Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

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.)

Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that. Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design. She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party. They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed. Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast? Like any of us would forget and forgive her? Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers. She's five ahead of this gun owner. And that's just what we happen to know about. There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart. I could go on but what's the point. Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.

I'm a celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC. Truth and justice equals neurosis? What kind of thinking is that?!! But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception. So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play. They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.

>>>on India and Greece...look at the Sanskrit language and old greek. Then compare it to Old Irish. Fascinating? Now look at some of the ideas each culture valued...same again. All three have same root system. Ah but why would anyone care about the legacy of the elder gods? 'er ET and the seeding of civilizations? Virmana are inconveniences...ah! and there once was one in the vicinity of Fermoy Eire of all places! That is if you can take the Christian overlay off the history.

>>> on the subject of the Glyphs:

432 Mystery

432 Mystery: the first lesson - the Abducted Preceptor

From: Dan
Date: July 30, 2015 at 9:49:42 AM EDT
To: Robert Addinall
Cc: 20+ others.......
Subject: Maybe Godot is waiting for you......

Robert et al.,

Many folks are openly engaged in blue-sky, technophorial, transhumanist, etc,  speculation.  There is no harm in keeping that hope alive, but I don't think you understand that your odds are not good, not at all, and that sort of thinking tends to exclude, obscure the more 'metaphysical' kind.  

You may think that those folks in the pews, etc, already have that base covered.  Well, I'm here to tell you that they know not what they are doing.  They think they are keeping their noses clean, that's all they even _think_ they are doing.  

There is, known to me, only one avowed atheist on this list, and he barely knows his philosophy or physics.  Last I checked, he did have a soul, of sorts, though.   What's with the rest of you?  What is your excuse?

Where, when does God get into this act?  We face an 'apocalypse' of ultra-biblical proportions, but nary a peep from above.  Go figure.......

But that is the problem.  No one, except yours truly, within internet range, has openly gone and figured. Even Chris gets very bashful around the Eschaton.  Now, I'll admit that, according to my BPWH/SWH/CTC hypotheses, teleology rules, especially in the 'End'.  But still, you'd have thought that one other person might have acknowledged the message, by now.  The Telos will have its work cut out for it.  Give the Telos a chance?  

But no one has chosen to engage in a substantive fashion.  You all just sit around the edge and nibble, if that much.  You may be waiting for Godot.  Maybe Godot is waiting for you?  When will you wonder about the big guy upstairs, openly?  When we're literally in the trenches?  When will you start to think that there must be that of God in all of us?  When will you take on the bigger questions, beyond mere survival, beyond blue-sky technophoria?  

From: Dan
Date: July 30, 2015 at 3:49:51 PM EDT
To: Chris
Cc: 20+ others.......
Subject: Godot is just waiting for you to get of your a**es........

Chris et al.,

The eschaton is whenever you want it to be.  It seems that most who have already thought about it, used to put it after an Earthly Millennium, 1,000 years in their future, after an imminent 4M/K/SoT/X2 event.  

2,000 years has already past, so I suppose that 1,000 years, now, would be an upper bound.  I suggest a few hundred years, as a compromise.  

The 4M/K/SoT/X2 event I suggest is mainly about the MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts, which entails standing our modern worldview on its 'head'.  This will happen sooner than later.   This is instead of a physical armageddon.  It would be a spiritual armageddon, or apocalypse/revelation, if you will.  Thus the SWH/CTC/BPWH.  But most folks expect at least a minimal degree of personalism, so somebody's got to volunteer for that.  This could easily be grass-roots/internet kind of stuff.  There probably are some insiders waiting for a signal.  Ron speaks of a recent alignment of 32 vectors of the apocalypse.

But I'm not telling you any of thing that you don't already know, in your heart of hearts.  I'm just using my God-given common-sense.  There is no need for fancy logic.  Folks, not infrequently, ask WWJD.  Ok, WWGD - same thing.  You don't have to be logical whiz or rocket scientist to play this game.  

There need be no magic bunny in any hat.  It's common sense.  Period.  All we have to do is unlearn a lot of Newtonian-style abstractions.  Not take them to be God's truth.  

And David is right, it doesn't really matter if Jesus actually existed or not.  He could have easily been invented, after the fact.  Well, maybe not that easy.  But whoever wants to play the 4M/K/SoT/X2 card will need to borrow the best parts.  Yes, I've volunteered.  But God did not come down and invite me.  Maybe there was a nudge or two, and Ron seemed to be always holding my hand.  

About the rest of humanity?  Give them half a chance, and stop filling their heads with nonsense.  I'm not here because I'm some smart ass.  I'm just smart enough to know that most 'smart' people don't have half a clue.  

Have I left anything out?  I'm sure that you can fill it in, individually or collectively.  

From: Dan
Date: July 30, 2015 at 5:05:39 PM EDT
To: David
Cc: .........
Subject: How about them vectors.......?

David,

[.......]

Ok, I wonder the same...... what are those darn Vectors, Ron......?

I have learned a few things.......

A substantial portion of them are domestic, relating to an end-game, with the political gridlock. This may be along the lines of a domestic armageddon that Cy's militia-types anticipate.

They are threat/region-based, in the main, it seems. Many individuals are assigned to individual threats/regions, but only a handful concern themselves with the global picture. Those few have tried to raise a more general alarm, but to little avail. What's a body to do?

I have specifically asked if any vectors are assigned to unconventional/anomalous sources. The non-answer implied a positive answer, or so it seemed.

A few weeks ago, it seemed that they had not been updated, on a monthly basis, perhaps. But, no, they had been updated, just changed very little. They are still pointing to 9/2016, as a crucial date. A September surprise, if you will. That's where it stands today. I gather, though, that our intrepid Ron is not losing sleep over it.

I would suggest that some of us make a concerted effort to find out more. Kit might have some general insight.

I have slightly different approach to immterialism.......

Besides the natual cycles, both organic and inorganic, which I recognize as mainly just phenomenological, I do have the general problem of dealing with non-sapient, non-sentient entities.  

What is a body to do........?  

We can use logic more robustly.  We can start with the sapient beings..........  

It's hard to make sense of them w/o bodies in 3D space.  What about non-sapient bodies?  Must they be granted an independent existence?  What about 'heaven'?  Most of 'heaven' would be a transition zone for apocatastasis.  As for the cosmic Monad, its body is the collectivity of the Earthly bodies, neither separate nor non-bodily.  It is the Ouroboros, if you will.  

Earth, in the first aproximation, is just a solid, impenetrable sphere, either convex or concave, depending on the PoV.  But it is merely a geometic object, with some sort of 'gravity', to be the primary setting.  This may be taken as a 'geo-logical' construct.  No non-sapient objects need be postulated, yet, in this first approximation, just a logical 'boundary condition'.  At worst, this 'construct could be posited as implicate to our collective uCs.  

This is just an attempt to rationalise a significant part of Kant's Noumena.  

Then what.......?  We do add on the phenomenolgical cycles.  They also could be attributed mainly to our uCs.  The celestial and biological cycles being the most significant.  Meteorological cycles need not be neglected.  

Only after all this, need we concern ourselves with Sam Johnson's 'stone on the path'.  Yes, we could speak of an absence of any stones, as with an absence of stars.  We might fill in the 'background' with a combination of sophisticated fractals, of various sorts.  But, still, we hust ascribe to those objects some minimal individual identity.  

I suggest that this be a residual, relative identity, relative mainly to us, sapients.  Only we, sapients, can place objects in a specific, catograpical, temporal (4D) context.  But, still, Sam's stone nags at us.  Some other phenomenon could dislodge the stone, quite apart from our uCs.  Trees falling in the forest come to mind.  Weather wears down mountains.  

Are these not part of the natural cycles?  But, we do discern indivdual objects on Pluto, for example. Does that mean that every planet in the universe has the same degree of inependent 'objectivity' and specificity as does Pluto? Lacking ET/sapient observers, I remain skeptical.

Are there planets in other galaxies waiting to be discovered? Can their be grades of potential existence, relative existence?

We confuse identity and existence.  Existence is relative, say I as an immaterialist.

That's not the impression we have.  We suppose that existence is absolute, as unthinking materialists.  

Who is to say that a universe exists, if it contains no sapient beings?  Or, even if it did, once it is gone? No, existence is relative to what?  The buck has to stop somewhere.  Where can is stop, short of an eternal, singular being?  This would account for our natural proclivity to posit such a being.  

Don't sentient animals have such a proclivity?  Can they doubt their own existence?  The problem is whose existence do they not doubt?  We tend to suppose that our existence is singular and personal.  Do they?  If they don't, who does, for them?

We suppose that rocks and trees exist absolutely, unto themselves, independent of us or anything else.  But is that a justified true belief?  

Relativity and quantum theory call that unsupported notion into question.  

I notice that a particular tree exists.  But, actually, I generally note no such thing, only as an independent abstraction.  We notice personhood, just instinctively.  

We note treeness, along with some degree of familiarity.  Sigularity, such as it is, is ours to confer.  Treeness does not, of itself, confer absolute existence.

The tree, the rock, the mountain exist only in temporality.  I can say that presence partakes of eternity, and so is absolute.  But that eternal presence has to be present to some eternal, singular being, otherwise it is all too easily relativised.  By what, exactly?  The unstated premise is that relativity is natural, which is rather equivalent to relationalism.  Which is what I am, naturally.  

Well, are we ready for prime time?  Where is my achilles tendon?  What do I have to stand on?  Other folks may have difficulty imagining the frailty of existence.  What's a body w/o a CNS?  We understand in theory, but it's something else in person.  

Other folks probably won't get it, if they haven't already.  

Field theory speaks to this.  Relativity requires field theory.  How so?  

Fields and particles don't mix.  Does the psi field require relativity?  Or is it the other way around?  Point particles are ok, sort of.  Infinte self-energy, unless probabilized.  

From: Dan
Date: August 3, 2015 at 10:59:01 AM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: ......
Subject: Shut up and calculate...... what....exactly?

Deepak,

Funny you would wonder about what's real.  I've been wondering, myself.

Physicists have brought existence into question, practically, with various forms of (existential?) technology, and theoretically with modern physics.  But they just shut up and calculate, and leave the rest of us to ask the stupid questions.  When we do ask those 'stupid' questions, they demand that we shut up and let _them_ calculate...... but what do they calculate?  

Now that I'm, rather suddenly, perceptibly closer to non-existence, I figure that I've earned the right to have a dog in this fight, namely, myself.......

You would think that every calculation would begin and end with the question of reality.  But, no.  Calculation is relative..... to what?  

We ran into this problem a while back.  Ruth, I believe, pointed out that Bohm's 'beables' were notoriously non-relativistic.  Jack had been calculating a non-existent.  Time wasted?  

I would like to point out that this problem of existence is rather more general and fundamental than we usually want to suppose.  Besides being an immaterialist, I'm also a relationalist, which may amount to the same thing.  

The question could start with Wigner's friend.  Where does the observation buck stop?  Ruth suggests that it rests with advanced 'reactions'.  The whole universe, past, present and future, necessarily involves itself in every 'measurement'.  Wow!  That's Wigner's friend on steroids.  

But then what about unobservable universes?  Is that an oxymoron?  Suppose we're the only observers, and we blow ourselves to smithereens?  Surely, we did exist.  Says who?  Where?  When?  In which universe?  The one that was three universes over there, to the left?  Oh, that one!  

What is to backstop existence?  Relativistic probability waves?  Not so sure about that.  

Who or what confers existence?  If it is something finite, where, exactly does the buck stop?  If not finite....... hmmm......

Shut up, Smith..... just calculate.  But how do I calculate my own existence?  I should have been an existentialist.  I guess I missed my calling.  


On Aug 3, 2015, at 5:50 AM, Deepak wrote:

Today's San Francisco Chronicle


http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/Do-We-Really-Know-What-s-Real-The-Most-6418140.php

Yes, we tend to take existence for granted.  All of it!?  

Well, yes.  Because where does existence stop?  It's all or nothing.  What about the little green men, LGM's?  Other folks wonder the same thing, but if you wonder too much you are considered to be crazy or to have too much spare time.  

I suggest that reality is relative to sapience, where sapience is postulated to be non-finite.  Sapience, by my definition, partakes of eternity.  That's what a soul is about.

But are those ice chunks on Pluto any less real than the ice cubes in my Pellegrino?  

Was the Moondust any less real than Earth dust....... after we brought it back?  

Would the dust and ice chunks be any less real on the exo-planets?  What do we mean by 'real'?  That involves questions of potentiality or of the hypothetical.  How real is an electron?  Under what conditions?  

'Presumably', exo-planets do not exist in s-, p- or n-waves, before or after we measure them.  Objects on Earth do not fuzz-out when we're not looking.  It is not clear that it would be logically possible.  What would a fuzzy pencil look like?  The air molecules collapse it's wave function, presumably.  In a vacuum?  It measures itself.  

What does a hypothetical planet look like?  How would we find out?  It would look like how we would think it would look, barring a surprise or two.  Would it be blank?  Not clear what 'blank' would look like?  Not sure that's even a possible way to look.  

Behind reality is logic.  No blanks or blindspots, allowed.  No square circles.  A planet in a distant, unihabited galaxy?  That is more than a little hypothetical.  But we seem not to allow gradations.  It's all or nothing.  

Trees fall unobserved in the forest.  Required by logic, more or less.  We can observe them, after the fact.  Is a galaxy like an unobserved forest.  How could it be different?  We might even posit ET's.  We can observe supernovas in them.  Are all stars thereby reified?  Planets?  Ice chunks?  ET's?  

It could be a virtual reality, either way.  What difference could it make?  How might we observe any difference?  We create the virtual reality, in the future.  How could we outwit our future selves?  Pretty hard to do.  

This would be co-Creation.  It could all be based on our final models.  But what do we base the models on?  Computer simulations, plus fractals of various sorts.  Why not feed the simulations directly into the telescopes?  Would't somebody notice?  Where do we put the simulations?  In our collective minds.  How do the photons get into the telescopes?  They don't.  

It is a coordinated dreamscape. Coordinated from the collective uCs of the future. We are the projection back in 'time'.




(cont.)

There was another session with Ron.  Not a whole lot to report.  Still some focus on the political process in the US as becoming polarized, leading up to the election.  Still the Sept '16 date.  But now he did admit that the real problem comes after the election, when the victors fail to moderate.  Vicious circle of increasing polarization.  He referred to the post-election phase as analysis over and above the computer models.  

He invited Aliyah and me, and others, to contribute our own vectors.  She mentioned education, and I sugested an increasing polarization between private and public schooling in other countries.

He mentioned the sources and distribution of food and energy.  He also mentioned abortion as an indicator of social tension.  Family breakdown was mentioned.  Aliyah inserted a MoAPS for Sept '16.  

Abortion is a particular hobby-horse of his, and there are many inputs to fertility, which can have positive and negative correlations with social tension.  This may count against the level of sophistication and objectivity.  

One could write letters to politicans.  One could talk to people at NGO's, but most of the models and data are classified.  At some point there will have to be some external intervention, especially wrt the MoAPS, if such is to occur.  

There have been other suggetions on the email list.  These tend to revolve around economics, plague, WMD, insurrection to name the most prominent.  Religious tensions have been mentioned, with various end time scenarios.  Failure of states, and various political coups.  

It is the global breakdown of energy and food supplies that is paricularly worrisome. In advanced countries it may be the breakdown of infrastructure. Ultimately, the breakdown of the credit supply may be the trigger of other forms of breakdown and failure.

Immigration, political and economic refugees are another form of breakdown, or polarization. They may be symptoms of collapse. Diamond wrote the book on Collapse.

Peak oil is another indicator. But then we have fracking to compilcate the equation.



(cont.)

Deepak's article is well expressed.

Dan, "trees fall unobserved in the forest"? Isn't this what Deepak zeroed in on?

Credit supply requires natural resources and willingness to exploit them wisely.

So, perhaps the motivation and wisdom combo factor is the key. And maybe what can be done about it is the mystery.

Skai,

Deepak has any number of thoughtful and provocative articles on the SF Chronicle website.  He is mostly defending philosophy and theism against their 'scientific' critics.  He gets quite a bit of his amunition from the Sarfatti list.  

I have tried to engage him on the SWH, but he has mostly side-stepped the arguments.  He also avoids any eschatology.  Clever guy, maybe too clever.  
---------------

My favorite tree-falling-in-the-forest is now the Pluto photogaphs.  Perhaps the Europa photographs were more compelling, in their day. Those were the ones with the active geysers.  

Can ET geysers have a different explanation than the terrestrial ones?  I think not.  Wrt the terrestrial geysers, we say that their absence would be more surprising than their presence.  That hardly constitutes an explanation.  How do I explain volcanoes?  

How do I explain mountains?  Hills?  Techtonics?  Layers of rock?  How do I save the appearances?  Statics vs. dynamics.  Tree growing vs. tree falling.  Grass growing.  Biology grows or dies.  It's all independent of us.  So is Europa, evidently.  Are there unobservable Europas?  Are there unobservable geological formations?  

Can I say 'no', as with a virtual reality?  We could ask a similar question of atoms.  Size doesn't matter.  

When I say phenomenological cycles happen, I taking the superficial path.  No guts?  I see atoms as (mathematical) abstractions.  But that does not grant them an independent existence, which they are assumed to have.  Fibers in cloth need such atoms.  

The intuition of atoms comes from the division of substances.  Otherwise, how could we cut or scratch a substance?  They would have to have logical boundaries.  Atoms are so convenient, but also so complex.





(cont.)

Perhaps my implicit phenomenology is too shallow.  It need not just be of the WYSIWYG variety.  I can add depth, without embracing atoms and planets, one would think, although it has not been done.

Is there not a middle ground between downward and upward causation?  I've used co-Creation as such a middle ground.  


Let's take animals as stand-ins for atoms and planets.......

Are they not ontologically independent?  I suggest not.  Their individuality/independence is limited.  First and foremost, they belong to species.  This fact greatly limits their independence.  

On top of their species behavior, there is randomness.  Cannot the same be said of humans?  That would exclude our personal memory and our sapience, for instance.  

IOW, animals exhibit mostly downward causation.  The same could be said for atoms and planets.  Is it that simple?  

Planets have memories, geologically, as much as the Earth does.  So may clumps of atoms.  Animals bear scars and ID tags.  They have complex, non-idetic memories.  

Externalities have an impact on independence.  A clump behaves generically.  Big enough clumps, planets, do have an 'internal' memory.  A planet is a conglomeration of generic systems.  Combinatorics need not change the ontology.  There would be interactions.  They could be modeled relatively easily.  But so what?  Each sunspot could be unique.  Each storm.  But only we could invest it with that individuality.  Pattern recognition.  If we were there.  But we're not.  

Anything exceptional about Pluto?  It's uniquness was displayed for only a moment.  So it should have less...... individuality.  That may not make sense.  It could only be fuzzier.  Low resolution.  How much less?  

It is the suggestion that individuality must be inernal. External uniqueness is ad-hoc, superficial.




(cont.)

Conglomerations of entities do not an ontology make.  This is rather like the sorities problem, it has to do with identity.  Independent identity.  Animals come close, but they don't measure up.  Their identity is borrowed from us.  It would be an ersatz ID.  

A planet is such a conglomeration.  It does not have an internal ID.  Everything is parasitic upon us, in that manner.  Independence, though, is much weaker than ID.  The tree falling in the forest, relates to independence, not to ID.  But is that a real problem?  

There is a waterfall on an uninhabited, unobserved, unobservable planet.  It could exist without my or our or cosmic Cs knowing about it.  But how, where, when would it exist?  Nowhere, nohow.  Does it need to be located, in order to fulfill its ontological functions?  What are its functions.  Erosion is a big one.  We see grand canyons, for instance.  

An entity can be an actor, w/o having an ID.  An atom in a gas?  Is it an individual effect, or is it an abstraction from the phenomenology of gases?  The occlusions of stars by their planets, do they entail waterfalls?  Generically, perhaps.  What does that categorization not entail?  

It need not entail specificity or contextuality.  That need not be gratis or spontaneous.  If we could send a probe, contextuality would go with it.  We would supply it.  Otherwise, it would remain a potential entity.  Maybe we don't quite understand potentiality.  It exists only in our imagination.  Unicorns almost have a life, it would seem.  An ersatz waterfall can erode.  Ask any painter.  

We strive to save the appearances.  Where are the four billion years of Earth's prehistory, if not in our texts?  (see Barfield)  Eternity exists in the present.  It is not a place.  This is not to say there is not an afterlife, of sorts.  It, too, is mainly a construct, of the eternal present/Presence.  

Is this coherent?  It seems less coherent than materialism, on the face of it.  But it has depth.  It may have legs.  

Where is Pluto, if not in our heads?  It is in our photogarphs, but where are they?  We use photos to refresh our memories.  Or do we use our memories to refresh the photos?  How can they be distinct from our collective uCs?  


I am a strong idealist.  I believe in potential/shadow planets.  What is a shadow planet?  Could we not observe an occluding black hole in another galaxy?  Logically, they must 'exist', we just have to 'locate' them.  A shadow planet is an eschatological designation.  It is an entity w/o a completed context.  It exists in unicorn/quantum land.  

We are an incomplete entity. We are in a potential cancer/chrysalis state. We are waiting for Godot. Even Pluto awaits Godot. That is our 'photo' finish.




(cont.)

Does the moon exist when an astronaut isn't walking on it? ;-)

The only coherent explanation is many worlds, IMHO.

Did the apocraphyl rock exist while Samuel Johnson was kicking it?  His foot rebounded from the kick, allegedly.  Maybe he stubbed his toe on it.  Maybe there's a plaque on the rock commemorating this event.  Souvenir shops may sell replicas as pet rocks.  All that would lend robustness to the rock and to rocks in general.  Rocks have been socialized, thusly, down through the ages.  

Exoplanets less so, but the third rock from Alpha Centauri partakes of that socialization.  The quantum is a measure of that process.  Quantumland exists also in some sense.  There is integrated information.  

We have never caught a rock in the process socialization, not even Moon rocks. Existence seems such a binary affair, except in quantumland. Exoplanets, though? The ones that may never be observed.



(cont.)

Water is transparent, in many cases.  We can see the bottom of the lake, etc.  With sonar and seismic reflection we can 'see' through miles of water or rock formations.  Is there an ontolgical difference between the instrumented and non-instrumented 'seeing'.  Wrt atoms I tend to say 'yes'.  

But the rock or tree we perceive is also an abstraction.  There need be no ontological difference between modes of perception, direct or indirect.  So, perhaps, I should drop the implied distinction.  

But with exo-planets there is an existential distinction.  How am I distinguishing between existential and ontological?  I'm not sure this is a distinction that has been made before.  

Obviously, it is a counter-factual distinction.  If you were there to observe exo-planets in a distant galaxy, you wouldn't.  Admittedly, that is an awkward construction.  More precisely, I'm suggesting that life could not, does not, exist at such hypothetical locations.  Therefore, chemicals do not exist in such places.  

But wait, we do measure the existence of spectral lines in distant galaxies.  You see the difficulty in trying to make this distinction.  

I could just posit that sapient life does not exist at such locations.  But that seems to beg the question about rocks, etc.  The upshot could be that we cannot make the existential/ontological distinction.  The rock I kick is no more or less real than the one I speculate about in a distant galaxy.  That doesn't seem right.  

It has to do with vicarious identity.  We can, and sometimes do, identify/individuate the rock at-hand.  But that is 'only' a matter of degree.  I could witness the occlusion of a black hole in a distant galaxy.  That might be considered a step toward identification.  Positing hypothetical beings is not such a step.  What do we call this limbo of existence, if not something existential?  

We have a real degree of specificity, which must be reflected in our (final) ontology.  This degreeness must follow our instrumentation, such as with the Pluto photos.  

We need this 'degreeness' in order to make a distinction between strong and weak idealism.  One purpose is to exclude unobservable universes.  


Listen up, sports fans........

Degreeness.........?  

Is it real?  Can it be observed?  Yes and no, respectively.  But, it can and will be observed eschatologically.  It is a temporal artifact.... the latter is.  

This 'degreeness' (of existence) lends its support to the ontological significance of sapience.  It definitely extends the quantum of uncertainty to the macroscopic realm.  Can it be turned around?  Does it explain the quantum, in some backhanded manner?  

Existence is not binary.  We knew this for the quantum realm, but not for the classical realm.  Can we turn that around?  It would have to be very subtle.  We could not exist w/o the quantum.  We can exist w/o the exo-planets.  

The tree falling in the forest...... does it make a sound?  10%.  That sounds bogus.  Maybe we'll have to live with the uncertainty.  
--------------

I have not sent the following email, due to the questions at the end of it........  how might this be reposed to not simply sound like a restatement of immaterialism.....?  

Listen up sports fans.......

I may be crazy, but...... I think I may have stumbled onto something that should be incredibly obvious, but isn't........ yet......

We are willing to suppose that quantum/microscopic existence is probable, but we suppose that classical/macroscopic existence is binary.  Maybe that's a big mistake, and the consequences could be earthshaking, IMO, if I'm not crazy.  

What is the status of unobservable universes, for instance?  Unobserved worlds?  

You may have noted the (not so?) subtle shift in the 'mood' of the verb.  They are both counter factual, to a _degree_.  The degree depends upon our concept of temporality.  The binary concept of existence depends upon the 'openness' of existence.  But what if we inhabit a finite universe, in space and time?

It's possible that we'll never know, but we tend to assume that God or ET's may know, thus the binarity that we assign to existence, almost unwittingly.  

But, if we are the prime locus of sapience, in a finite universe, we will have to face up to the fact of probable existence, much against our present _intuitions_.

There is a science of probability and statistics.  There is a logic/mathematics of probabilities and conditionals.  There is, of course, ontology.  The various calculations may be temporal.  

Immaterialists take all claims of existence with a grain of salt.  There is Relationalism.  

But..... we don't think we need to, or can, apply it, the calculus of it, as a matter of course, to ordinary and no so ordinary entities.  To wit, the opening questions..... unobservable universes, unobserved worlds.  

If we inhabit a finite world, then degreeness of existence takes on an absolute quality, not quite the same as probable.  

Could there be life on a low-degree planet, for instance?  It depends.......

This matter of 'degreeness' may just be a restatement of immaterialism, for instance.  How might it differ?  

Or I wish to imply that all existence is conditional, eg., as Descartes stated, I could be dreaming, but, at least, I'm thinking.  

We might blow ourselves up tomorrow.  And we might be the only sapient creatures in the only extant universe.  If that were to be the case, a lot of ontology would be left, undecided.  And what about our own paltry existence?  

I have not made the case that existence is not binary.  That seems to be the crux of the matter.

Future existence, most all would agree, may not be binary.  Past existence......?  The past is relative, most suppose,but, yes, binary.  The exact cut between past and future may not be so easy to define.  

The assumption usually is that macro-matter looks after its own existence.  

I probably have to include something about the identity of indiscernibles  (PII), but that is already a step toward immaterialism.  

What's past is past.  What's future is negotiable.  

What about the unobservable universes?  We don't know, for instance, if past or future would be relevant.  They would have their own time frames, presumably.  

We come back to the question of unobserved worlds.  How would one of them differ from one of those?  


3:40---------

Once we arrive at some future point, all existence in its vicinity would be binary, it is widely assumed.

There is a diffenence of opinion wrt the ontology of mathematical objects. Whatever that ontology may be, it is assumed to be other than that for physical objects.



(cont.)

There is nothing that non-binary existence would look like, beyond a low resolution.  Non-visual sensory modes would be harder to describe.  Exo-planets are the exemplary objects.  They come to us only through instrumented abstraction, but how easily we can imagine their surfaces and geology.  

It would be perplexing to even suppose that their atoms were not as robust as ours.  How thoroughly has the unifrormity of the laws of physics been tested?  Very, at least wrt stellar matters.  As thoroughly as the physics of the subterranian.  The example of submarine lake beds provides a visual continuity for geological issues.  So do mines.  

There is the 'shyness' effect of the abnormal.  PK is easily drowned out, thereby.  Could exoplanets be brought under that aegis?  

The principle of identity may need closer scrutiny.  So does relationalism.  How is reality relational?  It seems intuitive, but, obviously it has no observational component.  

We bring our cloud of relationalism with us, especially as astronauts, but also as probes.  Most of binary ontology rests upon our conterfactual intuitions.  Teleology could have a big effect here.  

There is a kind of spotlight effect here, in 4-d.  The glare of the shyness effect.  Plus there is uniformity of nature, and its non-local aegis.  But only under the aegis sapience, generally.  This non-locality need not apply to exoplanets.  


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

From the perspective of a virtual relity,  planets could programed in, generically, to be specified only on demand.  Once specified, they would be retained in memory, of course.  

I could draw the line at exo-biplogy, certianly at exo-sapience.  I suppose that biology depends, especially on local sapience, geology much less so.  Exo-planets, for the most part, could be virtual, much more easily than exobiology.  I can leave that, for now, as my general answer to the problem.  

What next.....?  That was a big issue that came up mostly in relation to the recent Pluto photos.  

Should I get back to the mail list?  Or has my initial reason has been dealt with?  It was about non-binary existence.  We will not have to face up to this question.  Would the question become significant in an eschatological setting?  

One would expect the relaxation of the teleological vectors to lead to a relaxation of the rigidity of the present.  There would be an accelerating transition to non-, or supra-, terrestrial setting.  

I need to capture this concept more succinctly or provocatively.  The MoAPS would be the introduction.  The Telos needs to be specified.  It is closely associated with an omega, which could be the same thing.  

How does it relate to the technological singularity?  That would be shared by the MoAPS.  It maybe that the MoAPS would have only an indirect effect on the breakdown of reality.  It could still be significant.  

I could suggest to Deepak a prophetic view of history.  How to sell this to Jack?  A breakdown of the binarity of existence.  That could be a lot to unpack.  With sapience inforce, there can be much more reliance on a top-down approach.  Retrocausality would be more in evidence.  Less 'random' behavior, which could be compatible with more spontenaity.  

I can take the idea of a paradigm shift to the list.  Some sort of breakthrough.......

From: Dan
Date: August 11, 2015 at 5:50:23 PM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: 20+ others......
Subject: Singularity or Paradigm Shift vs ELE?

Here's something we might agree on.......

We are approaching a cusp in our history. Negatively it could be an ELE, extinction level event. Positively it could be a breakthrough of a technological or philosophical nature.

It is an either or proposition. There is a societal collapse wherein we send ourselves back to the stone age, or there is a breakthrough of sufficient magnitude to change the social priorities.

This juncture might be characterized by our global situation being modeled by either a cancer or a chrysalis.

A common ground for the first two possibilities, technological singularity (TS) and paradigm shift (PS), would be the adoption or realization of a virtual reality. This possibility ought to satisfy the radicals of either the physicists or the philosophers. Jack could help out with the holographic model, in this regard, and also with the uploading of consciousness.

Perhaps we should explore the common ground further........

(cont.)

Please excuse the reverse chronological order........

From: Dan
Date: August 12, 2015 at 9:35:02 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 17 others.......
Subject: Re: Singularity override......

(cont........2)  


If I were in the loop with the (US) gov't, I might, naively, be jumping up and down with [these] apocalyptic vectors.  I hope/assume that Ron knows something that the rest of us don't.  If this is the case, it would have to be sourced 'off world'.  

Be that as it may, here are the rest of us.  Many of us, in this corner of the world, are materialists/physicalists.  Wonderful.  But, for the purposes of this exercise, we must set aside some of our biases, in order that we may struggle effectively with matters of ultimate concern.  

Is it much too late to take up the Leibnizian challenge...... to defend the BPW hypothesis?  I argue 'not'.

There is little to be gained, particularly at this late date, in defending that this be the Nth best world, is there, logically, or even that there be others like it, we being morally redundant?  Apologies, again, to Gary.

The assumption to defend is that we are not a cosmic experiment.  That there is some sort of VALIS/cosmic-consciousness (cCs) that concerns itself with our existence.  There is implied to be a filter, a-la, Aharanov weak measurements, etc, that filters out the sub-optimal.  

The issue would be whether such a model is automatically implausible.  And, secondly, what would we do with a plausible model?  

BTW, my phone # is xxxx for any questions or comments that might better be handled individually and/or verbally.  



On Aug 12, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Dan wrote:

(cont........)

Too many of us are playing games, and standing on ceremony.  I am attempting otherwise.  How's my driving........?  

I point my finger particularly at Jack, but I cut him extra slack because he is the Godfather to many of our being here, in one 'spot'.  

I am stepping up, now, in this manner, for two reasons..... Ron waxes apocalyptic and my rather too close brush with a stroke.

Ron is well known to most of us here.  He works for (the) acronymous agency, allegedly.  He often poses as a 'rogue' agent.  He supports ISIS, for instance.  He is something of a jokester/trickster, but I have found it expeditious to take some of his remarks seriously, over a longer stretch than I sometimes care to admit.  

I don't know how seriously to take his apocalypse, well, I'm choosing to take it seriously.  For the rest of you, you may hedge your bets, but, please, not at my/our expense.  Like I say, your are welcome to preface your remarks, explicitly or implicitly, with your reservations, but no more than that, please.  

The issue before us is whether humankind can rationally act to avoid 'apocalypse'.  


(cont.......2)



On Aug 12, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Dan wrote:

I agree with Paul that, as of now, the most likely scenario is some combination of financial/societal collapse along with a random nuke or two, taking a relatively benign view.  People will awake first to the fact that there is nowhere to hide.  Everything is on the line.  Even the media might get serious, for once.

And there may be an override, conceptually speaking.  We need not reject, preemptively, a positive role for an attitude adjustment on the part of a coherent segment of the public, through the social media, perhaps.  This is the least we might hope for..... saving ourselves any room for 'action'.

IMHO, in order for there to be any hope for this positive adjustment, we must set aside, for the time being, the hypothesis of multiverses, and even multi-worlds.  This can no longer be a purely academic discussion, in that regard, not on this thread, please.

IOW, you may preface your remarks with a demurral, and then focus on presenting your own model for the BPW, best possible world, or on one of the others.

By this request, I may lose most or all of the audience, but someone needs to try.  Now there may be a BPW version of the multiverse, but I have yet to see it.  My remarks are directed particularly to Gary.  He is uniformly pessimistic, regularly foreseeing nuclear destruction.  

I am taking seriously some of Ron's remarks concerning the imminence of a projected collapse.  His confiding in me/us may be noteworthy.   Academically, another person I'm keeping an eye on is Brian, Ruth having already unsubscribed.  He might provide some insight into the academic mind, in these regards.  

IOW.........

What can the rational mind contemplate, and act upon, by way of ultimate concerns......

Allow me to leave this draft standing, and then restate some of the above, this, obviously, is also an exercise in spontaneity.  


(cont.......)

And the following email was sent later........

From: Dan
Date: August 12, 2015 at 4:16:28 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 17 others
Subject: Underwhelmed in Baltimore.......

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


I continue to be underwhelmed by the response to my several emails over the past several weeks.  

It is to be expected that the vast majority of people would not respond to a general 'solicitation' of this sort, but this is not a random 'solicitation', I don't think.  So let us attempt to sort this out.

a.)  Some have responded, but generally not in ways intended to solicit further reasoned discussion.

What is being solicited?  Reasoned discussion of a very few propositions, but mainly the following one........

b.)  Possible linkage is being made between this discussion and global security.  

You may, of course, dispute #b.  I bring two points to bear on #b.......

1.)  The general proposition that a MoAPS of a certain nature could be sufficient to defuse a global crisis.  

2.)  Ron's word that, indeed, such a crisis could be imminent.  

Perhaps I should stop right there, to solicit responses.  Allow me to reiterate.......

With regard to #b, we have two separate issues......  1.) a putative paradigm shift that could influence world events in a positive and timely fashion, and 2.) supposedly inside information about some imminent crisis.

I am requesting feedback wrt the separate propositions.  In particular, what would Ron have to do to lend sufficient credence to #2, for you to respond to #1?  Or, for some of you, we might set aside #2, and just focus on #1, for now.  Is anyone prepared for that step?  

Or, for some reason, are both requests unreasonable or incredible, on the face of it?

Have I not covered all the bases?  

From: Dan
Date: August 12, 2015 at 5:26:39 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 17 others......
Subject: Re: Underwhelmed in Baltimore.......

Thank you, Paul, for you responses.

To wit: A major super-power conflict, for example, will be necessary to get the public to pay any attention. The mere threat of a crisis is insufficient.

Yes, many would agree. But that does not respond to my question. I'm not speaking to the general public. I'm speaking to you and a very few others, most of whom have been known to each other for some time. These few are rather knowledgable on many topics.

Let's take you, generically, as an example........

You are suggesting that you cannot imagine any set of circumstances, short of a war or another financial collapse, that would persuade you, personally, to seriously consider an alternate paradigm. I don't see the sense of this supposition. Come war and/or collapse, presumably mere survival would be your top priority, not philosophical discussion, and the same would be true for most others.

The whole point of this putative discussion is to preempt such a catastrophe.

Impossible, you say. Maybe. But then I invoke Ron. I suggest that he has access to inside information that would not only provide a rationale for this discussion, but would support one or another paradigm shift, for instance.

It is this latter proposition that I wish us to consider, in the context of the discussion of paradigms.

From: Dan
Date: August 13, 2015 at 9:23:31 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 18 others........
Subject: Re: Underwhelmed in Baltimore.......

Remaining so........

So, I put the question back to Ron...... what do we do, Kimosabe...... actually just reporting my lack of success.....?  

The 'Sarfatti' list and OMF provide only the occasional shrug.  Ron suggests that, on occasion, he has had access to top people in DC, including the pres.  But he, too, has had little success in gaining any traction with the apocalypse vectors.  People shrug, inside the beltway, as well as outside.  

But, still, with virtually no explicit prodding, Ron said that he would think upon a strategy.  

What might we suggest.......

A top issue should be one of linkage.  There has been nothing stated explicitly as to a linkage between the vectors and the phenomenology, nonetheless, I can hardly afford to surmise that there is none such.  But, still, he has given no indication that he has played this card, except, given his background and continuing associations, it could readily be surmised by anyone knowledgeable.  

Given that such linkage does exist, how might we proceed?  It may not exist, but then I would be of little assistance.  So, yes, I'm assuming that I'm not merely his bbq-buddy, in this regard.  

How to play the Card......?

Off the top......  we go back to the 'crooks, loons and worse', bearing a gift......  We could, presumably, hand them some serious meat.  Even if there were no such linkage, I might suggest this course of action.  

More shrugs......?  

From: Dan
Date: August 13, 2015 at 10:18:09 AM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: 18 others........
Subject: Re: Singularity override......

Deepak,  

Your bedside manner fails you.  But I do applaud your sincerity and candor, in this regard.  

Nonetheless, your assuredness, in this matter, may be just a tad overdrawn.  

Are, for instance, quite assured that we have never been visited?  Are you privy to any messages from the Visitors?  Did they, for instance, tell us to 'pack it in'?  Did they say, 'What a darn shame!'?  'Better luck next time!'?



On Aug 13, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

Cosmic consciousness likes to experiment just like we do .
The human species was an interesting experiment that did not work .


Deepak Chopra
2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
The Chopra Foundation

On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Dan wrote:

Deepak,  

Assuming, of course that no one or no thing cares..........

If that were the case, how did we manage to get this far?  Just dumb luck, I suppose.....?  



On Aug 13, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

The universe exists in consciousness alone
Consciousness is infinite non local and dimensionless
The human experiment is already a failed one and human extinction may be the only option for a conscious evolving universe
Homo Sapiens are violent predators and destroying 14 billion years of cosmic evolution
AI from an emotionally immature species is suicide
The future event horizon had already determine this !
Ask Jack


Deepak Chopra

On Aug 12, 2015, at 11:26 AM, JACK SARFATTIwrote:

You're being paranoid water supplies are being damaged because of human stupidity and incompetence not because of deliberate intent

We see plenty of stupidity on this list so we should not be surprised if it happens elsewhere remember what Einstein said he wasn't sure if universe was infinite but he was pretty sure that human stupidity is

From: Dan
Date: August 13, 2015 at 10:50:29 AM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: 17 others.......
Subject: Re: Singularity override......

Deepak,

Fair enough....... we have hardly been angels. But many folks, in my experience, do strive toward integrity, shall we say.

Still, it's the 'experimental' assumption that may be overdrawn. It is a widely held assumption, admittedly.

But one may have ample allowance for free-will and still countenance 'destiny', on the larger scale.

Should we give up on Destiny, just yet? Hope does tend to spring eternal. I doubt that you are quite such an utter exception. Can you not possibly imagine that cosmic consciousness is have a bit of fun, at our considerable expense? Brinksmanship comes to mind, for instance.

The question before us is whether it is time to seriously despair. To just disappear in the night.

Are you so much smarter than the rest, that you can take this course, without peeking over your shoulder? Or are you, in your heart of hearts, still waiting for Godot?



On Aug 13, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

No I speak only my opinion
I have no authority in this matter
What I say is how I feel
The evidence for our behavior is there to see - Climate change , mechanized death , nuclear weapons , eco destruction , extinction of species , contaminated food , social injustice , economic injustice , human sex trade and more


Deepak Chopra

From: Dan
Date: August 13, 2015 at 11:25:34 AM EDT
To: Deepak
Cc: ........
Subject: Re: Singularity override......

Transcendence, you say.

That does sound like a good, doctorly, suggestion. I'm all in favor of that.

However, it does seem a tad selfish, as just a personal option, even shortsighted, perhaps......

There has, on the other hand, been a widespread expectation concerning the Visitors.........

I have to refer, yet again, to the them. I have been less than subtle in my suggestions, on this list, that, indeed, we have been visited, and most everyone on this list is, at the least, open to this possibility, including yourself, I would imagine.

The question is if there has been any message, left in any bottle, figuratively speaking. I still have a curiosity about that. Are you saying that you do not?



On Aug 13, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

I don't know
Hitting the bar may be an option
Or else - Transcendence

Deepak Chopra

In an email exchange on the 'Sarfatti' list, Cy made mention of the Legacy of the Elder Gods, 2nd Journal by Schorn (2010).  

It is a very detailed speculation about ET's, paricularly within the solar system.

It does invoke God as a prime mover in the early 'seeding' of life throughout the universe.

Then there arose the 'first beings' who succeeded in breaking the evolutionary barrier of self-destruction, upon the verge of which we now find oursleves.  Very few sapient species make it past this barrier, but that barrier is somewhat lowered by the helpers who are students of one of seven species of 'first beings', which seven species are know collectively as the Ancient Ones.  The Helpers are assigned to other pre-barrier civilizations with which they happen to have a similar appearance.  

I would classify this system as a mitigated deism.  With the Ancient Ones and their Helpers serving as the 'angels'.  

I have been here for three years, and only now, indirectly, as part of her attempted communication with Deepak, am I afforded an insight into the 'mechanics' of Cy's belief system.  

This system has many attractive and coherent elements.  It is a definite advancement over other such systems with which I have encountered over the years.

I trust that it represents the state of the art of such materialistic/deistic systems.  I am only a fifth of the way through it.

Such systems have a considerable over even the ostensibly churched segment of the public.  I suspect it has a grip on most of the majority that claims to believe in UFOs, those many who don't automatically classify them as angelic or demonic.  

I understand how abstract and esoteric, generally implausible, must my immaterialism appear to one such Cy, who comes already steeped in the lore.  What chance have I, by contrast?  Me, just one outlier.  

She does not understand Deepak's cynical/metaphysical perspective that comes from generations that have been steeped in the lore of Hindu polytheism and pantheism.  It is no contest, as she may be about to find out, if she persists.  

I am, very cautiously, playing my immaterialist cards with Deepak and a few others.


On another matter, Ron, yesterdy, asserted that Hillary and at least one of the top Republicans were seriously contempating imminent withdrawal from the race.  I find that improbable. Ron may just be up to his usual tricks, but I mention it here just to hedge my bets.  

This possibly raises anew issues about the briefing of presidents, and the wannabees.  What would you recommend?  Ron, a few years back, with W's first run, before his official candidacy, had casually suggested that we 'brief' George.  No official clearance was needed, before the official candidacy.  Nothing came of the suggestion, on my end, anyway.  But it does make one wonder.  

If there were to be any significant 'repositioning' of the candidates, one might wonder if it could have resulted from a briefing.  In the apocalyptic scenario, one might suppose that one would want the more seasoned pols to be running. But maybe not, and, likely, they would want nothing to do with such a situation.  'Get me outta here!'

Perhaps we will see more candidates dropping out, as time progresses.



(cont.)

I skimmed through much of the rest of Schorn's book.  It it very thorough, but it is unrelentingly materialistic, within the context of its rather extraneous deism.  I'm quite sure that Cy, personally, is less unrelenting.  

But I think that such views color her general dualism.  Schorn is also dualistic.  Folks take sides between unselfish progressives and selfish reactionaries.  Well, maybe we shall see......

Maybe Ron finally will put his money where his mouth is.  Well, maybe he will produce something along the lines of what I've been led to speculate about, lo' these many years.

How shall we put this............?

I do not want to, I will not engage in guessing games.  Another party, let's call it Two, might be encouraged to come forward.  I do not even know if Two will be willing to talk, or has anything to say, at this point.  It's all on spec.  But I'm liable to find out in the next few days.  

If two doesn't, then Ron will be under more pressure to come forward, himself.  

There are contingencies..........

1.)  The story about the vector alignment wrt 9/'16 holds up.  

2.)  Two is willing to talk.

3.)  The BPWH holds up.  

It may well be that Two knows of evidence that will confound the BPWH.  In that case, you'll have to count me out.  

Need I, can I, say more?


In regard to #3..........

I'm wondering about a DNA sample.  A positive test would not necessarily kill the BPWH, but it would seriously weaken it.  A negative test would strengthen it.  By positive test, I mean that the DNA proves to be alien.  I suppose that such a test has already been done.  Had it been positive, I might not even have gotten Ron's number, those many years ago.  

Does anyone see my point?  Is it not valid?  

Objection...........

ETs might be cloned from terrestrial stock, so that they could eat our food. Off the top, this could be a daunting task, especially when it involves manipulation of physical and mental qualities. It would be just about as likely that the ETs would have developed FTL travel. They could as well bring their own seed stock with them. The fact that Schorn does not address such issues weakens his case. The fact, though, that he made his weak case, encourages others to speculate, does it not?



(cont.)

On Saturday I got a negative response from Two, so I invited myself over to Ron's to discuss a way forward.  He said that he was able to talk Two into being more cooperative, and mentioned a third party, Three, an interested civilian, who might also be helpful.  

I'm putting this, gently, in the context of a global security threat on or about Sept., 2016.  I can up the amps on that, as the need arises, and as long as Ron sticks to his story.  

The supposition is that between the, now, four of us, we could make a significant impact on the disclosure process.  Each of us could provide cover for the rest.  I have emails to Two and Three, and Ron seems quite willing to provide facilitation, 'behind' the scenes.  


In another unprecented move, Ron handed me an autographed copy of John Brandedburg's new book, Death on Mars.  It being implied IMHO, that I might take it seriously.  

I do not, but I take it seriously that he might.  What's going on?  My supposition, in the context of the BPWH, is that, as in case of many similar stories, particularly Schorn's Legacy...... book, as previously discussed here,  we are, at best, seeing artifacts of the CTC configuration.  IOW, these are artifacts to be associated with the the ubiquitous Atlantis/flood myth, that may even have been projected onto the Moon and Mars, besides onto our apparent past.

Yes, there might be some bleed-through from the Omega to the Alpha portions of the CTC/ouroboric structure of our closed SWH.  IOW, we are seeing in such anomalous artifatcs, not some distant past, but remnants of our own future Omega/eschaton/rapture.  It is much more palatable, at first, if we see these items as quite distinct from ouselves.  Only with the MoAPS, do we realize that this is all much closer to 'home'.  It is all just a programmed part of a general disclosure.  It is part of our destiny that has been built into the 'system', from the git-go.  





(cont.)

The vectors are aligned and pulling the world out of balance. With little time remaining, those who have something to disclose should do so. Dan holds the keys to the unbalanced world. He can take disclosure over the nest where it may hatch a new world within which the little chicken can fly.

The witch is dead...... ding, dong.......


Now, what was that about Hillary maybe dropping out?  Was she part of the Katechon, or what?  

38 years, that was a long wait.......!  

From: Dan
Date: August 18, 2015 at 8:29:04 AM EDT
To: JP (@GFC)  
Subject: Reconciliation.........?

JP,

There has been a fair amount of water under the bridge..........

My condolences to Bill Stever's relatives, if you know any.  I had a moderate stoke, two months ago, that has left me with a bit of a limp.

I would like to meet with you and, maybe, Danny O'Brien, at your early convenience(s).

It seems that there has been an 'authorization' to go ahead with 'disclosure'.  I would like to discuss that with you, among a few other things.  

Dan
443-xxxxx

I have questioned Ron, this morning, about whether this is an official authorization.  He said it was a limited authorization, applying particularly to Two.  It does not apply to John, for instance.  We would have to talk to the general in charge of his program.  Ron has no authority over the military.  Anyway, he thinks John might be lying about having had (physical?) contact with the Visitors.  

I asked Ron if he was MJ1.  He says MJ is all confused, but he did reiterate that I am MJ13, or was that MS13?  Was Hillary offering her resignation to us?  Ron: she had a near death experience.  Should we accept her resignation?  Ron: yes.  I think I'd like to hear more.  

He had said that at least one of the Republicans was dropping out.  Jeb Bush?  Maybe Deborah and I should talk to Nancy, when I visit her, in a couple of weeks.  


Moving right along............. Ding-dong.........


noon--------

Hi to cousin Sue. I hope you found this (not so obscure?) forum. If you do, be sure to text to me a confirmation.





(cont.)

It seems that disclosure has been stillborn.  No sooner is it out of the gate than it comes to a screeching halt.  Someone is going to have to read somebody the riot act.  Or else reposition the Vectors.  Easier said than done.  Back to the drawing board.

Sorry for the false start.  Very clunky!


Gary,

'A still tongue makes a happy life.'  

Well, you may have won the battle, but maybe not the war.  Which angels do you think you are on the side of?  

Are you going to move the Vectors, too?

You want to drop one of those bombs you keep harping on?  

Keep it up, and you'll have your chance!

Mad Max must be having a laugh riot.

Disclosure seems to be opening up on its own. One of the kingpins from my perspective is the pope. There are lots of speculation keys in his statements. Is he trying to go global? Is he trying to position the church to favor survival in some catastrophic event? Has this pope pulled the warp drive lever all the way? There seems to be a lot of presaging going on in his aura indicated by the intellectual, charitable and mystical rants coming forth from his throne. It does not seem to be business as usual with the church hierarchy. Is there an upheaval in progress at this time in the vatican? How might this affect world politics? First time a pope will have addressed the US Congress ... coming up. Has the "real" America entered the museum phase? What is this nation today, if it is even a nation anymore? Who runs it? Or is it run as a free market with players whom nobody knows? Or is it controlled by players whom nobody knows? Are there spiritual players that we cannot see? Are they disguised as ideas in some cases? On the idea of "Damn the torpedos and full steam ahead", who's got rudder duty? And are turns being taken on that post? Seems an exciting time to be able to mull over so many apparent applications of past future hypotheses.

Your guess is as good as ours.

Better talk to Gary. He's looking pretty smug, in the peanut gallery.

In realizing this is a moment of no holds barred disclosure, I feel it necessary to present some information that will knock the socks off anyone: The papal satellite, the one that has been gathering data on life beyond the earth realm, suddenly vanished. It was there and then it wasn't ... instantaneous disappearance.

A. The public was never informed that the Vatican had ever launched a satellite.
B. The launch vehicle was of course Russian.
C. This fact alone took a great deal of negotiations with the Orthodox primates, and especially of the Russian patriarch.
D. The Vatican opened up a new research wing in its vaunted archival vault system to deal with its satellite data in light of its collected observations and conjectures over the centuries.
E. The research staff had seen a serious bump in hiring and contracting over the past three years.
F. The satellite contained a biome, which is the primary concern of the Vatican and now others who are connected and being brought into this concern.
G. Immediately following the disappearance of the satellite, that left no trace debris at all, several Vatican officials ... over the course of two days ... also disappeared. Vatican police are not searching for them.
H. Their staff members have all been transitioned to other operations.
I. No one is talking.