the flatness problem, with the big-bang, we have to aim with a 1 : 10^500 accuracy, I hear. You would think that those odds would give pause, even to Mad Max. But no, they can only think in terms of quantity. They were too dumb to read Leibniz, evidently.

I was just smart enough to read 'Leibniz for Dummies'........ It did open my eyes. I even read up on the least action principle, same guy. Yes, a little teleology goes a long way, but not to the bank, pace, Jack. Well, I kinda think it goes to the big bank in the Sky.

But it was Jack, bless his heart, who, after turning me on to the Anthropic principle, in 1975, turned me on to Aharanov and his 'weak measurements'.

Aharanov provides the answer to Ruth's Quantumland, with its infinite possibilities. Those infinities just boggle my little mind. In such a situation, a little teleology might go a long way. Teleology might just, with the help of the 'maximal action principle, trim those infinite possibilities back a notch or two.

Maybe, see, we are the weak measurers. Maybe we are actually the co-creators of our own maximal action world.


(cont........3)

From: Dan
Date: July 25, 2015 at 2:00:18 PM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: 40+ others.......
Subject: Re: How to overcome the Design problem......?

Deepak,  

As you saw, a long time ago, we have trouble seeing beyond the shiny technology and fancy mathematics.  

We also have trouble seeing beyond the fossils and stars.  We have become mesmerized by all those billions and billions.  We so easily forget about the space between our ears...... the inner space, the Quantumland.  

We are homo-faber.  The world was made safe for our fabrications, our manual and mental dexterity.  But would science and technology ever have been possible if the heavens had drawn a blank?  We had to design a Sun, rather than a sun-lamp.  It would have been a dead giveaway. Our imaginations and ingenuity would not have soared.  We would have remained at the larval/tribal stage of development.  

But now we have wired (and unwired) the world.  Our larval/tribal stage of development is seen to possibly/determinately transcend the cancer stage that we seem to be mired in.  

Yes, it may seem that it is too late for us to awaken to our destiny............


(cont........)




On Jul 25, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

I feel I'm hanging out here with a motley group of sages psychotics and geniuses .
I can't tell the difference between them !
Maybe it does not matter . The Point is to keep dancing

Deepak Chopra

From: Dan
Date: July 25, 2015 at 2:38:34 PM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: 40+ others.......
Subject: A do it yourself universe........?

(cont..........)


Well, almost, do it ourselves..........

It all depends on what we mean by Self.......

It has become a truism the we have an unconscious self, and probably a collective unconscious, as well.

All I'm saying is that the world we experience around us, is just our collective consciousness.  This is just what all the great thinkers have been telling us, from time immemorial.  

Then there were the Cartesian dualists.  They kept us guessing for several centuries.  All the secondary qualities were just in our heads, but the primary qualities were 'real'.  Well, those 'primary' qualities turned turned out to be mathematical abstractions.  They really were tertiary quantities.  It was the unreasonableness effectiveness of mathematics.  It seems wired into our minds.  

Now its just zombies or welcome to la-la land..........

Folks are very reluctant to go there, especially now, in our hour of need, with armageddons and catastrophes seemingly around every corner.

What is a body to do.........?  


(cont..........2)

From: Dan
Date: July 25, 2015 at 3:18:16 PM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: 40+ others.......
Subject: What's a body to do........?

(cont.........2)


It seems that we may just be too smart by half.

I feel like the little kid pointing at the naked King. I'm all dressed up, but you don't want to take me out.

But somebody did, it seems, take me out, around town, DC that is.

It was Ron and, later the Princess. Ron took me out, and told me stories. He was my best buddy, just about my only 'bbq-buddy'. Yes, Virginia, we have a 'phenomenological problem'.

I was allowed to think that the 'king' had had a bad dream, and I was there to tell the dream and then interpret it. I was little Danny, in the dream-coat of many colors. I was the 'ex-spurt', a former nerd under a lot of pressure, or so I was allowed to think.

Here you see the result. Are we a day late and a dollar short?

From: Dan
Date: July 25, 2015 at 3:56:20 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 40+ others......
Subject: Re: Have we been visited..........?

Chris,

I don't doubt that you have all or most of this figured out.

So what do we do about it.........?

There are enough people on this list to get this show on the road, now that the world is properly wired.

What is the Katechon up to? What is cosmic consciousness up to?

I'm not kidding when I say that this must be the best possible world, just before it awakens to the fact.

I don't doubt that there is plan. We made it ourselves, from the future. What is our mission, then, should we choose to accept it? Can we refuse? Many do, evidently.

Maybe we should check that we have the right signals. So far, so good.......?

From: Dan
Date: July 26, 2015 at 1:56:19 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 40+ others........
Subject: Are you with the (imminent/SWH) Eschaton, or against it......?

Chris,

Thank you for this additional information. But what you continue not to say is most revealing.

You and I are the only identifiable X'tians on this list. I came to x'tianity by dint of logic and by the personal component of it. I am a personalist and immaterialist. They are virtually synonymous terms, as I believe, and would gladly discuss.

I came to the Small World Hypothesis reluctantly. It was when I gave up on dualism, in 1981, but under the positive (inadvertent) pressure of Masquerade, by Kit Williams, actually. When I hooked up with Ron, in 1991, shortly after the end of the Cold War, as we can now say, I was a staunch eschatologist, this being the logical concomitant of the SWH.

This is what I need to know of you. Are you with the (imminent/SWH) Eschaton or not? If not, it is required of you to explain why not, and not pose interference, so long as the imminent Eschaton is a logical possibility.

The same could be said of others, of the other non-materialists. Of the materialists, calling themselves 'physicalists', like Jack, they will continue to pursue their technological options, presumably. I will focus on their case, when I have a better understanding of the non-materialists' positions.

We must assume that this case is one of national/global priority, until it can be adequately refuted. I intend to exercise that assumption.

So, Chris, are you in the (imminent/SWH) Eschaton camp, or not? I am looking for a succinct answer. A non-answer will have to be taken as a 'No'.

From: Dan
Date: July 27, 2015 at 11:02:59 AM EDT
To: C Langan , Larry Frascella
Cc: 40+ others
Subject: Re: Are you with the (imminent/SWH) Eschaton, or against it......?

Chris and Larry,  

By imminent Eschaton, I mean don't 'immanentize the Eschaton', as the 'liberal' churches, and secular society, have done.

You know that I am very far from being a bible pounder.  (I was arrested at an evangelical church a few months back.)  But the vectors are aligning on an imminent Apocalypse, as most here will readily admit.  I am just the optimist who supposes that it will turn out to be a 'apocalypse' in the original sense of the word, a revelation.  The revelation will point to the Millennium, leading up to our collective transcendence, in at most 1000 years.  

To make sense of cosmology, we have to posit a strong form of immaterialism/idealism, which includes a small world hypothesis (SWH), a pre-Copernican cosmology, in which deep space and deep time are just the logically necessary backdrop to the historical drama of sapience.  I believe that I've explained this to you and Larry before.  Maybe you weren't listening.

Is this SWH cosmology part of your repertoire, Chris, or is it not?  I take your presence, here, seriously, actually more seriously than anyone else's, for now.  I take this SWH/BPWH as a matter of global significance.  It could be that I'm wrong to do so, but no one has come close to addressing the significant issues, with the possible exception of yourself.  If you cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, I will have to assume your answer is 'no', and proceed accordingly.  I don't stand on ceremony.  

From: Dan
Date: July 27, 2015 at 3:41:23 PM EDT
To: Chris and Larry
Cc: 40+ others.........
Subject: Re: Are you with the (imminent/SWH) Eschaton, or against it......?

Chris,

I take this to be a 'yes', but the proof may be in the pudding.


Larry,

The main problem we would face is to get people past the first impression of 'it must be nuts'.

You can't really throw money or connections at that problem, not at first, but, otoh, it may not hurt the cause.

We mainly need people to take the SWH seriously, and be willing to say so, in public. First, they need to be awakened to a brand new world. It is not easy for the modern mind to grasp.

Jack is a case in point. He has most of the theoretical structure, but has a very difficult time letting go of the BWH. There is real fear involved, its not just the public opprobrium. It's a fear of meeting your Maker, of seeing your own ghost. 'Fear not', said the angel...... but it's easier said than done.

It will be a last minute, fox-hole 'conversion' for most everyone.


(cont.........)

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 9:44:04 AM EDT
To: me
Cc: 40+ others......
Subject: Soul train.......

99% of the people believe they have a soul.  1% believe they do not.  Very often those 1% consider themselves to just be smarter, or more honest, than the rest of us.  

I said before that Jack is going to invent a soul.  He emphatically denied it.  But then he turns around and tells us that his non-linear qm will allow us to upload our Cs to a (non-linear?) computer in the future, and it will be a >trillion dollar industry.  What does that entail, if not something very soul-like, pray-tell?  

I love Jack.  He is very entertaining and, in person, personable.  Somebody has to do what he is doing.  If he didn't already exist, we would have had to invent him.  He is, like Mad Max, pushing science to its absurd extremes.  They are walking reductio-ad-absurdums.  I'm more concerned about the rest of you.  Some of you don't seem to get the joke.  Per impossible, are you soulless?  There are sociopaths, those who are missing a significant part of their soul.  There may be other, more benign, conditions.  

Jack is a Transhumanist.  Some others of may be that, as well.  If only you could see yourselves as others see you.  But that's something personal.  It's the logic I don't get.  Is the no eschaton for Transhumanism?  Does evolution just keep trucking, in perpetuity?  Does evolution, just now, acquire a deliberate direction?  It is like that Ode on a Grecian Urn........

....
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
....
Bold lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal – yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

Are we such a still-life?  Are we forever bound to this wheel of karma?  Do we never escape?  The Transhumanists are our Katechon.  But once we've seen Paris, can you keep us down on the farm, forever?  


(cont.......)

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 10:17:00 AM EDT
To:
Cc: 40+ others.......
Subject: The 'psychology of fire'........

(cont........)

It's easy to make fun of the materialists/physicalists.  But why are there so many smart materialists?  It is because there seems to be no rational alternative.  You seemingly have to leap off, into a void.

Dualism is the closest thing to a rational alternative.  It is anything but coherent.  I compare it to the judgment of Solomon:  science and religion each took half the baby.  Now, after the fact, people like Jack and 'Mad' Max Tegmark are trying to put the baby back together.  Richard Dawkins, evidently, is too lazy to even try.  

They are right.  There are no 'non-crazy' alternatives, or so it seems, at first, second and third sight.  It took me five years to see the (immaterial) light ('77-'81).  I still have trepidations.  I still lay awake at night, trying to figure out the 'psychology of fire'.  

And you good people lay awake at night trying to figure out the psychology of the Quantum.  

If I have anything to say about it, those days are numbered........

(cont.........2)
cc: omf

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 11:21:09 AM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 40+ others........
Subject: We surrender.......?

(cont.......2)


The quantum is fool's gold.  How many times do I have to tell you that you are looking at this enigma through the wrong end of the telescope?  It took me five years to turn the scope around, and I had a lot less to lose than many of you.  Unfortunately, I don't think we have five more years to figure this out.  

Science has gotten us into a logistical jam.  We are using up our resources much faster than we can replace them.  And now science has given us all kinds of nifty tools for eliminating our competition for those diminishing resources.  

The quantum 'paradoxes' may not be 'real'.  They may just be symptoms of a deeper problem, the fact that we are looking at the world 'upside-down'.  Ruth has this half figured out.  She refuses to just let the quantum go.  She refuses to just shut up and calculate around it.  Even Jack, bless his little heart, knows that the is more to the quantum than meets the eye.  

We all agree that there is some 'implicate' order behind the quantum.  I think most of us would agree, if we were forced to, and I'm greasing those skids, that this something else, this apeiron, this aether, could be something a lot like the mind of God.  But then you come to a full stop, and throw up your hands in surrender.  


(cont........3)

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 12:24:57 PM EDT
To: Chris
Cc: 40+others.........
Subject: Anti-gnosticism - the true Katechon

(cont........3)


Surrender.......? That's what I did at the church, when the cops came to take me away in hand-cuffs. Ron and I calculated that, if we were careful to avoid anything physical, they would not call the cops. We calculated wrong. We underestimated the natural antagonism to anything smacking of gnosticism.

It is that natural fear of gnosticism, Chris, that explains the resistance that you have encountered in academe. There may be elements of a conspiracy, but they are just parasitic on the underlying fear.

This anti-gnosticism, is much stronger than mere agnosticism, but is closely related. It is this positive fear that lies behind most of the academic conformity that we see.

What's a body to do? Well, me, I grab the bull by the horns. It's man bites dog. That's why I go after the 4M/K/SoT/X2. It is a calculated move. I don't talk to God, God doesn't talk to me. I just shut-up and 'calculate'. Jack gets phone calls on the God phone. Not little Danny. I just have to work it out with a 'pencil'.

How long will it take any of the rest of you to calculate this move? You have to face up to the Katechon. You have to take the bull by the horns. You have to be willing to 'bite the dog'.


(cont........4)

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 2:00:17 PM EDT
To: Cyrellys
Cc: 40+ others.......
Subject: Let's be a little more chummy, for the Gipper......

Cy,

Yes, we have beaten around this bush a few times.  Your fears are well taken, as far as they go.  They do not go far enough, IMHO.  

You fear a fascism of the state/PtB.  Fascism is mainly just an extension of tribalism.  Yes, tribalism is still a potent force.  But most of those calling themselves 'patriots' happen to be WASPS, not to put too fine a point on it.  

The state/US happens to be more diverse.  I agree that the state does overreach, on many occasions, particularly when it allows itself to be provoked be the militias.  Go figure.  

You fear Transhumanism.  It is mostly a joke, put out by people like Jack, who really ought to know better.  

You fear for your individuality, as opposed to the 'hive'.  This fear is more on the mark.

We come from the Source, we go back to the Source.  This technically is Apocatastasis.  It looks very scary, even to me.  But I have some faith in the process.  

Tribalism is 'ok', folks don't seem to mind so much being chummy with their own kind.  It's all those Others that we are mostly concerned about.  

Yes, we come from the Monad and we go back to the Monad.  It looks rather cozy.  Protestants protesteth, rather too much, IMHO.  The (individual!) soul, they emphasize, especially, is eternal.  If you don't agree, they will gladly have you incarcerated.  

The Buddhists are closer to the Monadial truth, here.  We don't have to sing in the Choir for eternity.  We, separately, and together, get our shot at the Big Cheese's chair in the sky.  If that's not good enough for you, I guess you'll just have to go around again.  

A model to keep in mind are your very own little braincells.  Would you rather be a braincell or an amoeba?  Well, braincells live a lot longer, if that is any consolation.  

Yes, the devil is in the details.  I will be glad to entertain you with them, as far as my little mind has gotten, to-date, either here or on the forum.  

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 3:00:02 PM EDT
To: Chris
Cc: 40+ others......
Subject: The ego to end all egos.......

(cont........4)


But, if this is the best possible world, there must be a good reason for the Katechon.........

There must have been a good reason for burning all those witches, bless their crispy souls.  

Yes, Chris, it's not easy to keep us down on the farm, after we have seen Paris.

We had not yet invented the internet.  That's why.  I kid you not.  

Now, Jack&Co, fervently believe that we have not finished inventing.  They may well be right.  God has not told me otherwise.  Hey, do I look like a party-pooper?  Un-uh.  This is why, if God chooses to play this game, she is going to have to go all-out.  She is going to have to push us to the Brink.  It may get a little scary, a little hairy, boys and girls.  I don't see too many of us down on our hands and knees, praying for the Lord to hurry.  Well, come to think of it, those towel-heads may be ahead of us, in that department.

Slightly more seriously, it's really our egos that God is after.  In a sense, she just wanted to ripen up our egos for the harvest.  Some would say that she has overdone it.  My 4M/K..... gambit is just to be the ego that ends all egos.  Wish me luck on that one.  

With the internet, she was killing two birds with one stone.  

This is God's test...... what will it take to get Jack&Co on their knees.  I think we'll have to get a bit closer to the edge.  

From: Dan
Date: July 28, 2015 at 4:20:28 PM EDT
To: Chris
Cc: 40+ others.......
Subject: Gnosticism...... or bust.

Chris,

Gnostics........?

The vast majority of the PtB think that gnosticism is a crock, as best I can tell. Of course, there are enough rich cranks around to keep the charlatans in the clover.

True gnosticism, IMHO, is just the refusal to give up one's curiosity. Very few have the inclination or the means.

Gnosticism is a determined refusal to accept the separateness of God. There is that of God in all of us, said the quaker. I just took that to its limit. You have to be a monist or a monadist.

It is, ultimately, as you well know, the coherence theory of truth (CohTT). How else could the truth be one, and allow us to partake? Simplicity in the end. Keep it simple, said God.

Particularly, though, it's about the timing. The witches were ahead of their time, unfortunately for them. We may be ahead of our time, too. It is a bit of a gamble. But who, in their right mind, would prefer to succeed at a cause that will ultimately fail? Not me. Let me fail at the cause that will ultimately succeed. I really don't wish to be on the wrong side of history.

Cyrellys wrote:Let's be a little more chummy, for the Gipper......
Inbox
x
Dan Smith
Cy, Yes, we have beaten around this bush a few times. Your fears are well tak...
12:00 PM (4 hours ago)

from Cyrellys

3:02 PM (58 minutes ago)

to Paul, C, Dan, Larry, Robert, Brian, Henry, Ruth, Deepak, George, Jonathan, Gary, JACK, Sharon, Nogueira, John, Aldo, Art, Elizabeth, Giuseppe, Bill, nick, Hameroff, Rudy, James


Dan, yes indeed we have beaten around this bush more than a few times. Again you put words in my mouth and conveniently forget the things I have said in the course of it. I don't fear, Dan. I don't need to. Fascism is a symptom of the issues and current state of development. It speaks volumes, in the eyes of the ancient muses.

I don't fear transhumanism nor technocracy. I was quite clear I think in what I said about individualism, diverse inherent capacity/capability, and free will. I emphasized the positive potential of live and let live course of action. And I gave my usual warning about the excesses in judgment occurring which threaten the future of mankind's existence.

You said, "You fear for your individuality, as opposed to the 'hive'. This fear is more on the mark. We come from the Source, we go back to the Source. This technically is Apocatastasis. It looks very scary, even to me. But I have some faith in the process."

Again I remind you what you forgot, I told you in 2008 and in 2010 and last year, that I have been where you want to go and humanity cannot get there by this method the deep stater's are playing with. You know what I'm talking about and don't try to attribute it to Jack's trans-humanism profits. How much more clear can I say it? Yes we come from the Source but there was never a DISCONNECT! There's nothing to go back to because you've never ceased being a part of it.

Conduct is a window into the soul of an individual...the technocrats would do well to remember that. It says everything about a person's character/nature, and it contributes to a wider collective set of specie traits. Every drop in the bucket matters and builds the glass house within which all live.

Cy

Cyrellys wrote:From Cyrellys
July 28, 2015 3:20 PM
To C Langan

C - Dan is not always consistent in his use of the term gnosticism. I can say that from the times we've argued, in my experience he generally drags his feet over 2nd Century Celtic Gnosticism consisting of Pelagianism (coincidentally the key component that united our nation's founders):

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.

Pelagianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism


Cy

Cyrellys wrote:Cyrellys to Dan & 40 others today:

While Gnosticism of Asia Minor may differ, Celtic Gnosticism doesn't espouse a separation from the Creator. It only speaks of Free Will and Individualism. Dan, by contrast, keeps instead with Augustinian ideas, while mine are celtic palagian kept by the old culdees/first thru fifth century drui-christians of old Eire. Moderns philosophists in this vein include modern Culdees, Ceili Dei, some sects of modern Drui, many if not most non-exhibitionist new agers, and Old Irish traditionalists. I'm not however hide-bound like the majority of theologians. I consider myself an experientialist instead. This brand of thinking is not religion...it's philosophy, based on the product of exploring curiosity, experiencing interaction, and thus capable of evolving.

What fills the eye fills the heart. Gaelic: An rud a líonas an tsúil líonann sé an croí.

Cy

From: Dan
Date: July 29, 2015 at 10:47:11 AM EDT
To: Ruth Kastner
Cc: .......
Subject: Imperfection.......?

Ruth,  

Gnosticism, per se, seems too focused on 'imperfection', in my estimation.  I was using it, mostly in its literal sense, to distinguish myself from the usual, dualistic minded, x'tians.  Gnostics say that there is an intermediary, etc.  

Yes, there is a Katechon that is impersonal.  It's just the veil of nature.  It allows us the freedom to be existentialists, in good faith.  It is deus-abscondus.  The self-revealing God, must also be self-concealing.  It's mostly up to us (individually) to keep the home-fires burning, up until the parousia or Millennium.  

Imperfection......?

I don't think we are an experiment, or that we are just the spawn of God.  

Demiurge......?

God then is permanently aloof/impersonal?  No, that implies that we should settle for second best or much worse.  So many demand to be here.  We all share the one cosmic soul.  That cosmic soul dances around and around the Earth, like a moth attracted to flame. This is the (only) 'place' to be.  There probably are outlying realms, but they would serve special purposes.  

I should stress the CTC model.  We can appear temporal from the inside, and be eternal from the outside.  Eternity is always present to us.  We are inside a timelike torus, embedded in eternity.  The 'concave' Earth model would be a two (or three)-dimensional cross-section.

From: Dan
Date: July 29, 2015 at 11:41:20 AM EDT
To: Cyrellys
Cc: ........
Subject: Pelagianism.......?

Cy,

Do see my previous answer to Ruth........ 'Imperfection'.

No, I am only a 'gnostic' in the literal, Quaker, sense, a strong element of pantheism, that is where our 'gnosis' comes from.

I am a pelagian, in a sense, also. I don't believe in sin, per se, especially not 'original' sin. This, again, points too much to imperfection.

Life is hard. But how can we blame it on an omnipotent God? We can't. God's not omnipotent. Only relatively speaking..... omnipotent. God is gregarious, and needy, kinda like us. We are not his playthings, though, we are his children. Our emotions feed the cosmic dynamo. It's not a game. The Omega >> Alpha gap in our CTC is the 'spark' gap.

We will understand all this in retrospect, in the Millennium, which is almost here. We will understand the 'perfection'. In the Millennium, eternity will 'bleed[-through]', much more. Reality will be more porous.