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

Dan, did you read the article by Wolfram sent out yesterday by Jack?

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/

Thank you, Gary,

It is an interesting article, which I skimmed through to his rather inconclusive conclusion.  He seems to have abandoned most of his very ambitious efforts at a computational explanation for physics and psychology.


12:15--------

Where would we be w/o subatomic particles.  That's not quite the question I'm posing.  I'm focusing on the tracks in the cloud chamber.  This is rather specific.  The northern-lights and TVs
seem rather gratuitous, like cloud chambers.  Fire and stars are hardly gratuitous, even or especially from a phenomenological PoV.

Uranium, though, especially U^235, seems gratuitous.  But, in general, nuclear and atomic physics are not gratuitous.  Suppose we made a CRT, and no electrons were fired.  It would present us with a gaping logical hole, in the otherwise coherence of nature.  That is why we must have subatomic particles, but it doesn't tell us the 'how' of it, from an immaterialist perspective.  We seem to progress from the necessary, collective abstraction to the discrete phenomenal individuality, when we speak of the cloud chamber.  Does that progression demand a different order of immaterialist explanation?  

What would that different order of explanation look like?  

When we make scientific discoveries, they may seem marvelous, unexpected and gratuious excesses of nature.  But, in retrospect, it is hard to imagine a world without them.  Such is my ultimate, logical fall-back position.  Do I stretch the logic?  I leave it to the reader to decide which requires the greater stretching of the logic...... materialism or immaterialism.  I can, and have, argued that there is truly no contest.  


1:20--------

Yes, I do prefer continuity in nature, but clearly a very ample supply of segmentation and compartmentalization is necessary.  I was going to speak of the geologic ages, and the many discontinuites in the geological record.  We have several ELE's, for instance.  But they can hardly be said to be a gratuitous aspect of nature.  How could we have planets, if there were not planetesimals that would collide with the planets, on occasion.  

As for the Earth in its entirety, I can rather easily imagine it as a virtual reality, on the larger scales.  As we get down to the detail, much could be handled as an elaboration on fractal designs.  

In the biological world, much can be accounted for with metabolic cycles.  Individual organisms may be taken as individual actors, without individuating them in any personal or ontological sense.  IOW, they may be taken a part of the background to the basically personal human ontology.  

Who counts the hairs on our heads, and the grains of sand on the beach?  When they go missing, they are noticed.  Who conserves energy and mass?  When mass goes missing, we call it a nuclear explosion.  If an object were to alter its state of rest or motion spontaneously, it might easily set of alarms.  There could be great consternation.  Is the immaterialist responsible for explaining the conservation of motion in some way that a materialist is not?  Yes, I've actually wondered about this, but it has not produced any sleepless nights.  

What is it that ensures that the proverbial 'tree on the quad' is still there in the morning?  Must we invoke God?  Cause and effect does not fly out the window the minute we give objects a phenomenological status.  

Out of sight, out of mind.......?  This is what the naive immaterialist might be supposing, while worrying about the tree on the quad. Where does the tree's evident substantiality come from, if not from atoms?  If truth be known, the materialists are now claiming that the tree's substantialty comes from the Higgs particle.  What kind of explanation is that?  In point of fact, if you read the fine print, the Higgs only 'explains' bosonic mass.  Fermions?  Please, don't be impatient.  See how we, materialists, struggle.  

Let's face it, the modern materialist leads a charmed existence.  He gets a free pass on all scientific explanations.  We know they struggle.  They may even be granted the right to question mind and God.  It just spurs the faithful to cling more tightly to their bibles.  The rest of us?  Well, we try to pretend not be terminally confused.  We are just supposed to shop 'til we drop, I guess.  



(cont.)

Dan, your favorite cuff link tale is back online:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1992/02/03/cuff-links-and-trade-deal-come-undone/9b29ea3e-207d-4f24-af0e-ee2b2d26562b/

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19920203&id=83BUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S48DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3783,2144902&hl=en

Btw, Dan, I do believe we are eligible to be nominated for the international "useful idiot" (or was that "useless idiot"!?) award, in recognition of services rendered? Maybe Ron will provide for us a material representation for the mantle? Or perhaps a signature ring?

http://www.amazon.com/Spectre-James-Bond-Stainless-Steel/dp/B016PDA9GA

Gary,  

Thank you for the links to the Jack Anderson Cuff-links column.  

Don't you think Ron should provide for us some Aquarium signature gold-plated cuff-links?  


And, BTW, here is the link to that old (3/97) cosmology diagram, from the original Aquarium website....

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/aAquarium/2views.htm

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/aAquarium/content.html

This was my idea of immaterialism before I latched onto the BPWH.  I'm not sure how long this interim, pluralistic idealism lasted.  Over 10 years, evidently.  Why so long?  


Anyway, we can get back on our track.......

The cloud chamber tracks can be subsumed under the snowflake/crystal-whiskers that are grown in super-saturated media.  They are rather similar manifestations of atomic phenomena.  What if there were no sub-atomic tracks?  What if there were no snowflakes?


But that wasn't really the track.  The real track was to come up with a cosmology suited to personalism.  The Stanford entry on personalism is quite complete and up-to-date.

But, as with Buddhist idealism, there is no cosmology.  The BPW is unique, in that regard.  The xtian Y-E (young-earth) fundies have crowded out that space.  But theirs is a dying breed, giving way to the old-earthers, as at GFC.  

My biggest social problem will be with motivation.  If everybody gets saved, why struggle with morality?  

Should the truth be a moral problem?  I doubt it.  We are all just going to have one last big chance.  I think we'll all want to get it right.  

My next biggest problem will be with the trinity, but this would just be with the xtians.  Their trinity will be subsumed with an olympiad.  I'm thinking of a primary heptoad, like the planetary gods of the week, where the j-man is the Freyja/trickster vis-a-vis the other 6.  This also could be the SoT.  Actually, I see that Frejya is associated to Venus/love, the brightest planet.  So much for the trinity.  I think that a heptoad would be much more manageable.  The olympiad is too much like a committee.  Three is just too small, even for the small world.  There is only one offspring.  I don't like mars and jupiter competing with Frejya.  They don't need to.  She gets to be the only daughter.  I think that's better.  We have one big happy family.  

This is how we deal with personalism on the cosmogonic scale.  Now we have a proper dynamism.  Does this threaten the singularity of the BPWH through the j-man?  I trust not.  


8:15--------

Now what?  What's next?  

I'm thinking that the DecSurp and SeptSurp may have been preempted, somehow.  I wish I knew how........

The gang is all here.  We just need a second take on the CtN.  

We would like some kind of non-violent drama that could be associated with the MoAPS/Disclosure.  M+D = Revelation.  Ron won't cooperate with the disclosure part of it.  Instead he would like a DecSurp and then an ELE/90% die-back.  Not too friendly, IMHO.  

It will be no contest, we just have to be patient.  We've waited 40 years, we can wait another 40 days.  But exactly what are we waiting for?  Is there supposed to be some kind of signal?  


I guess we go back to personalism.  What we're striving for is neoplatonic personalistic cosmology.  How far are we from that?  I think not that far.  It's close enough for gummint work.


1:30-----------

I have recently rediscovered Harold Oliver and his relational metaphysics.  I have a sub-section on the subject in my BPW index....

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/index06.htm#Metaphysics

I found Harold helpful in my early work with immaterialism, but later neglected him.  Maybe I should revisit relationalism in my excursis into personalism, where I have been assuming a substantialist view.  

But I do not have readily available a relational model for the soul.  Well, I have likened the soul to a quantum 'aperture'..... a quantum 'antenna', if you will, tuned to the cosmic mind.  A quote noted by Harold is from John Zizioulas..... 'the being of God is communion.'  This amounts to saying that God is love.  I've said many times that love is the ultimate glue.  Is it not also the ultimate substance?  How is that for non-substantialism?  

This is apophaticism or the via-negativa, in describing God by negation. This is also a version of holism....... all of reality may be condensed to a single creative inspiration. This is what is claimed for the big-bang.

Obviously, I am just taking this off the top. You can see why I'm reluctant, at any given time, to try to systematize all of this in a book. We are trying to balance the world on a knife's edge. It is a dynamic process.... a work in progress. I won't lie.




(cont.)

I am relieved to report that life continues chez the Pandolfi's.  There is even serious talk about acquiring a new home.  OTOH, we have managed to get through several days with mention neither of surprises nor vectors.  My presence on the cruise will be missed by Kashmir, I'm sure, but not otherwise making a dent in the vacation plans.  

What then is the take-away?  Has the world suddenly become safe?  Was there never any substance to the premonitions?  Was there nothing behind it all?  Was it all just Ron's little joke?  

That latter point is the only one that I can discount with some surety.  
If there is still something going on, my participation in it is not indicated.  


11am---------

I am also relieved to be able to spend more time on substantialism.  It is a crucial issue to clarify, IMHO.  

Substantialism is perhaps the crucial distinguishing feature between east and west.  But I'm not referring to the usual boundry between theism and pantheism.  No.  This time the boundry is closer to home.  

The substance divide cleaves right into christianity itself.  It divides the western and eastern church, along with all the points further east, of course.  

What is going on?  

It matters not whether you profess materialism or immaterialism, the divide still stands.  You can see why I am relieved to have an opportunity to gain some insight into what might be the driving force behing this difference.

I am now looking at both SEP and Wiki..... Nowhere is these lengthy discussions of substance and substance theory is there any reference to any similar concern in the east.  The interest goes back to Greece.  Ok, but then why did it not impact the Orthodox church?  Why is substantialism and materialism so peculiar to the west?  

This does relate back to my conerns about the trinity.  And what was the straw the broke the camel's back, in the east-west split?  I noted it some time ago.  It seemed almost trivial to me then, but I think I sensed there was a gorilla behind that curtain.  

Now I remember.  It was the filioque'.... and the Son.  Oh, boy.  It was the holy spirit proceeding from the father _and the Son_.  So demanded we, in the west.  It lead to the the Great Schism of the 11th century.  

The controversy centered on the ultimate source of the Spirit, and, speculating now, somewhat indirectly on the 'source' of the Son.  No small potatoes.  


12:40--------------

I think I'm beginning to sense what's actually going on here......

This parochial controversy was be used to mask two things.......

1.)  Of course, there was the matter of the supremacy of the Pope, of any pope, as opposed to multiple patriarchs.  

2.) But, more important, I speculate, it was a cover to the embarrassment felt on both sides concerning the procession of the Son.  

The trinity is eternal, but, clearly, the Son proceeds from the father.  How do we obtain co-equality from that?  The Son is fully human and divine, all in one flesh.  Husband and wife, too, are of one flesh.  

Three persons in one substance.... one flesh.


Substance, proper, refers to essence and nature.  Essence is generally contrasted with accident.  Wrt essence, we also have internal relations, as opposed to external relations.  Then there is perichoresis...... a reciprocal indwelling.  These imply that substance is more than the nodes or a nexi of relations. We have, e.g. the bundle theory of objects..... look, ma, no substance. But what contains the bundle.

Then we have the platonic forms..... indiviual, distinct substances. If we take substance from the forms, we must add it to the space-time manifold. But what of ideas? What distinguishes them? Do ideas have no essence?

What, actually, is Oliver getting at with his relationalism? What is his agenda?



(cont.)

Dan, according to Christian tradition, the Spirit has no source, rather is the source.

Skai,

Co-eternality is the common understanding of the three persons of the trinity.  And that is true to some degree.  But, still, we do have the father and son aspects.  Is that a meaningless figure of speach?  I don't think so.  It seems that we have two forms of entailment....... temporal and logical.  

If you took a poll of knowlegeable folk, there would be a general agreement that time has a subjective aspect, even when compared with space, and that space may well be derivative of other aspects of 'reality'.  

I am suggesting that there is logic to Creator and Creation, and that this logic suggests a co-eternality, as we have with father and son.  The Indian philosophers have been more subtle in their thinking about these matters.  

They refer to 'interdependent co-origination'.  They have a word for it, trust me.  It is a much more relational view of the world.  And, according to Oliver, this has something to do with perichoresis.  He takes all of this to be an anti-substantialist or a relationalist view.  This takes a sceptical view of Plato wrt essences.  This might also be termed an existential view.  

I'm looking at........

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_1_07_Crisp_PerichoersisProblems.pdf


2:10--------

In the western understanding, we have the eternal and the temporal as being wholly distinct, just as Creator and Creation are distinct.  This is also in conformity with our views of distinct substances.  

These ideas are most confused wrt the trinity and wrt the natures of Jesus.  I am suggesting that Creation is a logical aspect of the Creator.  Creation is not temporal in that sense.  Time emerges in Creation.  Creation co-originates with God, logically.  This was the message of the Incarnation, but we didn't quite get it.  Creation is a logically reciprocal process.  

Logically, Creation starts in the middle, with the Incanation, and works both ways from there....... in and out, up and down.  

Does that mean that we are the victims of fate?  Yes and no.  We are destined to be saved by the Creator, Jesus.  Each of the 10^10 copies of the cosmic soul reenacts a version of that salvation.  

Are these versions then fixed in eternity......?  

Well, we think of eternity as a block of time.... as something independently substantial.  We relationalists suggest otherwise.  

We suggest that eternity exists independently no more than does God.  This seems to imply, though, that Creation is somehow fungible.  I don't think so.  Is God free to create again?  Not that, either.  

The best possible world is essential to God and creatures.  It is an expression of maximal reciprocal love.  Jesus' life is fixed in that manor, as the cosmic fulcrum, as the creative spark.  He truly inhabits the spark gap.  That is the cosmic fulcrum.  

Creation is no one's object.  In that respect, it is a dynamic, mutually reflecting process.  Time emerges only inersubjectivey from that mutual process.  No one can pin it down.  

That partly explains the problem we have with defining disclosure.  It is not a point in time.  It is rather more fluid and subjective.  It is much too convoluted to be captured in a headline.  

Is there a deadline......?  Not that, either.  

I don't think it will be a photo finish. Not one that could be captured in any history book.



(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Subject: Sea Based Adventure
To: Ron
Cc: two others.......


Ron,

1.)  Unless or until you can be more forthcoming as to the nature of the threats you perceive, and/or......

2.)  ..... you can commit yourself to assist in the contingency planning to deal with those threats; for instance, by suggesting relevant resources and/or information that might become available to us......

.....there is very little that the Princess and I can do, just acting on our own.

Lacking such a commitment on your part, I feel that it would be more fruitful for me to continue my open investigation of the matters pertaining to immaterialism that would be likely to play a crucial role in any comprehensive disclosure process.

Dan
cc: OMF


On Monday, December 7, 2015, Ron wrote:
Hi Dan,

The vectors are not people, they are forces that influence the actions of people. Everyone is influenced by at least some of the vectors, but only a few people have ever been able to influence them.

If you are up to the task, then please come along on the Sea Based Adventure. There will be ample opportunities for you to enlighten the Princess and Plan for events to Come.

FootM

11:30--------------

The BPW entails finite quantities and infinite qualities.  Among the infinite qualities are infinite potentialities.  

Yes, once upon a time, Creation was a gleam in the eye of the Creator.  But, that gleam is still as real today, as it was yesterday.  

Time marches on.......?  The present is a one-way, moving target......?  Yesterday's possibilites are today's actualities........?  Or so we tend to surmise.  

Rather than the 'present', tout-court........ I speak of Presence and the Shining Present..... much more as subjective qualties than as objective actualites.  

In such a manner, 'reality' takes on a much nuanced presence.  Yes, we suppose that our various reording devices can pin down history for all time.  It is true that having recorded history distinguishes our cultures rather emphtically from pre-historic times, where the supposed linearity of time was barely peceived.  Rather, what we were able to discern was a cyclical time.  


1:45--------------

But we still only go around once........?  Once we live our lives, they remain lived, never to be lived again..... gone, and mostly forgotten.  At best, we might participate in some ersatz production.  

We say we have lived our lives..... I'm not so sure we know what that means.  Yes, I could be suggesting that we are mostly sleep-walking.  IOW, we can hardly be said to drain every drop.  We lead superficial lives.  But, if it were not so, we would be different persons, acting differently than we seem to.  I am suggesting that mostly we hide from ourselves and others.  There could be a whole other layer, of psychic lives, about which we are hardly familiar.  There is a whole layer of subconscious interactions of which we have almost no knowlege.  There is, IOW, a vast repository of experience, which could be experienced in other ways by other means.

I am thinking of the talk of many worlds.  It is said that each of our minds contains a universe.  On that perspective, we have 10^10 parallel universes right here, right before our eyes.  We don't have to conduct super-sensitive quantum measurements in order to detect them.  Each of us is litterally sitting on mountains of gold, and we have no idea.  

But, back here, in our superficial 'reality', time marches on.  Our superficial resources seem finite.  Our superficial time is running out.  We must close the loop of our redemption.  This is still our BPW/SW/CTC.  Our superficial mission has yet to be accomplished.  Let us get on with that.  


This was a bit of a conceptual breakthrough for me, being under some time pressure.  I can, on occasion, play the part of an expert..... former drip, under pressure.  

Looked at, in this fashion, the 'real' world can seem as fashioned out of all the abstractions (really metaphors) of physics and cosmology.  We just haven't properly placed the dots.  

I can think back on how superficially I saw the world, yesterday, last year, forty years ago.  Maybe I can help to link these two very different worlds.  That would be something to aim for.  

We get a hint at this potential new depth of reality by thinking of the internet as just some very superficial token of the actual potentialites.  We can carry the sum of all knowlege in our pockets.  Imagine what we carry in our heads.  

OTOH, we can be increasingly distracted by that same 'token'.  


9pm----------

I am questioning the usual absolutist conception of God.  I'm doing this context of relationalism.  I am using the incarnation of Jesus as my primary relational figure, in both his historical and ontological contexts.  

I am being sceptical wrt essences.  Is there not a pesonal nature?  I have been speaking at length about personalism and the self and soul.  

I have spoken of the singular cosmic soul, of which we are all time-sharing, including God.  What is the nature/substance/essence of the soul?  

I guess I'm saying that God is love. Is not love blind? Is God blind?

In some non-trivial sense God is blind. I have said that the ultimate existence is felt meaning. Is love not abstracted from felt meaning? Love is what makes the world go 'round. That is no abstraction.

Is God blind? Well, we are told that God is a monad and monads have no windows.



(cont.)

There is a whole layer of subconscious interactions of which we have almost no knowlege. There is, IOW, a vast repository of experience, which could be experienced in other ways by other means.

I am thinking of the talk of many worlds. It is said that each of our minds contains a universe. On that perspective, we have 10^10 parallel universes right here, right before our eyes.


I must have 'dropped' into a parallel world: Dan, are you now appealing to "many worlds" as an explanation?! ;-)

Gary,

You want parallel universes?  

You have them right here...... 10^10 of them.  They're right between our ears.  It does also look like one small world.  Don't worry, Gary, that is just an illusion!  

Yes, Gary, don't worry your little head about this.  You can go back to sleep, now......


The relational self?  The nature of love?  

Yes, there is but one substance in the universe.  It is love.  Its nature is to be relational.  It is the glue that holds everything together.  Every thing?  Well, everything is of love, by love and for love.  That is the cosmic constitution.  That is the Declaration of Interdependence.

In actuality, then, Jesus was the father of God, and the Creator of us.

Jesus was the link between heaven and earth..... the cosmic pivot, the Alpha and Omega.  

From: Dan
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Subject: Re: You asked for a bit of prophesy?
To: Ron
Cc: Gary


If we can't beat them, we'd better join them.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, Ron wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/world/new-us-intelligence-report-predicts-isis-will-spread-worldwide/news-story/c8b871c1de7bceeb3a0edf4aa8dc4fbc

(cont.)

Achish said to his servants, “Look at the man! He is insane! Why bring him to me?" 1 Samuel 21:14  The vector points to its origin as the ship sunk.

Personalism will have to play a critical role in our tansition to immaterialism.  The crux of any person would have to be the soul, along with our memories and our rationality/integrity.  

I suppose there is a prototypical cosmic person, the adam-kadmon, if you will.  This is the logical seed crystal of creation.  How is this seed ramified?  It cannot be an isolated seed.  It must be formed as a multiform complex.  Thus we have the yin/yang, trinity, olympiad, etc.  The shadow of that cosmic multipolarity appears in all of us.  This shadow is what we refer to as the soul.  This is a universal soul.  

Then we have our memories.  We also may have a photo album.  

I have discussed records, natural and manufactured, before.  We treat them as objects, yet, a tree is not an object, nor is a person.  I have also suggested that the past, itself, is not an object.  It seems to differ, in kind, from the future.  I think that we have to tread carefully here.  With the photo album, we would seem to have to have a double objectification.  It's tough to rationalize that.  But that will not prevent me from trying.

We start with the surface of reality, with space and time that seems to us as solid as an ice sheet. This ice-sheet has a tendency to melt into the Present.



(cont.)

There likely was a primordial dyad or triad of persons.  After the triad we have the ennead and olympiad.  The monad is implied.  

The minimal person has a self identity and a counterpart to serve as an object and communicant. This could be the result of a schism or dialectic, if you will.  Awareness of self and other are co-dependant.
 
Early on, there need be some sense of space and time.  The time dimension would be an expansion of cycles.  A cycle can define a present or presence, which, in its entirety, is a kind of memory.  Memory expands the present.  

As the cycles acquire complexity, there emerges an alpha and omega, or a gap in the cycle that defines a direction to the cycle, and which produces a gap or reset at its completion.  

This emergence is more logical than temporal.  Presently it is embedded in our psyches.  

The potential of the BPW is a driving force, teleologically, from the 'beginning'.  This potency is never absent.  It drives us now.  

We have the primorial dyad contained by the monad.  The diad are minimal self-aware persons, observers/recorders, if you will.  The monad also serves as the third member of a triad.  As the medium of communication, it also serves as the logos spermatikos.  Yes, we do have an hegelian dialectic at work, here.  This is the seed that defines the synthesis of the partners or counterparts.  This seed is a gleam in everyone's eye, from the 'start'.

Then we have a nature that nurtures.  The monad, being the medium of exchange, is also nature.  Nature and the seed are one.  The seed must be able to recapitulate some sort of phylogeny.  Thus the logic of the phylos emerges in the general potency/possibilty.  

Potency and possiblity also define the logos spermatikos.  It is nature.  It is love.  It is the cosmic communion.  It is a kind of pandora's box or cornucopia.  It is also our collective uCs, unconscious.  This is the monad, the background or ground of the dyad.  We come from heaven, trailing clouds of glory.  

Along with the BPW/SW/CTC, we have the 4M/K/SoT/X2 and X1.  This heptoad and monad recapitulate something primordial.  The X1 does stand out in history.  Next in line might be the Buddha or Mohammed, but they seem to function more as self-described messengers.  There is not quite the prophetic pivot.  One may speak of history as christocentric.  There will be room for argument.  It is not crucial, except metaphysically.  But, historically, there is the setup for the SoT and the MoAPS.  The proof is in the pudding.  

We only have to realize that the world is of a piece.  It is subjective and inter-subective.  Each subject is a microcosm.  Nay, each atom reflects the cosmos, mathematically and ontologically.  

Yes, we have Indra's necklace.  


11:15-------------

Each atom reflects the cosmic intelligence.  It is this intelligence that forms the true substatance of the atoms.  Yes, this intelligence is actually the God particle that gives substance to the, otherwise, abstract atoms.  Yes, we do have a cosmic occasionalism when it comes to atoms.  It is a reflection of the cosmic/monadic relationalism.  It is also a refinement of the logos spermatikos.  

So, that is the substance of atoms.  What is the substance of you and me......?

Why should it differ?  By substance, now, I'm referring to essence.

What is our God particle?  I guess that is a rhetorical question.  Our God particle is God.  That is also the source of our symmetry breaking.  That is the primordial dialectic, motivated be the logos.  Now we just have to pull ourselves together.  We need a management by objective.  We need a Telos.  It is the logos that bridges the gap between the alpha and omega.  That is our history.  The gap beween omega and alpa is God.  It is our apocatastasis.  It is our essence.  

Yes, I forgot all about spontaneous symmetry breaking, when it came to cosmogenesis.  

That symmetry breaking is our Source.  In the big-bang model it was 'spontaneous' symmetry breaking, anthropically motivated, evidently.  

In our monadic model, our symmetry breaking is logically motivated by the logos spermatikos.  


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

Our personal essence is of a paricular aspect of God.  It is our particular relation to God, as instantiated in time time and space.  This essence is further mediated by our genetic endowment and our circumstances.

Our soul part is of this primordial symmetry breaking.  Each of our souls is a color or frequency of the monad, at base.  


Then we have the notion, introduced earlier, of the superficiality of normal consciousness.  Who or what may be observing our uCs?  


5:30---------

The prospect of unobserved mental content does not conform well to idealism.  It seems to favor materialism.  

Consiousness is not something transparent.  Not to us.  

I'm supposing, though, that there may be levels of consciousness that are transparent to sub- and supra- entities that are related to ourselves.  

These levels of Cs form a telepathic network that constitutes the cosmic mind or the monad.  Thus we have the potentially infinite qualitative depth of our 'small' world.  

Each of us constitutes a team of angels and/or demons, if you will.  How may the agency be apportioned if a murder a murder is committed, for instance?  

Our superficial self gets the rap, but we all serve time, or carry the guilt, each entity in its own way.  

Farfetched......?  All just to maintain the 'tree on the quad', at night.  

Each object or thought could have its own spirit.  This would seem to be a reductio ad absurdum.... a Meinongian jungle, now populated with creatures of the mind.  Having postulated a plenum, we can then trim it back by various means at our disposal.  


9:40-----------

Rather than an absolute cosmic self, I'm suggeting choirs of angels that would include mainly us.  Each of us is a network of neurons.  God is a network of angels.  A dynamic self could emerge, on occasion.  We need not have individual essences.  Am I being an existentialist?  A cosmic existentialist, perhaps.  Also, a given self could take on different roles, in connection with other selves.  Each self could span more than one level of consciousness wrt other selves.  We could be each others angels.  I say this just to acknowledge occam's razor.  We wish to trim the meinongian jungle, where possible.  We do have worlds within worlds.  

How do we account for the trinity in 'dynamic' context? The primordial logic can easily supervene. It can impose itself on any network.

How does all of this function coperatively? How do our neurons function?

The Telos supervenes...... in the end.


(cont.)

Hear is another bit of insight.........

There is an economy of the cosmic mind.  The cosmic mind has similarities to a mudane economy.  Wherein each unit of currency functions as an atom.  Of course, the units of exchange are arbitrary, atoms and plank's constant are not.  Units of exchange are indefinitely divisible, in theory, but even a computer would seldom go beyond hundredths of a cent, in pricing any commodity.  

What is more to the point is the distinction between hard and soft currency.  Cash appears where it is needed for certain kinds of transaction.  I don't have a ready equivalent for a cashless economy, but there may be a moral quality to credit.  

Even more to the point is that each bit of currency may be leveraged in many different ways.  A given 'coin' may be in several different pockets at once.  It can show up on many different legers.  There are many kinds of oversight on these legers, many hands, invisible and otherwise.  Many transactions may be automated.  

But all of this intelligence is running in the background.  All we hold in our hands is the cold, hard cash.  

Individual coins could be thoughts.  A penny for your thoughts.  Each coin or thought may have a whole culture backing it up.  In God we trust.  Each economy has its own vital force attached to it.  

Each consumer and speaker/thinker is a node in a network.  Decisions are influenced in an infinity of ways.  There is a distributed intelligence.  There is distributed love.  

Persons, however, are like atoms.  They are indivisible.  There seems to be a quantum of personhood.  This is our souls.  This quantum appears to be associated with sapient persons, virtually irrespective of intelligence quotients.  I see no quantum of sentience.  We sapients are our own medium of cosmic exchange.  The cosmic mind can mind may be distributed in quantum and non-quantum fashion.  


2pm---------

If we use ourselves as microcosms, there is a rather strong cosmic unity, a self identity, supervening strongly on the fucntioning of our neurons.  There is little evidence of any mediating entities.  We are alone in our castle.  

I do not wish to postulate an oversoul.  We do have a monism/monad at the cosmic level.  There is no fundamental pluralism.  There is one divine/mental/spiritual substance.  It is love.

The parameters of the BPW is worked out mainly by us, sapients, especially given a degree of teleology.  There is only one soul to be shared.  The present dominates both the future and the past.  The past maybe constructed out of memories, for instance.  

The BPW/SW/CTC is an eternal construct.  


3:30-------------

We have a creation ex nihilo, or, more accurately, a creation ex potentio, if you will.  Yes, there might have been nothing, but, evidently, we have something.  We have, before our very eyes, something that very often passes muster as a 'real' world.  

We have a creation via a big-bang, or by divine fiat, and with many possibilties touted, between these two extremes.  I am touting a small world panentheism, of sorts.  It is a world that must be rational to us, its co-Creators.  I am trying to avoid any excess metaphysical baggage.  This leads us to postulating one substance.... love.  This is the one cosmic currency.  The cosmic economy is based on love.  This love is what inspires our participation in the Creation.  

What we see is not what we get.  The world is multifaceted, yet it is compact, self-contained so that we can function as a single large family, potentially.  But we have to know this, in no uncertain terms.


6pm-----------

The eschatology, the SWH are an integral part of this self-contained system. We are all in the same boat, which has a definite destination. We signed up for this trip from the beginning.




(cont.)

I was thinking of populating the unconscious (uCs), but now my strategy is to expand the Cs.  I'm saying that the sapient mind is unlimitted.  It has access to cosmic Cs through the shared universal soul.  Before expanding on that topic, I would like to address what I presently consider the most difficult problem facing the BPWH.  


12:40---------

Atoms and stars come in as the next most difficult to explain.  

The #1 problem on my list is the 'reset' problem...... how to maximise continuity across the 'spark-gap', going from Omega back to Alpha on the ouroboric 'CTC'.  This is something of a manufactured problem, but I can't think of any clever way out of.  

The idea is that the BPW exists in eternity.  If we represent it with linear time, then time has nowhere to go, before and after.  Self-containment is much better represented being circular.  

We humans are leaving our mark on Creation.  We need to 'remove'
that mark, in going back to the Alpha, pretending that we have continuity, otherwise.  

We have the circular time, which is phenomenological to humans.  Then we have deep time that is paleontological and geological.  I do have a problem to explain the seamless blending of these two dimensions of time.  Nature appears continuous.  

I do have humans crossing the gap.  I am arbitrarily supposing a 'magic' number of 144.  We have 12x12M at each of the  final megalopic sites at the Omega/Rapture.  We have 12x12K at each of the initial magalithic sites at the Alpha.  I suppose that the 'eye' of the pyramid represents the 12 crafts exiting and returning to those sites.  There could be comparable K's of humans remaining off the grid, thoughout the gap, along with the flora and fauna.  

Let me see.......

I've spoken of a Jurassic 'Parc' on another 'planet'.  We could also have a Pokatok 'Parc' that would stand-in for each of the megalithic sites.  We then just have the geographical filler as the sites are replicated.  The final megalopli revert back to single Pokatok Parc.  The geographical filler is mediated through the ancient astrologic mythos.  I feel fairly comfortable with this version of 'continuity'.  

KIM that this CTC is a singular, BPW circuit.   It is in no way meant to be cyclic.  The 'cyclic' part, such as it is, would be referring to the 10^10 recirculations of the singular cosmic soul that we are all time-sharing.  

Are we ready for prime time?  GEGW..... good enough for gumm'int work.  


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

Ultimately, we are, in sharing the singular cosmic soul, afforded infinite perspectives on Creation and the (co-) Creator.  These perspectives include the uCs dimension.  I see no reason that these perspectives might not be synthesized into a single mystical vision.  'God saw all that he had made, and said that it was very good.'  

You can see the forest for the trees.  You can hear the melody for the notes.  That is what we know, and what the mystics tell us.  No part of the show goes unseen, not even the shadow of the unconscious (uCs).  

Then do we know ourselves and Creation for the first time.  

All the various descritptions, fictions and fantasy would be part of the mix. Nothing need be neglected. It could all be one texture..... one felt grand meaning..... a single concentrated flash. Yes, it might even blow your socks off.


(cont.)

Phenomenology recapitulates ontogeny.........

We already have the mundane phenomenology moving from the 12 megalopic sites, at the Omega, moving back to the 12 megalthic sites, at the Alpha.  

Then, on the supra-mundane level we have the ontogeny of the symmetry breaking of the Monad, or primordial Potentia, out of which comes the Trinity, the heptoad, and ol  ympiad, etc.  

I'm daunted by the cleanup of our mundane footprint.  It violates occam's razor.  My solution is to put more emphasis on the intermediating Pokatok stages at both ends, to simplify the Omega/Alpha transition.  I appeal to Leibniz' PII to make the 12:1 transition.  An extension of the symmetry breaking gives us the geographically based 1:12 split.  This is the simplest metaphysical way I see to avoid the cleanup problem.  Is this too easy.....?  

There is still a 12-way rapture/return.  The left-behind folks, off the grid, need be barely aware of the symmetry mend/break.  I would rather have to explicate this problem than the cleanup problem.  Just
think of me as Billy of O.  

The monadic mend/break problem may be subsumed into one.  But now don't we have to face, more directly, the geologic discontinuity?  I have somewhat swept this problem under the rug by stressing the eternity of the underlying best possible CTC.  Well, I can still retain the underlying pristine Earth.  Our depredations just 'evaporate' with our rapture.  I'd better expand on that.......

Our depredations are illusory/superficial wrt the eternal Earth, which just reemerges in the transition/reset.  The 12 <-> 1 Leibnizian xform improves the phenomenological continuity.  The geological discontinuity is allowed to 'evaporate' along with us.  The off-griders are off that grid.  They should experience a minimal aspect of the Leibnizian 'consolidation'.  

The phenomenological problem of the Leibnizian aspect would be similar for both human contingents.  I will allow the flora and fauna to deal with their own xform phenomenology problem, such as it may be.

This revised (metaphysical/ontological) scenario need in no way supplant our immediate, mundane cleanup efforts.  They should simply become less daunting.  


noon------------

Now the cleanup problem has been mostly separated from the rapture problem.  No, actually they have been combined.  Let's try to recap.......

The original symmetry-breaking problem has been combined with these other two.  In the process, the spark-gap has been made a little more gappy.  IOW, the apocatastasis is more symmetrical wrt the ontogenesis.  Only the pristine Earth is left to fill the mundane portion of the gap.  

The scenario for 'heaven' is much better defined.  Each side of the human gap now complement each other, rather more explicitly.  Ontogenesis is now the third element of the alpha/omega complementation.  This makes for a robust fit.  Even the xtian trinity makes more sense.  The j-man becomes our actual way home.  We now have that exemplar as a physical/metaphysical mediator.  It's just a logical part of the symmetry-mending.  

I don't know why I didn't latch onto this mending process earlier.  It was only implicit in the apocatastasis.  Mystical and altered states should speak to this process.  Apocatastasis is an awkward word.  I like 'apostatic' for the adjective and 'ApProc' for the noun.  It is a process and not a stasis.  

Also, we now have two Parcs.  Parc is a reference, a memoriam, to the Xerox Parc, next to HP, on Sandhill Rd, that helped to launch the very notion of a PC.  We have Jurassic and Pokotok Parcs.  One for pale-ontogenesis and the other for human-ontogenesis.  Yes, ontogeny does recapitulate phylogeny, so there can be some overlap.  Please, understand that we are speaking of two ontogenies.  A biologic ontogenesis, in addition to, and mostly distinct from, the psychogenesis that adheres more to immaterialism.  Yes, we do need to work that out.  


3:30------------

What I do not have, then, is an ontogenesis for the Earth.  Previously I had left it to be subsumed with Jurassic Parc for example, and just implicitly.  But now I've more clearly delineated a psychogenesis and the two Parcs, I should focus on the Earth itself.  

I don't know that I need a clear distinction between the monadic psychogenesis and the concept of the Pokatok Parc. The latter can just be seen to be a logical extension of the former.

The Earth itself, as are the stars, is seen as a teleolgical construct of the relevant sciences. These two phenomena need not always have existed in the presently refined states. There were very few relevant phenomena being observed, back in history.




(cont.)

Ok..... We have the symmetry breaking/mending of the monadic Potentia.  We have the two Parcs: Jurassic and Pokotok, which would have a minimal overlap.  And then we have the inorganic background, both terrestrial and celestial.  These divisions are somewhat arbitrary, and they are as much pedagogical as ontological.  

While we're at it, maybe we should also have a micro/metabolic Parc.  These three Parcs, JP&M, are our cosmic/SciFi 'research' centers.  These are where cosmic intelligence confronts the mundane.  These are only to produce rough copy..... a conceptual outline, if you wiil.  We, co-creators, fill in the details, more teleologically.  


11am-----------

But, careful, I'm resorting to something that sounds too much like a historical sequence.  All of this tanspires outside of mundane time.... the symmetry-breaking and JP&M.  

Here's another way to look at this problem........

I am doing a modular design.  The modules are put into place 'simultaneously'.  They are stitched together, finally, with the 'thread' of our human trajectories.  I was going to designate two sets of the trajectories....... the exploring/pioneering and the rest of us.  Maybe I can still do this, but doesn't this mean that we would have to accommodate the two types of humans, as somehow simultaneous?  That could be rather awkward.  


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

Or else..... we have to introduce another, logical, dimension of time.... also awkward.  It seems that we need provision for some sort of shake-down cruise for the world, without creating anachronisms.  The rest of us only ever experience the final version or BPW.  

No.  I think it is the Telos that serves as our mundane Parc.  Thus we have JPM&T parcs.  Our present is derived more from the T/Omega than from the Alpha.  Our memories are causitive of the past.  This is strong teleology.  It may be the maximal version.  It is almost as if our present was being projected back from the future.  Perhaps these memories can be manipulated as they are being coordinated.

It is collective uCs, CuCs wherein these four domains, JPM&T are ultimately coordinated.  Our nightmares represent the gaps that need to be filled in.  The pristine Earth would logically be part of the Jurassic domain.  That's where we perform the tectonic symmetry breaking.  This would be a bit of an add-on, but nothing too severe.

We have the cosmic intel and the CuCs.  They need not be clearly distinguished.  We also have the digital 'Cloud', or whatever that is destined to become.  Much of this coordination can keep us busy in the Millennium.  It's looking like heaven is mostly taking up residence in the Millennium.  After the Mill, we focus on the SymMend.  This part of the Omega is rather less arbitrary than the SymBrk at the Alpha.  It is a bit of a jigsaw puzzle.  

Does this mean that the past is not necessarily fixed at present, despite our memories and records?  


2:30----------

Well, our memories have already been coordinated.  I suspect that our memories and our uCs are not unrelated.  Am I suggesting that I can effect my past?  But from what stance?  Is it my stance in the future?  It couldn't be the present, could it?  

We might not, then, have free-will in committing grievous acts?  Can this be right?  I'm doubting it.  


4:30---------


What teleology would be responsible for evil?  Who in the future would decide about harm in the past?  Something is not computing.

In the BPWH, it is assumed that a lesser evil help to prevent a greater evil.  It is assumed that a degree of evil is essential in a properly run world.  

Then there is theodicy and anti-theodicy to consider.  With a cosmic intelligence, it is difficult to discount omnisicence, and the moral culpability that it seems to impose on that intelligence.  

As co-Creators, we, of course, share in the blame.  But this is a general sort of culpability.  It is the specificity, though, that stings.  It is hard to imagine.  Does my future self, for instance, willingly impose harm on my past self?  If we break it, we own it.... our own souls.  Do we get to sit behind some sort of Rawlsian veil?  It seems to leesen the pain, though, if we can suppose that God holds our hand throughout the ordeal.  The hurt somehow goes away when God kisses the sore...... when.....


7:50----------

With any sort of teleology there must be provision for a shared soul. We're all in this together, come hell or highwater. We just haven't quite figured this out, yet. The revelation may be sooner than many would want.



(cont.)

The devil's in the details...... or is it quantum randomness....?

I have to think back to Kit Williams and other painters of superrealism, or just artists in general, where every stroke has some intent behind it, conscious or otherwise.  Need our world be different?  Can it be?  According to science, it is the extreme opposite.  There is no such thing as the intentional.  It is all an illusion.  It it all the product illusory subjectivity.  There are no subjects, only objects.  Our subjectivity is a social construct, with, obviously, the ability to confer survival upon its beneficiaries.  Or so we are told.  Do I look like a true believer?  

Is there a logical middle ground between micro coherence and indifference.....?  No one has found it.  

Imagine all the seemingly chance details that go into an assassination or into a major natural disaster.  Was either one under the purview of a cosmic intelligence?  

If one event is an act of God, why not another?  What is going on?  Are there any limits to idealism?  Everything is something's idea.  The hairs on your head are numbered.  No sparrow falls unremarked.  A tree falls in the forest.  For whom does the bell toll?  

My assumption is that there are habituated 'natural' cycles.  Or, IOW, natural cycles are not individuated, unless we intervene.  What predicates this 'intervention'?  

Well, we do have animal husbandry.  Do we have sparrow husbandry?  

When we intervene, the natural cycles become objectified, or, more accurately, intersubjectified.  Well, they become individuated, as do atoms, when we're properly instrumented.  

Do I not believe in cosmic-ray induced mutations in DNA molecules?  Was it any different with pre-historic animals?  

It is the intersubjective individuation that is uniquely a product of social sapience.  Social sapience is a potentially individuated form of cosmic intelligence.  Each of us is a product of this individuation.  But that individuation would not be possible w/o our shared Soul.  Our long-term eidetic memories, when combined with our universal components of sapience, are what personify us.  Yes, we are the end products of the universal symmetry breaking.  It is us, persons, who may individuate the habituated, natural cycles.  

Does all this proceed logically from the Monad?  Well, it must be understood that the Monad is an unindividuated person, in the first instance.  That is a bit of a mouthful......


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

What I'm stumbling on, or upon, is the notion of a primordial memory.  How can there be memory w/o time, or vice-versa?  

This is where symmetry breaking, wrt sapience, may come into the picture.......

This is why I tend to think of memory as a kind of continued symmetry breaking.  Individuation and personification are of a piece.  Memory unfolds somewhat randomly.  It will infold rather less randomly.  That infolding is what our Millennial KoG will be mostly about.  

Memories can be viewed as 'wakeup' dreams, where they are extruded from the uCs potentia, after the fact of the waking stimulus.

Is this true of all our memories?  They are extruded?  That's sort of what I'm saying. They are extruded from the primordial potentia, aka the CuCs.  That extrusion process is aka 'time'.  It is the X-event that defines the logical and chronological limits of that process.  We've actually just been coasting home since that event.  We just haven't quite figured that out.  Well, xtians suspect they've been saved.  

Why hast thou forsaken me?  That was near the breaking point.... a logical limit to Creation.  The God particle is the intellectual form of it.  IOW, scientific materialism was a form of this sleepwalking/coasting.  Now we try to keep punching the snooze button.  But the katechon is wearing out.  We are waking up to its presence.  It is only like the morning mist...... it will burn off in the heat of the Sun.  

The coherence of the MoAPS, the BPWH/SWH/CTC (4M/K/SoT/X2), is what will commence the symmetry mending, consciously.  The Cloud, the noosphere, has been doing that, mostly unwittingly.  


11:20--------

Yes, Virginia, there is a plan of salvation.  It must have been built into the Creation.  The Monad can be stretched only as far as sapience will permit.  Physical limits figure in that picture.  The entire anthropic picture is integral to our sapience.  Did the Earth have to be round and finite?  Well, it's more like a concave Earth.  But, yes.  

Quantitative finitude is integral to our coherence, which is integral to our spience.  The qualtative infinitude is in our shared Soul.  We share it with God.  

I still wish to say that there were pioneering intelligences, which worked out the basic parameters, milestones, outlines and limits of Creation.  Would they be a diffenrent breed?  I suppose that they can easily blend into the finished product.  


1:50---------

The existence of evil and mishap is taken to be part of the plan of salvation.  Fortune and misfortune need be apportioned individually.  Are there not intermediating entities involved in this process..... some sort of personal oversight?  

Evidently, the soul need not be degraded in the symmetry breaking process.  It's potential remains intact.  This is the case with elementary particles, coming out of the big-bang.  They all maintain the same form.  

In physics it is not the particles, but the laws governing them that undergo the SBP, symmetry breaking process.  


3:50----------

Associated with the SBP is the so-called hierarchy problem involving the discrepant magnitude of the fundamental forces.

It could be that there is a hierarchy wrt mortal and immortal. This could apply to our Cs rather than to our Soul. That is an off-the-top speculation.



(cont.)

Again, we need to step back........

First, the SBP, being referred to yesterday, is not responsible for the appearance, at a given time, of a plethora of souls.  There is still only one sapient soul that is just being recirculated around the CTC.  This is the one cosmic soul of which we are all time-sharing.  

The SBP applies to the basic personality types among sapients.  I would also guess that a similar process is at work wrt the speciation of the flora and fauna.  It is the long term memories, both eidetic otherwise, that contribute to the unique individuation of our personal selves.  

The reverse of the SBP is the 'mending' process, SMP.  This is a significant part of the apocatastasis that brings us all the way back to the cosmic Monad.  That Monad, I'm thinking, is what some 'pantheists' refer to as nirvana.  It is undifferentiated.  It is not a person, it is not what we, theists, refer to as God or the Father.  Yes, it is pure love.  No wonder the attraction.  It is the cosmic attractor.  Nothing escapes.  Nothing is beyond its pull.  

In the trinitarian scheme, what we call the holy ghost is the remnant of the Monad.  It is the relation, the bond between mother and son.  It is also the logos spermatikos, aka immaculate conception, and the spirit of truth (SoT).  Ok.  Got that.....?!

Then we go on to heptoads and olympiads, etc., and on to the human personas.

I have not touched upon angelology or demonology, etc.  I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Well, more seriously, I've not broached the distinction between mortal and immortal.  Is that part of this symmetry breaking?  


Noon----------

On the way to the Eastern Shore ......

The symmetry breaking between mortal and immortal seems somewhat analogous to the symmetry breaking of the Higgs field.


5:30---------------

I am using symmetry breaking and the Higgs field, only as I have used other such physical and biological schemes, like the CTC, attractor, ontogeny, etc. simply as intuition pumps for our metaphysical thinking.  That nature and metaphysics might recapitulate each other is only meant to be suggestive.  If there be any deeper connection, so much the better.  

The acquisition of mass, in field theory, could be analogous to the acquisition of mortality.  We tend to think of mortality as prior to, or as a debased form of immortality.  Rather, the fomer may be an elaborate and very special construct of the latter.  This notion might even go to our heads.  



(cont.)

Always in the back of my mind has been the energy problem.......

I suppose that free enegy does not exist.  Nor do I suppose that fusion energy will be widely practical.  

Solar energy......?  I can envision a solar economy.  Given the premises of scientific materialism, it could have a significant positive impact on our limits to growth, but solar energy would hardly overturn those limits.  What significant impact it might have would take several generations to work out.  

It was with the aknowledgement of those limits, the limits of physics, that I turned to metaphysics and immaterialism.  I saw transcendentalism as the way to transcend the limits of materialism, and not just on a personal level.  I envisioned the global eschatology of transcendentalism, of immaterialism.  


What are the limits of transcendentalism......?  

The metaphysical small world hypothesis (SWH), indirectly, and somewhat ironically, owes its existence, in part, to our physical limits to growth.

Why do I still seem to be adhering to the physical limits?  Why am I not transcending those limits with my transcendentalism?  

In the first instance, my adherence to quantitative limits is a matter of 'personal aesthetics'.  This aesthetic I share with the Greeks in my abhorence of the Apeiron.  

Modernity consists principally of our romancing the Apeiron.  We feel exihilerated, rather as Nietzsche, with being lost in space and time.  We have thoroughly immanentized the Eschaton.  It would seem that I am rather out of step with the times.

When I refer to the 'personal aesthetic' that turns me against the Apeiron, I don't mean an ego-based aesthetic, not in the first instance. I'm refering rather to the general aesthetic of personalism. What is that aesthetic.....?

I guess it is simply the aesthetic of love. It is that love transcends all. Even if there were an apeiron, love would have conquered it.... I am supposing. Well, it would have tamed it, embraced it.

Speaking of taming, though, I do have an appreciation for the wilderness, for pure nature.


(cont.)

Dan, was Arthur C. Clarke precognitive?

http://www.syfy.com/childhoodsend

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/14/in_our_paranoid_tea_party_age_the_benevolent_alien_overlords_of_childhoods_end_are_a_tough_sell/

Thanks, Gary........

Yes, Childhood's End is a sort of non-christian, even anti-christian, rapture story.  After all, the Overlord is portrayed as an Antichrist.  

The story comes off as the antithesis of personalism.  

But, yes, Clark, in someways, was being precognitive.  You don't have to be an xtian or even a theist to sense that we live in an Endtimes.  There is some sort of finality going on here.... certainly a fin-de-siecle.  


Back to personalism, thankfully.  Well, no, back to the wilderness.....

Coming as we do, from urban environments, it rather easy to appreciate the wilderness, while eating popcorn in a movie theater, or while ensconced in a park lodge.  Our pioneering ancestors just couldn't tame the Wilderness quickly enough.  

Yes, we all share a fascination with abysses, but we'd rather view them from a comfy distance.  

Our errand into the 'wilderness' was not to hug the trees, or the natives, for that matter.  

But, if persons are so wonderful, why not an unlimited number of them.  Why the limits?  

Is it simply so that we can pose as family?  Clan?  Tribe?  

What we wish to avoid, ultimately, is the Other.  That is impersonal.  

In that case, the Earth might seem too big.  

Well, I'm suggesting the the Earth is optimal, from any fundamental point of view.  It is our optimal, maximal challenge..... getting to know each other.  

Yes, the Earth does threaten to fragment, especially now with the clash of civilizations.  It is a challenge.  This challenge might be more easily met, if we had a clue as to what it was all about.... Alphie.  Who are we?  From whence do we come, and whither do we go?  

Can we hope to ever be on the same page?  What else is there to hope for?  

Enlightenment will come when we most need it.... when we can't live without it.  Maybe that's about now.  Just sayin'........


1:30-----------

I started out today, thinking I would broach the subject of whether there is an immaterialist version of our mundane energy problem.  Maybe I can do that now.......

If we stop eating, our minds will fail, eventually, or so it seems.  

What about the cosmic mind?  What does it eat?  

Us??

Don't forget the eucharist..... we eat God.... God eats us?  

Well, I'm hardly the only one to suggest this.  I have referred to the ouroboric CTC as a kind of cosmic Dynamo.  We burn a lot of energy and emotion down here.  Hopefully it goes somewhere.  

In Apocatastasis, are we not absorbed into the One?  Is this not a cosmic communion?  Pass the tobasco.......

Was there an energy crisis in heaven, so we, critters, got put out to pasture.  Was this not the real story of Creation?    

But, if one cosmic dynamo is good, why not two......?  Well, the suggestion is that the relation between heaven and earth is something essential and itegral.  How much 'welding' energy could the apocatastasis require?  It is the great attractor, after all.  I have likened Creation to an elastic band.  With the Incarnation, it was stretched to its limit.  There was all that 'energy' stored in the stretch.  Now we can relax.  

On the neuronal model of cosmic Cs, what energy does our Cs need, over and above that of our neurons, as if we might have been neuron laced zombies?  Once you have us, sapients, God comes for free, as it were.  Most folks prefer to think of this the other way around.  No minor blasphemy, this.  

Enough on cosmic energy?  I think you get the idea.  


Perhaps, now, I should revisit mundane energy.  Where is that solar energy coming from, if not from nuclear fusion.  Maybe this question should be keeping me up at night.  It has, but maybe not as much as it should.  

Yes, I have talked our way out of atoms..... convenient abstractions, budgetary tokens, etc, etc.  Not so facile with fusion.....?  

Earth does have an energy payroll to meet, every day.  Yes,  now that we've talked ourselves into a cosmic 'Dynamo', where's the juice?  


2:50----------

But is nuclear energy any more inexplicable than the molecular energy of metabolism and combustion, from an immaterialist PoV?

I have spoken of the psychology of fire, along with Bachelard. Rubbing two sticks together and dropping a bomb, are they of a piece, metaphysically? Rather a stretch, it might seem.





(cont.)

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2
by GSB/SSR Today at 10:44 am
+
----
-
Dan, was Arthur C. Clarke precognitive?

http://www.syfy.com/childhoodsend

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/14/in_our_paranoid_tea_party_age_the_benevolent_alien_overlords_of_childhoods_end_are_a_tough_sell/

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2
by dan Today at 11:37 am


Thanks, Gary........

Yes, Childhood's End is a sort of non-christian, even anti-christian, rapture story. After all, the Overlord is portrayed as an Antichrist.

The story comes off as the antithesis of personalism.

But, yes, Clark, in someways, was being precognitive. You don't have to be an xtian or even a theist to sense that we live in an Endtimes. There is some sort of finality going on here.... certainly a fin-de-siecle.



FROM CY: Actually its an exopolitical supposition you should have caught as having read Legacy of the Elder Gods by M. Don Schorn.

Go back and read Ch 10 Turning Point, once more. Basically the suggestion is that the Earth suffered from being conquered by the ‘not good’ celestial elements out there and the ‘Ancients Ones ‘Elder Gods of Antiquity’ aka Sepheroth(cabalism)/Prajapatis (esoteric Sanskrit) meaning the seven ancient races of ‘builders’, those who worked for the Supreme Creator (the One in All – celtic), were expelled from Earth and the BOPH invaders were allowed to ‘emancipate’ humanity, in order to avoid the BOPH from eradicating humanity in favor of their own colonization. This ostensibly becoming a set deal in 3150 BC.

We see this duplicated in the US Gov treaty with the not so good, ‘GREY’s or ‘GREY GROUP’ rather than working with the slower and more mature alternative group that approached them at roughly the same time but were rejected because they would not give weapons or tech with which we might hurt ourselves…the US Gov opted for the faster more dangerous path with the ‘emancipators’ the Greys and DRACO? Possibly because of the socio-political influence of the post-war Nazi international within US Gov/Corporate America at that time who were already involved in Sirius via the Volkisch former Reich with its Irminenschaft belief system that sucke Vril wind with a HEIL VRILYA, when no one was looking and loved the futuristic Hans Coler triebwerk tachyonator star-drive system and kraftstrahlkanone aka “anachronism gun”.

The movie/3 part series Sci Fi Channel, hosted basically depicts the exopolitical Trojan horse theory which we may have experienced at least twice before. Schorn’s book says that historically we took the easy road during the last technological civ and sided with the ‘bad guys’ then because what they offered was wrapped very nicely and held immediate benefits despite it made slaves of mankind to another human-like set of beings.

Cy

Dan, you may have to adapt to a Best Possible World(s) hypothesis ...

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/now-time-colonize-mars-elon-musk-says-n481906

"Now is the first time in the history of Earth that the window is open, where it's possible for us to extend life to another planet," Musk told a crowd on Tuesday at the annual winter meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

"That window may be open for a long time — and hopefully it is — but it also may be open for a short time," he added. "I think the wise move is to make life multi-planetary while we can."