Open Minds Forum

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Open Minds Forum

Open Minds Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

UFOs, Extraterrestrial Contact, Conspiracy, Exopolitics, Geopolitics, Paranormal, Crypto-zoology, Ancient History, Cutting-Edge Science & Special Guests.

Latest topics

» Personalism 101
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeToday at 12:24 pm by dan

» What Music Are You Listening To ?
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeToday at 10:57 am by Eben Yblod

» Disclosure - For U by U
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeYesterday at 10:09 pm by U

» Livin Your Best Life
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeYesterday at 8:13 am by Smelly El Chivo

» Smelly Goat’s Full Disclosure
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeYesterday at 12:06 am by Smelly El Chivo

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeMon Nov 28, 2022 11:41 pm by U

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 26, 2022 8:39 am by U

» Uanon's Majikal Misery Tour "it's all smiles on the magic school bus"
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 25, 2022 11:41 am by U

» Humans could face reproductive crisis as sperm count declines, study finds
Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 18, 2022 5:15 pm by 99

Who's Disclosure is Disclosure?

Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:16 am by Cyrellys

The narrative war is in full swing. When there's a 100 different competing narratives, how is it possible to discern a disclosure?

Is it akin to which truth is Truth?

November 2022


Calendar Calendar

Foot Mann
10 posters

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2


Posts : 2228
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 52
Location : Montana

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Cyrellys Mon May 04, 2015 12:29 am

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


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


"This is an indeterminite problem. How shall I solve it? Pessimistically? Or optimistically? Or a range of probabilities expressed as a curve, or several curves?..........Well.....we're Loonies. Loonies bet. Hell, we have to! They shipped us up and bet us we couldn't stay alive. We fooled 'em. We'll fool 'em again!" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Rue she said Protection
Rooster's Crow Confusion
One thing else to end the deed --
A dog with no Illusion.

~ Walter Wangerin Jr., Book of the Dun Cow
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:45 am

I think you got that I'm a personalist.  More accurately I'm an interpersonalist.  I stress that latter fact by invoking the Logos.  

The logos, in the form of logic can seem rather impersonal, as does mathematics.  It has an other-worldly feel to it.  

Other worlds.......?  Other monads.......? 

Was the New World not an _other_ world?  I say not......

Very simply put.... the Earth is round.  It had another side.  That's logic.  That's the logos at work.    

Too many ET enthusiasts can't see the difference between the the other side of the Earth, and the other side of the galaxy.  Is there an ontological difference?  Is there a logical difference?  

The logical difference is not subtle.  There is but one Earth.  There are, quite obviously, an an infinity of stars.... an infinity of galaxies.  

With all those stars and galaxies, surely there is another Earth.  It's mathematically certain.  

That is where mathematics and logic can lead us astray.  Even the Anthropic Principle can lead us astray.  

It is saying that life is a game of chance.  Yes, life is risky.  Life is finite and the universe is 'in-finite'.  It's just a matter of simple logic! 


There is nothing singular or personal about logic, or even about the Logos.  

It was only five hundred years ago that we discovered the New World. We might discover another one, tomorrow.  

We're discovering one Exo-planet/day.  We haven't even started testing them for free-oxygen, a sure sign of life.  

But here's a clue........ 

Logic is holistic.  The Logos is holistic.  The ecosystem is holistic.  

Life is holistic.  Societies are holistic, though Native Americans might demur.  

The caveat about interpersonal, though, is not a technicality.  It is not something to be quantified.  It is something substantial.  It must be at least as substantial as the pokotok ball.... as the atoms.

Interpersonal is not fungible.... no more than is a person.  We have to respect the microcosmic aspect of the interpersonal.  

We'll have to admit that the xtians come close to capturing this eco-logos in the concept of the incarnation.  We must understand the difference bewteen an avatar and an incarnation.  This is something I have not been able to verbalize.  I've not felt the need.  

IOW, with the three persons in one subsance..... Well, that One Substance is not just holy smoke.  What is is?  It is more like the holy ghost..... holy spirit, if you will.  

There is a personal intimacy built into the interpersonal.  Is the ecosystem personal?  

No.  It is interpersonal.  There is a subtle difference.  

It has to do with the substantiality of communion.  The deep ecologists sense this difference better than the rest of us.  That is why we have deep ecology.  I don't think I understood that, until here, now.  Maybe, as a result, I'm more here, now.  

IOW, the gallactic system is no eco-system.  It does nothing to substantiate communion.  The Earth does everything that is needed.  

Along the way, have I not explained true substance vs. abstract substance.  Science is not yet on the track toward understanding this difference.  I knew, all along, there was something truly substantial about communion.  I just couldn't put my finger on it.  


Finally, I think I understand, even 'scientifically', why there can be no ET's......

We could never commune with them.  This is, quite specifically, despite what Whitley has implied.  
You see, despite what we, Protestants, like to think, communion is not an abstraction.  If you're truly gonna commune, you got to get down and get dirty.  It's only taken me 30+40 years to figure out this little fact.  It is no small thing that we, sapients, are all of a single, communing species.  Yes, we do the dirty....... 

What the heck do dirt and logic have in common?  How do they commune?  How are they commensurable?  

I don't think we understand dirt..... substance......

We think of logic and math as Platonic..... the opposite of dirty.  


What's a poor monist to do.....? 

Why.... how did God manage to incarnate?  There's the rub...... 


Logic is about truth.  Truth is about trust.  Trust is about love.  

Tell me, which is the biggest gap between those three syllogisms.  

While you're comming up with the answer, I'll continue......

Ahhh...... but is there not Platonic love?  

Or, to go with the other syllogism..... how far are you willing to trust someone?  

To the nearest star...... to the other side of the Milky Way?  

Well, love may have to begin at home, but, then, what are the limits?  

But love is interpersonal.  That doesn't mean, for instance, that it can be bi-personal.  Abstractly, love can be between just two persons.  In practice, though, it never is.  It takes a village to raise a lover.  Couldn't the 'gallactic club' raise a lover?  


I have spoken often of normativity.  Normativity is quintessentially interpersonal.  Love and mathematics are normative, in the end.  

Would the Pleiadians not come up with the same mathematics, essentially..... substantially? 

We don't have to break the same bread in order to do the same mathematics.  e^i.pi = -1, everywhere, and even if you don't drink wine with Euler.  

Is the experience of love not universal?  

Well, we can share mathematics w/o sharing love.  

But, maybe, not..... in practice.  

What does practice have to do with mathematics....?  

My contention is that mathematics, along with everthing else, is holistic.  Cannot mathematics be holistic unto itself?  

Mathematics exists in splendid/heavenly isolation.  It does seem that way.  That's what Plato thought.  Platonic mathematicians heavily outnumber the constructivists/finitists.  

The logos is an essential part of logic.  Logic did not, could not, emerge in a vacuum.  But language may be shared between incommunicants.  It happens all the time.  But that's not quite the point.  

We were wondering about a galactic club.....  

I don't think you can have clubs without first having tribes.  I don't think can form a galactic club without first having galactic tribes.  

This runs counter to the idea that we could commune on Platonic love.  I'm skeptical.  Platonic love is possible, but only in a substantial context.  It has to be a holistic context.  It cannot be two tribes isolated from each other.  They do not comprise a holistic context.  


If substance is the basis of the personal, are angels impersonal?  Angels are able to shape-shift, and take on human form.  I don't think that is just an option.  

Where does this leave the primordial Olympiad.  Their taking on Pokotok was not just for recreation.  

Then we have three persons in one substance.  That substance could be spirit or aether, the ambrosia of the gods.  

I want to say that the interpersonal has to be something substantial.  Whatever it is would be holistic.  Mathematics is interpersonal.  In itself, it seems insubtantial.  But it may be organic and holistic.  Wigner's UEM is all about the physicality of math.  

The genius of Srinivasa indicates that mathematics has a personal side.  It is a bridge between the personal and interpersonal, of course.  Is it also a bridge to that pokotok ball.  

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:49 am

In this small world, we have two things....... persons and the interpersonal.  Persons are the foreground, everything else is the background.  

The background consists of nature, culture and technology.  The logos is both natural and cultural.  Perhaps it even appears in technology.  In some sense, the logos ties the foreground and background together.  Our selves are part of the logos. 

What about the Aether.....?  The aether is the closest thing to the impersonal that we have.  It takes the place of the conventional spacetime frame.  It is the background of the logos, of the cosmic Self.  It is the least specific aspect of the Monad.  

Perhaps the aether includes aspects of what we also call spirit.  

There is also the chaos or abyss..... the Apeiron or unbounded.  These are mostly abstractions.  From what are they abstracted?  Perhaps they are abstracted from Nature..... and so from the Logos.  Chaos is the anti-Logos.  It is the antithesis of almost everything.  

Then we have the Telos.  The Telos is the Monad when viewed from the perspective of history.  Persons and atoms are the microcosms of the Monad.... of the Telos.  Relative to the Monad, persons and atoms are illusory.  

But, by the same token, could not the Monad be viewed as an abstraction form the personal?  Well, it is abstracted from human history, but, in the End, it is the ultimate reality for all of us.  


The Monad is the ultimate source.  It is our ontological big-bang.  It is also the Telos.  

The Monad is not conscious.  It is not a person.  I speak of the cosmic Self metaphorically.  Personhood emerges with the trinity.  It is a  personal diad plus a semi-personified spirit.  The diad includes the logos/demiurge.  

The olympiad emerges by further symmetry breaking.  It is demiurge/Freya who orchestrates the primeval game I call 'pokotok'.  This is the prototype of Creation.   

But, maybe, I should allow the logos to cleave more to the spirit, as something that is partly distinct from the demiurge.  

The spirit is the prototype of the interpersonal.  It manifests as the playing field, plus ball, and later as nature.  

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:58 am

I've spoken of the personal and the interpersonal.  There is the personal Cs and uCs.  There is the interpersonal CCs and CuCs.  

Kant speaks of the phenomenal and noumenal.  I think that he was speaking of the Cs and the CuCs.  

In modern philosophy, his noumenon is interpreted as an impersonal thing-in-itself.  However, the 'nous' of noumenon is an explicit reference to things mental.  I don't think that this designation of the mental as funda-mental to his ontology was inadvertent on Kant's part.  His was a more subtle form of immaterialism...... objective idealism, if you will.  

It is clear, I think, that my immaterialist interpretation of Kant is a well represented, minority, PoV.  

.....enough for Kant.  

What I have neglected, so far, in this review of the BPWH, is the very imporant part played by the Potentia and by seeds of all sorts...... 

In some sense, the Monad is the primeval seed.  This is also the role of the big-bang in cosmology.  

We can reflect upon the toti-potency of stem-cells in biology, and of the logos-spermatikos, whatever that is.  

We, sapients, are the seedlings of Creation.  We are the toti-potent microcosms.  Atoms are also microcosms.  They are toti-potent in the 'material' or noumenal sphere.  


Well, that's almost a first...... I was trusting that there would be a wiki entry for logos-spermatikos.  There was only a mention.  My entry was the fifth mention on google....... 

The subtitle is Seminal Reason.  It is rather pithy, if I say so myself.  I made many connections then, that I was hesitating to make, now.  He who hesitates.......

I identify it with the spirit and, implicitly, with the vital force.... a self-organizing impulse.  

I specify no source for this page.  I have no idea where it all came from....... Some of it might actually be original.  Hmmm........

It seems I should give the SoT, in the form of the holy-spirit the pride of place, ontologically.  It is also the primeval dialectic.  

Generative grammar, genetic epitemology......  And it was Heraclitus, of all people, the philosopher of Chaos, who originated the idea.  


Perhaps we're dealing with the spirit of love that I keep refering to.  I do imply that love requires sapience.  The vital force is rather impersonal.... there is no sapience.  There is no microcosmic aspect to it.  

There is nothing to do with any self.  The vital force could be seen as the force behind an otherwise directionless evolution.  

There is no point to it.  Does the point of evolution emerge by accident, one fine day?  

No.  OTOH, there is Potentia.  That is closer to being the true vital force.  It is potency..... with a point.  The primal Potentia must include love and logos.... logos spermatikos..... spirit..... truth/trust.  

How does the Potentia relate to the Monad?  I believe that the Potentia is necessarily Monadic.  There is a dialectic of the Potentia.  Opposites reinforce each other.  There is mutual reification.  But this reification must have a synthesis.... a telos, and I don't think any old telos will do.  

Teleology is empty.... is pointless, w/o finality.  That is the other aspect of the Monad.  The Alpha and Omega both belong to the Monad.  

All of this implies that the Potentia entails coherence.  Certainly the logos does.  I suspect that the logos spermatikos and the Potentia are one and the same.  

The Telos is the spark in the eye of the Monad.  The coherence of the Telos is crucial to the monism of the Monad/Logos.  

In the logical dimension of time that I've referred to as second-time, or should I refer to it as primeval-'time', monism is only implicit.  There is no Monad, per se.  The Logos-spermatikos (LS) is the seed of all coherence.  Instead of a vital-force, we have a seminal Spirit.  This becomes the SoT and the Telos.  Retrospctively, these comprise the Monad.  

Does this shed any more light on the trinity......? 

Where does personhood fit into this logical progression?  


Personhood may not be self-aware until the advent of the Other.  This entails the symmerty breaking, yin/yang-wise, of the Monad.  I doubt that this can logically arise before then.  

Presumably, the LS partakes in/of SB.  

We may, more technically, be talking about Co-Dependent Arising.... Pratityasamutpada (CDA).  It seems like a bit of a cheat, but maybe this is the whole idea behind the holism of the Potentia.  

SB is an aspect of CDA.  Spirit could be the source and synthesis of the CDA/SB of the trinity.  More accurately, the Telos w/b the ultimate synthesis.  

I think that the Olympiad and the Pokotok process can fill in w/o much strain.  

Atoms, stars, etc.........?

Included in CDA/SB I would place the fractals of Nature.  And we even have their seeds/generators, such as z' = z^2 + C for the Mandelbrot.  

I would presently be inclined to say that atoms are the reflections of the cosmos through ourselves.  Ultimately, they derive from the pokotok ball, and, of course, from our metabolism, etc.  

The co-dependency, CDA, reflects the relationalism of coherence.  


Kant's noumenon is seen to consist of many things that we are now able to cognize.......

Much of this knowlege, freely admitted, comes to us gratis the scientific coherence.  This coherence includes, particularly, mathematics and evolution.  

But then there is the uCs and its collective version, the CuCs.  

One could say that Kant was prescient wrt to the uCs, in regards to his noumenon.  

I suggest, though, that the scientic coherence, the UEM, etc., is the result of the monism of the Noumenon.

It is important to note, throughout, that teleology cannot be open-ended. It must be bounded quantitatively, in space and time, at the least. There must be a Telos/Omega. The Telos contributes mightily to the monism of the Monad.

The Alpha and Omega are, of course, essential to the Monad.


Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:43 am

Ok, what do we have so far........?  

Yes, we have the personal....... and we have the interpersonal, i.e. the logos, culture, nature, spirit, etc.  

Then we have the potential, the logos spermatikos, co-dependent arising, symmetry-breaking, etc.  

We also have the abstraction of the impersonal..... the abyss, the apeiron, etc.  

With Kant, we have the phenomenal and the noumenal.  The phenomenal consists of the Cs and the collective Cs, the CCs.  And, for the noumenal, we have the uCs and then the CuCs of Jung.  Slowly, through science, psychology and metaphysics, we gain a grasp of the noumenal.  We shed light upon it.  

Do I make too much of the Potentia?  Perhaps.  After all, the whole point of the BPWH is that it is a fait-accompli.  Creation is solidly embedded in eternity.  

How then can we be co-Creators, if we have nothing to create.... if our Destiny is already fixed in the stars?  

Yes, the Telos/Omega is already One with the Monad.... along with everything else.  

But...... love lives.... who'd deny it?  Will faith die when we see the light.... when we see the face of the Lord?  

I'll have to let the angels speak for themselves.  With our mortality comes faith and love, right along with metabolism.  It's written in the atoms.  At the Rapture...... well, it is a new ballgame, and we're dying to see it.  

Me thinks that we won't have too much trouble falling into love with the Monad.... the Great Attractor in the Sky.  It's called redemption. It's called Apocatastasis/At-one-ment.  

To us, that remains the Big Potency in the Sky.  To God....?  Ask me, later.  

No, I'll tell you right now...... God is the big Potency in the Sky.  God so loved the world.... that He had all of us over.... for a Wedding Feast!  

Was it an arranged marriage?  We are the arrangers.  Get over it!  


Love is holistic.... love is holy/sacred/ultimate.  Wasn't Paul telling us this, way back, when.....?  

All love must be consumated.... in the apocatastasis.  It wouldn't be whole, otherwise.  It's just that simple.  Potentia lives in love.  Love lives in Faith.  

With Potentia, we have substance.  I'll admit that this is an odd idea, but, I swear, it's not original with me.  I don't think I'm quite that smart.  I'll need another stroke.... or two.  

I'm sure that the Greeks figured this out, along with the Hindus, of course.  

But potentia is just pobability, isn't it?  A total abstraction.  

Remember that to love, we had to get down and get dirty.... substantial, call it.  Is there a difference?  

We had to commune.... with real wine.... with transubstantiation.... no, not just grape juice!  

This is what Alchemy was, and is, all about.  Along with the Alchemy comes the Astrology..... hey, might as well throw in some fossils, while you're at it!  That would be the Zodiad.  

Yes, our dirty dirt was cooked-up by the neutrino shock-wave in a distant super-nova.  Ooops.....  

Plato has hardly a communalist.  We, prols, sub-lunary cave-dwellers, all.  Heaven was for the heavenly.  Not a trans-substantivalist, he.  

We're still there..... our bodies in the cave.... ours heads in the stars.  Science, though, mixes it up.... well, now, at least, it has consigned the stars to its material 'cave'.  

Then, along came the Noumenon..... came Potentia.....


This just in.......

How do I explain this, w/o invoking honest-to-god, real-live, in-your-face, black-holes?  

Hey, it's the logical extrapolation from our communion through nature.  I was just speaking of neutrino shock-waves.....

That communion wine is its own microcosm.  LIGO is just an extension of our cosmic communion cup.  I don't think my former grad-school colleague, Kip Thorne, would disagree.  He had a true passion for those formulas.... formulas that we can now hear! Me...? I don't have 50 years of patience..... I'm ready for the choirs of angels, here, now.

It goes to show you how pure that wine really is. A billion light-years can be seen in a billionth of the diameter of a proton. I think Plato is rolling over in his grave. All the energy of a universe of stars, rings out in a split-second.


Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:17 am

I've been reading up on substance.  Where does substance fit into the BPWH........?  

At last count we three sub-substances.....

1.)  Personhood

2.)  the Interpersonal, i.e. Nature, society, etc.

3.)  Potentia

However, the interpersonal and the potential may be seen as subcategories of persons.  We have bodies and potency as essential aspects of our mortal personhood.  

Is personhood, then, everything?  I don't recognize an impersonal, as such.  

Is not the pokotok ball, impersonal?  No.  I'm saying that it is interpsonal.  But, if there is only one person, then everything should be intra-personal.  

A cat plays with a ball of yarn.  Does the cat not reify that ball?  No.  We reify the cat and the yarn.  

Yes, there is catness.  There are cat 'genes'.  


Besides the Olympiad, we have often refered to a Zodiad.  Is this not a version of Plato's heaven?  

Does every last species have to have its very own Platonic form?  

Is there supposed to be someone orchestrating all this proliferation?  

I was contemplating two zodiads..... a rudimentary version for the Alpha, and a robust version for the Omega.  Sometimes I'm wont to forget that the flora and fauna have no reason to undergo significant changes over the relevant period of human history.  

Pehaps what I need to do is invoke that second dimension of time..... the symmetry-breaking, the logical, teleological dimension.  

This primeval dimesion of time sounds like it might be a cheat.  I hope not.  Even I'm having difficulty visualizing it.  I think the good analogy was with the incremental construction of the suspension bridge across the abyss.  Yes, we already have 10^10 silver threads, actually the 10^10 windings, that comprise recirculation of the singular cosmic Soul that we are all time-sharing.  But, of course, we end up by time-sharing the same CCs.  Maybe we're talking about this logical/SB dimension as also a dimension of the CuCs.  This is the fractalizing of Nature.  Even the cosmic gravity 'chirps' are to be found in the same place.  

The problem, though, that I now present to myself is to distinguish between the 'early' and 'late' comers to the 'construction' site.  Hey, all of us, here, are just along for the ride.  We're not aware of the laying of the cables.  We seem to be just the final day-trippers, except, maybe, for the scientists amongst us, who just seem to be passively examining the details of the constuction.  

Perhaps we, day-trippers, are, in our uCs, being more proactive.  If we were aware of this more proactive, uCs, dimension of involvement, we would be sore afraid..... of ourselves.    

Who's to say that our CuCs is not to be identified with VALIS.... with the cosmic Mind. I think we've already been assuming as much. Does this explain atoms, pulsars and fossils? With science, we are engaged in the archeology of the CuCs/VALIS. Who knows, but that, if we dig down far enough, we won't pop out it China. I mean, hey, we can only go half-way into the forest, before we're headed out again.


Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:16 am

I'm hoping that the cosmic chirp will be a turning point, at least conceptually, for immaterial astronomy.

It's difficult to see how the starry sky could be a psychic phenomenon, especially the Sun.  But moving a mirror by a billionth of the diameter of a proton, that should be no mean feat.  We have a simple example of telekinesis.  

I know that these would be fighting words to any astonomer.  I am sorry.  Have we proven that immaterialism is a non-starter?  Not in my estimation.  

Without even invoking teleology, we have at least a thousand astronomers primed for this particular observation.  They just don't know when to expect it.  We leave it up to the CuCs to 'fractalize' the expectations.  It's up to the cosmic mind to 'reify' the expectations by setting the time frame, as it were.

Synchronization of expectations is the most basic element of the phenomenal realm.  That's what the present is all about, anyway.

The basic point is that the monism of the present comes gratis the Monad/CCs.  

Besides the common time registration, we have the space registration, of course.  We never even wonder about it.  There are just public events.  Where would we be w/o them?  

So, yes, we now have cosmic ears.  But, hey, anyone for synaesthesia?  Remember that all of this is just felt meaning.  We have a 'prism' of consciousness (Cs), just to help us analyze our feelings.  Yes, we have the feeling of a forest underlying the vision of all those trees.  

(Headed to DC on the train to see a play......)

I mean, I like the vision of the death spiral of the black holes, lighting up to 100 times the brightness of the whole universe.  Awesome!!  Am I taking that 'candy' away from all of us?  The SWH is so anticlimactic, by comparison.  Do I need to apologize?  Does God need to apologize for loving us too darn much?  

Is he smothering our imaginations?  All those ETs out there..... just poof?  I'll trade you all that for the Eschaton.


Look, the Eschaton will be up close and personal. We're not talking billions of light years. There will be billions times more drama. If you're not totally blown away, be sure to ask for your money back.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:31 am

I have a new acronym....... MCP, the monism of the consensual present.

MCP is the only real miracle, every thing else comes along for the ride.

The next thing to understand is the necessary finitude of the MCP.  That should be a no-brainer..... well, almost.  Finitude..... that is just the necessity of coherence. The BPWH follows immediately.  Then there is the singularity of the MCP.  

Then we have the direct perception hypothesis, DPH.  We only ever perceive things directly.  Well...... all we ever truly perceive is the Monad.  Then we perceive the prism of the senses and technology.

Geometric optics is, as Kant implied, just the obvious default.  Hearing the thunder after the lightning is hardly the proof of indirect perception.  It is proof of sound waves, which is not quite the same, now is it?  

Look, if you're gonna have atoms, you're gonna have sound.  It's just part of the coherence. With the MCP, coherence rules. Get used to it.

Everything else just seems to follow....... LS... CDA.... all the Cs's.... sapience and personhood.... SB.....

I think, I hope that with LIGO and the Truman Show, etc. that I, at least, have turned a conceptual corner.  It's not just the light at the end of the tunnel, it's more that I've penetrated more than half way into the woods of immaterialism.  It all seems that much more comfortable.  

The last thing I was worrying about was 'catness', but now I can't remember why.  That's what comfort is about.  I was paranoid.  I was always looking over my shoulder, thinking that materialism was about to bite me in the behind.  Now it's the materialists' turn to be paranoid.


Take the example of going to the Moon......

Why can't we just go to the inspiral of the blackholes?  What's the big difference?  There's a big difference!  See, that's my newfound confidence!  You have to look at these questions more holistically, so now I must be more holi..... than......?  

We're looking at the world through infinity-tinged glasses.  We need to trade those in for love-tinged glasses, that's all.  If the world were quantitatively infinite, yes, we'd be able to fall of the edge of coherence.  But, fortunately, this playpen Creation has round corners, so we can't stray too far from God's love.... just far enough.... to the Moon.  

Now, we've almost come full circle..... all we have left are the MoAPS and the Millennium.  

On my phone, which I just picked up, I was reading about the LIGO history in Nature, and I came across a very useful concept...... Full-lock...... the engineers had been trying to achieve 'full-lock' on a major upgrade to the detector..... Yes, I think we've achieved full-lock on our universe detector, it's called Science.  It's time to move on....

We've got full-lock on our matter-detectors, now we need to upgrade to our spirit detectors.  We're switching from limited, material coherence to full, immaterial coherence.  It does take a little getting used to.... to get comfortable with it.  But, hey, come on in, the water's great!  

It only took me forty years, from first sticking my toe in, to being willing to dunk my head.


I mean, you just have to keep being holistic about it all, and I do mean _all_.  It's so easy to revert back to correspondence thinking.  All you have to do is truly embrace the Coherence.... the Monad, and stop being paranoid.  Modernism is all about anxiety and fear.  That's how 'they' keep us down on the farm.  That's how the Katechon works..... it just feeds off our own fear.  

We have...... let's count..... MCP, DPH, LS, CDA, SB, the  four Cs's...... and, finally, the BPWH/SWH/CTC  (4M/K/SoT/X2).  I've missed quite a few of those good ol' acronyms.  I should go back and review them, just for the fun of it.  

Along with the Monad, we have the PII, the LAP, the SAP, the M-BP...... the CorTT, the CohTT.  

Let's see now....... MDLCS4Cs (BSC(4M...)).  How about 1550CS/Cs (()).... 1550 CS2 ()....  Not forgetting.... P2LSM-B Co2.  I think we got it.  Once again 1550 CS2 P2LSM-B Co2 ().  

And don't forget Kant.... PheNoum.... or KPN.  Barfield... Saving the Appearances..... BSA.  The Alpha/Omega.  Personalism/Sapience.  Let's see.... KPN/BSA A/O P/S.  Oh, don't forget Weak Measurements, WM.  Then there's the Air Gap, with 144M>K, that is O/A, or, combing, I could just say 2A/O.  

We should not forget Plotinus' emanation theory.... PET.  


Wait..... we also had.... AZO/X/QRP..... that was an oldie.... but a very goodie.  It was all about the cosm and microcosm.  


It all goes back to LIGO and PK.  We have PK for moving matter.  Then we have the world and the 4Cs's.  I claim that it's a rather small conceptual leap from the former to the lattter.  With materialism, the 'ratios'.... L:P >< W:Cs get way out of whack.  We just need a 'slight' adjustment.  We need to get a 'lock' on immateialism.

If we just let the mind get its foot back in the door of reality, we won't have to lay awake at night worrying about getting run over by a stray blackhole.

Instead, we can worry about which side of God we want to sit on, and how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.  You mean, really, 72 virgins....... It would be a bit more relaxing.  

I have no entry, yet, for teleology.... that's a big oversight.  It's such a big deal, I don't know where to put it.  


Let us not forget measurement and normativity.... and, speaking of measurement, we'll not be forgetting WM.  The 4Cs's all fit into the WM scheme.  

Don't forget the holographic principle of mind and cosmos.m

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:24 am

You've caught me admitting to a 'prism' of the senses.  It seems a rather evident proposition. But how can I support the prism and direct perception (DP) at the same time?  

There's no question but that we have indirect perception.  I am not denying IP.  

I don't deny nature, either.  But I say that nature is a veil between God and us.  It prevents us from being blinded.  Yes, our eyes, too, prevent us from being blinded by DP.  Our eyes are part of nature.  Our senses prevent us from being overwhelmed by total telepathy.... clairvoyance.  Our senses are a prism, of sorts, but, more importantly, they are a filtering prism.  So are nature and space and time, of course.  

We don't want to be deafened by the cacophony that presently is the world.  It is only as we transition from pupa to 'chrysalis' that the nascent orchestration will allow us to hear the music without being deafened.  It will be then that our DP will gradually displace IP.

I understand that pupa and chrysalis are practically synonymous, technically.  Allow me, please, my poetic license in taking them as successive stages.  I like the phonetic contrast of the two words, and the implication of 'crystal'.  And I'm reminded of the other contrast..... are we cancer or chrysalis?  


Let's see if I've already forgotten......

1550 CS2 P2LS M-B Co2 () PKB 2AO AZO/X/QRP L:P/W:Cs Apks 72.  

Have I left anything out?  PKB are the initials of 3 philosopers. 1550 is MDL, standing for MCP, DPH, LS.  CS2 is both CDA/SB and the 4 Cs's.  P2 is PII, and then LAP and SAP.  Eventually, I'll have to write it all out.  Now, will the acronym help me to keep it all in mind?  Those are pretty much the highlights.  I really should have the Truman Show (TS).  

We need WM for the weak measurements, and I'm repeating the AO's in the AZO.... I think we get the idea.  BTW the Z refers to the precessional zodiac, and also the zodiad, I suppose.  I don't have the olympiad.  

I can actually eliminate the last part, and just have AZO, Apo and Ligo.  It's phonetic.  Apo is apocatastasis.  It was Apks. 72 was a joke.  Once again.......

1550 CS2 P2LS M-B Co2 () PKB (Azo Apo Ligo) WM TS.

Where () is standing for all of BPWH/SWH/CTC (4M/K...).  The first two items are MCP, DPH, LS, CDA, SB and the 4Cs's.... a mouthful.  While I'm at it..... Azo Apo Ligo = (3o).

I should mention the phenomenal cycles.  The linear time of history is symmerty breaking wrt the habituated sentient/phenom cycles.  Azo is supposed to cover that, both micro and macro.  With the QRP part R stood for the reproductive cycle.  These cycles were meant to replace biochemistry, etc.  

I have some mnemonic insurance in case this forum goes the way of the first one.  I note that this page, 29, has grown rather lengthy. I'm reluctant, though to disturb Cy wrt to her many other, more important, duties.  Help.......


How coherent is it all?  More coherent then science, I dare say.  Science is coherent despite itself.  It is embarrassingly coherent..... we have Wigner's UEM, for instance.  We have the embarrassing riches of every kind of holism you could think of.  At its heart, science is supposed to be anti-coherent.  It owns the CorTT.  It abjures the CohTT.  

Naturally, the immaterialist cup of coherence just overflows into Nature.  Science is the beneficiary.  Yes, God made the world safe for atheists.  He did not want the rest of us to be lording it over them.  

I'm back on p23 that starts on 12-6-15, and the topic is substance.  We ought to have a spot for that in the mnemonic.  It covers a very wide range of possibilites, including Potentia.... even aether and spirit.  It is the necessary background of personhood.  

Substance does contrast with the Forms.  Recently, I was going to discuss the form of Catness.  I don't think there was a conclusion.  

I'm at a loss for words.... outside my comfort zone.  Is genetics biting me in the behind?  I break the question down..... why are there species, and why is the cat species so.... catlike?  I don't think the general question should be a problem.  As far as why cats are so catlike, what can I say?  But where did the cat Form come from?  Where does it reside?  What about the dog Form?  It is much more ad-hoc... flexible.  Are we dealing with two different kinds of forms?

My inclination is to say animal forms are derivative from us, by us, in the end...... that evolution can run backwards.  All other incarnation derives logically from ours.  Yes, we have to employ all the tricks creation and teleology.  

That would leave the flora unaccounted for, of course.  

'Evolution' could have run in both directions in the logical dimension of time.  It would have been very helpful if some of the basic forms could have been seeded into the process.  There are many ways this could have been done.... between us, the cosmic intelligence and the various dimensions of time.  

Back on the BPW site, I invoked a Jurassic Parc as in another dimension of time and space, where intelligence would have had more latitude.  No doubt that shape-shifting would have been helpful.  I have in mind the Zodiad and totemic deities.  

With flora, it is not obvious what would take the place of the totemic deities, but similar logical dimensions and bi-directional 'evolutions' could have been employed.  

Of course, in the worst case scenario, I could invoke creationism, pure and simple, but, in the BPW, we are the co-Creators, and God is maximally/optimally lazy.  But I still haven't answered the cat question.  Do we employ forms?  

Morphic Resonance might also come in handy. I'm not sure how the Morphs differ from the Forms, but remind me to work on it.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:57 am

What's with us, humans?  Is there a human form, or not?  

There is a human soul.  We all share it.  That soul is our form, but, no, that doesn't quite explain our bodies, now, does it?  

But I assume that animals have souls, too, just not individuated as ours are.  Ours are temporarily individualized through our sapience and long-term memory, far beyond that of any animal soul.  

But, wait.....  The BPW is eternal.  It's finiteness is embedded in eternity.  

Well, more accurately, we are embedded in the Monad.  What do I mean by 'we', Kimosabe? I've never spelled it out.  It seems that I do have some cleaning up to do.  

Suppose we came back to visit.... what would we recognize?  I've privately struggled with this one, too.  Generously, I've left a lot of work still to do.  

I recognize the singularity of the Present.  I doubt that it is repeatable.  But it is still an illusion, relatively speaking.  

I doubt that we can come back, certainly not in our present form.  Our lives can never be relived?  Our 'mistakes' never corrected?  

Our lives are already lived to the fullest.  Our memories are contained in the Monad.  The point is that we may not need souls or forms.  Everything is in the Monad, already.  

IOW, cats and dogs are an emanation.  So are we.  They are forever.  There is something phony about forms.  

There are seeds.  There are even egg and sperm banks.  How do we explain this w/o robust DNA?  Is there no room for DNA in heaven?  

We have to keep reminding oursleves to look at this holisticly.  

I've not yet determined the holistic attributes of DNA..... darn, more loose ends.  

What is the logic of seeds?  What is the logos spermatikos?  What is seminal reason?  

It has to do with the full measure of the microcosm, even with atoms.  It has to do with contextualism.  What is the context of a sperm bank?  It does seem a bit sparse.  

Well, a sperm bank is just a logical extension.... of what, exactly?  

Of the Monad......?!!  Perhaps......  


The Monad is the super Seed.  It is Totipotent.  There is symmerty breaking, and there is also symmerty 'mending'.   There is Apocatastasis at the Telos.  What are seeds, but an extension of metabolics and microcosmics.  Would we prefer homumculi?  Hmmm.....

How, exactly is the DNA not homunculus-like?  Preformatism, anyone?  Microcosmics is all about preformatism.  Monadology is all about preformatism.  That's what totipotency is.  

The whole point of epigenesis is that life comes from non-life.  Life is reducible to non-life, to atoms. Well, guess what.... who says atoms are not alive?  Who says they're not totipotent?  Who says they're not microcosmic?  Everything else is.  

Context is everything.  Seeds are the main refutation.  Spores survive everywhere.  

Seeds are nothing, if not semi-potent. How do we explain semi-potency w/o invoking reduced DNA?

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:05 am

I can see that I'm headed into a logical dead end.  Yes, I do need to give atoms and DNA their due.  I have.  What more is there to give?  

For materialists, the only good atom is a dead atom..... an objectifiable atom.  I can and will appeal to organicism, vitalism and pantheism.... all objects are filled with a vital force or spirit.  One might even speak of a bipolarity between spirit and body.  This would be and extended Cartesianism.  Well, it is a step in the right direction, but it leads to the ultimate incoherence of dualism.  

For five years I struggled with quantum dualism.  But I was not tempted by pantheism.  When I was young, I had called myself a transcendental pantheist.  I was mainly being influenced by Teilhard de Chardin, and also by panentheism.  I had teleology on the brain.  Vitalism, and all that, gives us, maybe, a foot in that door, but only very indirectly.

There is a not so small industry producing bio-molecular animations.  I'm sure I'm biased, but does anyone actually believe what they see?  It seems like some sort of updated Fantasia.  They ought to have musical soundtracks.  Yes, I'm sure that the schematic of it is accurate.  Molecular biology is not just a fantasy.  It does work.  I'm sure that my longevity owes much to medicine.  But, still.....

These animations are very informative and entertaining, but what's the take-away?  Is a living cell supposed to be some sort of Rube Goldberg device?  

If some sort of morphic resonance is involved.... Well, the genome presumably is acting as some sort of collapsable antenna, tuning into Plato's heaven.  That's quantum dualism.  

Yes, we're confronted with a slippery slope, and there's more than just a little quantum 'grease' being added to the Rube Goldberg device.  It took me five years of struggling with quantum dualism to finally confront the abyss of immaterialism.  

Fools, like me, rush in where Angels and professionals fear to tread.  Professional scientists, philosopers and theologians have, over the centuries, developed a very elaborate set of protocols for dealing with the unknown.  

Yes, what to call it......?  The bureaucracy of the unknown.  With all the compartmentalization and territoriality that goes with it.  And every one of those compartments is jealously guarded by a phalanx of 'centurions' insisting that every remaining mystery is really just a puzzle, waiting for sufficient grant money to be solved.  No grants are being offered for the MoAPS.  

What sword, which Alexander, is to cleave this Gordian knot?  'Tis a puzzle.  Did I mention fools?  

Yes, I'd been foolish enough to hope that the global intelligence community (GIC) was just waiting patiently for the right fool to come along.  I mean, really.....  Hey, pick me.... pick me!!  Hmmm......  Needless to say, Catfish has grown a bit scarce.  I guess we had just one too many of those vectors and surprises.  My Halloween prank might have been a bit over the top.... not to rush the gates or anything.  


Hey, this has got to be the slipperiest slope around..... from organicism all the way to the Telos.  But when you confront the abyss, that is the only hand-hold.  You can readily grasp why vitalism is a virtual curse word amongst the pro's.  

You give us that inch, and, us amateurs, we'll gladly take the mile, thank you very much.  Meanwhile, enjoy all those videos.    

To my mind, at least, DNA is a logical necessity.  Is logicality tantamount to reification... objectification?  I claim not.  

Given atoms, there's got to be DNA.  But, n.b., this DNA is organic, organismal stuff.  That's not quite like they show it in the movies.... some of them are 3-D, you can reach right out and touch the stuff.  

Well, there's all that quantum fuzziness....?  No.  That's the real deception, if deception there be.  


Sure, we've got some sort of virtual reality.  But it also has internal structure.  It comes in layers.  It is worlds within worlds.  It is microcosms, all the way up and down.  How does that work?  Got me.  

The Telos works from both the Alpha and Omega ends of history, and from the macro and micro scales.  Each of us is a bead on Indra's necklace, just for starters.  And there is the logical dimension of time.  

Holism operates in force, throughout.  Does a holistic atom look fuzzy?  That might be the problem.... we suppose that everything is visualizable.  It's difficult to conceive of that which cannot be visualized.  We can visualize the words in a sentence, but we don't visualize their contextuality.  We just conceive it.  That's what it is to be fluent.  Yes, we need to be more fluent in molecular holism.  

A word is just an abstraction, when it is taken out of context.  Individual words acquire 'substance' only when they combine into meaning.  Well, that is more obvious with individual letters.... as with atoms.  We can see a word, and immediately grasp its meaning, but have to pause to think how to spell it.  We recognize the word before we recognize the letters.  

How is nature like us, in that regard.....?  We think of contextuality as something in us, not in nature.  I'm suggeting that, in fact, it is something that is interpersonal.  

Letters are just a social convention.  Atoms...... they don't depend on us for their existence.  There's the rub.  I don't believe it.  

Atoms always exist in a context.  Everything exists in a teleolgical context.  To exist is to relate.  

The Monad, the Telos is the great relator.  Three atoms don't exist, any more than one atom.  Relatedness is holistic.  It is all or nothing.  You'll never run into half a Monad.... or half a BPW, for that matter.  

We don't have half a Creation.  It would be incoherent to have a bad creation.  Would it make any more sense to have a mediocre Creation?  


Nature is like a poem, but science is treating it like a spelling bee.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:45 am

Science may be a spelling bee, but we have to learn to spell, in order to read the book of nature.  Science does find a coherence in nature with its own alpha/big-bang.  There just isn't any Omega.... not that you'd want to write home about, anyway.  It has no omega to match it's dramatic Alpha.  Tough break, sports fans.  

Science was supposed to provide a backstairs to Heaven.  Instead, it provided a front-stairs to the heavens, or so it seemed, back in the late Fifties.  But, by the Seventies, our blue-sky dreams had mostly faded.  We started to pivot inwards.  

Science's stairway to Heaven turned out to be a blind alley.  Well, not quite.....

Instead, it provided us with the perfect step-ladder..... not too high, not too short.... just right for our final, dramatic leap of faith.  Well, one small step for a man, one giant leap for humankind.  

Now we have full permission to renegotiate the front-stairs to Heaven.  Scripture got us to the stepladder.  From the top of the stepladder, we can just see the cosmic staircase, and the true Omega.  

We just have this one last, little leap of faith.  We just have to realize that the cosmos is more like a great thought than a great machine.  

Yes, the cosmos is just an ornament, after all.  But it is our ornament.  We are the great contextualizers.  When we look out to the stars, we are seeing the backs of our own heads... especially true with LIGO.  

Have I wrapped it up.... real nice.....?  Where were we.....?  1550 and fight....?  


Thanks for the break....!  Is anything getting resolved with the Feds, out at Malheur?  Any progress?  


1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS MB PKB (BPW....) (3-o) WM TS.

What the heck is that......?


Last edited by dan on Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 658
Join date : 2012-12-29
Location : Planet Earth

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by GSB/SSR Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:50 am

The BPW is eternal. It's finiteness is embedded in eternity.

If World=Our Local Universe and Eternity=Multiverse then you are agreeing with Mad Max ;-)

STARstream Research | "We know the future"
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:22 am


I'm glad to know that you haven't deserted me, yet.  

According to my information, the astonomers are never likely to determine whether our apparent universe seems to be part of something finite or not.  I believe that this is Max's Level I.

For me..... Eternity = Monad.  At last count, Gary, there was only one Monad, but hold on...... maybe I'd better check again......!!??

Yup... still just one....... but, don't worry, I'll keep checking...... You just never know what might happen next!!

Aside........ Poor Gary, he's acting just like the prisoners in the Bastille when the revolutionaries broke down the walls.... he can't tolerate the Sunlight.  

1550..... I've almost got it memorized.  It provides a pretty good mnemonic for the BPW.  Whatever has been left out is either too trivial to include, or it is too obvious to forget.  You can burn my house, and steal my car, but you can't step on my mnemonic.  


Atoms were the last big hurdle, but I think we have enough contextuality, now, to match anyone's skepticism.  We haven't proven that atoms aren't objects...... but, wait, that's already been proven.... Copenhagen.  What we've done is provide the necessary context.  

See, like everything else, there's no such thing as half a context.... or partial context.  That's the beauty of monism..... it's all or nothing.  The point is that God couldn't have made a half-assed Creation, even if he'd wanted to.  And why the heck would he want to?  

I've barely included measurement in the mnemonic..... only weak measurement (WM).  I should also have strong measurement (SM).  What is SM.....?  

It's also sapient measurement.  It's super-measurement.  I really should replace WM with SM.  SM incorporates WM.  

I like sap/sup-measurement.  Yes, this is also SAP.... the strong Anthropic Principle.  That's how it works.  

See, sapience is all about holism and coherence.  You can't be half smart.  Sapience is just like monism.... it's all or nothing.  IOW, there's no such thing as half a measurement, either.  Yes, there are weak measurements, but those are something else.  I'm not sure quite what.....


WM = Cs = 4Cs's.  That's saying a mouthful.  WM = SM.  Wonderful.  

Each of us was created in the image of the Monad.  Yes, we truly are microcosms.  Do we have any freewill?  Not enough for the existentalists to get all angsty about.  

Measurements are not random things.  And they're not passive.  And you know what Protagoras said......  

Measurements are an integral/essential part of our intentionality.  And our intentionality is an integral part of PKB..... well, of PET, Plotinus' emanation theory, but I think it would fit with..... oops... lost that train of thought.  


We, humans, are the protagonists of Creation.  We have no competition, in that regard.  Creation is not a spectator sport.  We are not Angels.  Metabolism is there for a reason.  It was no accident.  

Immaterialism is the safest bet going.  It is certainly safer than materialism.  Is it safer than dualism?  All of science argues toward some kind of monism.  Yes, like I say........

As if to drive the point home, we have phenomenolgy.  By that I mean uncorrelated phenomena.  And by that I mean anomalous phenomena.  Most scientists, when speaking with strangers, will deny everything anomalous.  When asked, though, if they have freewill, they will barely hesitate to say 'yes'.  Hmmm..... Few are the scientists who are also logicians.  

Is consciouness (Cs) nominal?  Most suppose it is, just by default.  Those few who have ever thought about it, suppose not.  And, need I remind you that Cs is an enigma wrapped in a mystery.  It is wrapped in the MCP, monistic consensual Present.  Let's just say that Cs is an anomaly.  Isn't materialism a lot like a balloon?  One prick........  How about 10^10 pricks?  Holy balloon!  


And Cs is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the matter of sapience.  Even Chalmers has admitted that he was mistaken not to include sapience in the 'hard' problem, from the start.  Only the hard-core, strong AIers are not ready to throw in the towel on the computability of common sense, let alone reason/rationality.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:15 am

Suppose there is some larger truth.  It may be that this cannot be directly apprehended by our limited, mortal minds.  It can only be obtained by us indirectly. Will there not then be competing sources?  How will we ever get on the same page?  

No.  There has to be some internal compass, and this compass must have the ability to transcend the selfishness of our egos.  There is that which prevents all of us from being sociopaths, after all.  

Materialism has very little purchase amongst us.  No, science has not persuaded us of that, but it has swayed many of us against traditional religions.  It has opened the door for a MoAPS.    

But for which one?  Is there another?  There might be pantheism, but does it make sense to anyone?  The greatest pantheist, historically, is likely to have been Spinoza.  And, to my further estimation, his theism was there, for all to see.  He was, actually, a panentheist, just like the rest of us.  

Mainly, now, there is the katechon of our alleged ignorance wrt things 'divine'.  Katechon = Noumenon = uCs + CuCs.  Science has made great strides wrt the CuCs = nature + monadology.  

There does seem to be a growing expectation of a negative apocalypse.... a tribulation.  Our global technocracy is demonstrably increasing in its vulnerability to interal instability and external shocks.  

The question on many minds is how much worse things will have to get, before there might be any sort of turn around..... any relief.  

Panpsychism > pantheism > panentheism > immaterialism > BPWH.  Are there any other coherent options out there?  I, for one, have not run across any.    

From my limited vantage, the R&D show has only receded further from view, since the two abortive cruises.  Many are the indications that the political process in the US could breakdown, leading up to the election.  The same could happen in many other countries, where it hasn't already.  The September Surprise has not gone away.  

Under increasing pressure of resource depletion.... increasing competition for diminishing resources, there are many who would cheer the breakdown of globalism and the attendant liberal democracies.  

The temptation to play with political fire, eg. Trump/Sanders, only increases with time.  God help us.  

As we run short on time, God's options, our options, become more limited.  The possibility of a grassroots MoAPS recedes apace.  I cannot imagine any better option.  The 'shock and awe' option would certainly entail collateral damage.... probably a great deal of it.  


How bad would things have to get, before I would lose my faith?  

I don't know that I have more than a mustard seed of faith.  I don't recall ever having claimed so.  What I claim to have is reason and common sense, a strong bias towards coherence.  

Several times I have referred to a 'close encounter' with John 16:12ff, which I also refer to as a 'born again' turning point in my life.  

Did that one moment alter my reasoning beyond all recognition?  I certainly doubt it.  


Monism/monadology is taking coherence and holism to their ultimate conclusions.  Partial holism makes very little sense.  Does 'simple' organicism not make sense.....?  It really does not, especially not with the anthropic principle in play.  

Pantheism stops making sense as soon as teleology comes into play.  And what would holism be without teleology?  And what is teleology w/o a Telos?  It truly is a very slippery slope from strict, hard-core materialism to immaterialism, and then to the BPWH.  

How is it possible that more people..... that no one has evidently encountered this slippery slope. That to me is the biggest mystery.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:38 am

Holism is a term that I've bandied about with some abandon.  Perhaps I should actually look it up.......

No big surprises, except, possibly finding only one reference to teleology, in the wiki article..... this was Adler's 'fictional final goal'.  

To the modern mind, if holism there be, then there be a plethora of holisms...... sort of like with quantum physics, every atom carries a bit of fuzziness with it.  This much will our macho individualism concede to the whole.  

We're in store for a little surprise......

Moderation in all things......?  Hmmm.......  Not too much holism, not too little.  

Well, maybe yes.... maybe no.  I'm thinking not.  That would be a surprise..... no, that would be the MoAPS.  To paraphrase, moderation in the defense of truth is being untruthful.  

How much truth can we stand?  Can't we have baby-steps?  Can't we have our truth piecemeal?  Maybe.... maybe not.  I'm thinking not so much..... piecemeal, that is.  

Shock and awe.....?  Maybe..... of the psychological kind.  How much collateral damage would there have to be?  Well, in the BPW, there might not have to be any.  

Yes, the singular truth could be allowed to leak out via the Internet, but only to point.  There is a PNR.  There is a final straw.  There is the mass media.  There are chain reactions.  

Also, there is the Katechon.  A leak in the dike starts as a trickle, but, depending on the presure behind it, it's liable to rupture.... to hemorrhage.  

No collateral damage....?  Not necessarily.  

The only real damage could be to the Katechon, itself.  Good riddance.

There will be adjustments, but everybody will have to adjust a lot.  Well, the last shall be first.......  

Hey, show me how to do Holism piecemeal, and I'll show you how to turn water into wine.  Is it a deal?  

Guess what..... holism is whole.  How do we manage to suppose otherwise?  I know.... I know.....  It's because we can't reckon with teleology.  Show me half a Telos, and I'll.......

How do we manage to separate the two......?  It's truly beyond me.  It is the major aspect of the Katechon..... our thinking just freezes up when we get too close.  

This is where being born again comes in handy.  Hey, it's my metaphysical security blanket.  I'm rather serious about that.  It's just like the baby monkey and the ersatz mother..... with the warm and fuzzy 'mother', the baby monkey has much more confidence in it's explorations.  That's me with my j-man 'blanket'.

Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow....... the atoms will not grind me down...... the gravitational waves will not buffet me.....

And, hey, again, I'm here on assignment...... aren't I?  When ever will my little mission be accomplished?  Hurry, Lord.......

Holism = monism = teleology = ......... = 1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS MB PKB ()() SM TS.  Got it?  I swear, Lord, isn't that good enough for gumm'int work?  


So far, so good......

Monistic consensual present,  direct perception hypothesis, logos spermatikos, co-dependent arising, symmerty breaking, Cs uCs CuCs.... CohTT P2LS (BP....()) (LIGO Apocatastasis AZO/X/QRP) strong-measurement/participatory-world Truman-Show.  So, there.....!  

I think I really should include Neoplatonism in the final cut..... nP.  Emanationism is big.


nP....... it goes naturally with apocatastasis.  They are logical, temporal complements.... Apo/nP.... all in(3-o).  It's somewhat of a repeat of the A/O in AZO, but AZO has additional connotations, in it's context.  

We could say a whole lot about H=M=T.  I would hardly know where to start.  H and M are often considered together, but ,as I said, not with T.  Without T, there's no dynamism. There's no 'time'.  There's the Holos and the Telos.  T introduces time.  We have time w/ SB, symmerty breaking.  Also with CDA, co-dependent arising.  Also w/ Apo/nP.  Apocatastasis = Telos = Omega.  I can't emphasize the Telos enough.... HMT/ATO.  


If I were allowed only two concepts, I think they would be the Telos and the small world hypothesis (SWH).  I'm not sure what would be third.  Well, it was the anthropic principle that got me started, early on.  Somewhere in there, we have plain old immaterialism.  Oh, dear, I almost forgot personalism.  I have not included Personalism in the formula.  

Here we go again........

Pers HMT/ATO 1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS MB PKB (())() SM/PW TS.  

I forgot that nP is already included in PKB= PET KPN BSA = Plotinus emanation theory, Kant phenNoum and Barfield's Saving the Appearances.  But I don't have the Katechon anywhere.  

The Katechon should be second, after Personalism, to emphasize the potential drama we are dealing with......

P/K HMT/ATO 1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS MB PKB () SM/PW TS.  

Oh, dear, where did the Logos go?  It's not in P2LS, as I have to keep reminding myself.  Oh, that's right, it's in the 1550=MDL=MCP DPH LS. LS= Logos Spermatikos.  

Of course, I don't have the MoAPS explicitly, but it goes with the BPWH and other items, as well.  

You might forget it.... but I won't.  


I'm back to Dec 11 (p23/330)........

I've not spoken of us as God's neurons, recently.  I've never spoken of the Monad as an oversoul.  It's tempting, but it would also require many caveats.  I emphasize that there is only one sapient soul, but sapience first arises with the trinity.  The Monad might be some kind of proto-soul.  

I've already forgotten what I did with the souls of the flora and fauna.  I must have finessed them....... Well, it's pretty easy to outsmart myself......  

Ok, back on the 12th, I invoked the zodiad and the logical dimension of time... to include symmerty breaking. We don't need a soul for every one of the million species of beetle. SB could include fractalization.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:04 am

Items to add to the summary mnemonic would include the logical, second dimension of time, Parmenides and Hegel, also, perhaps, morphic resonance.  We would then have five philosopers.... Parmenides, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel and Barfield (PPKHB).  We would also have 2dT and, possibly, MR.  

I'm not supposing that morphic resonance is a primary phenomon.  It is more a manifestation of the monism and the PII.  But, still, it is a useful concept in its own right.  It also would have to do with the microsmic phenomon.  I have not included microcosmology, either.  Together, they might be uC/MR.  Now we have.....

PK HMT/ATO 1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS uC/MR 2dT MB PPKHB ()() SM/PW TS.  

Perhaps this mnemonic is more cumbersome than it's worth, but it has been helpful in organizing my thoughts.  

There is repetition for both the Apocatastasis and the Omega, but they can hardly be over-stressed.  They are both part of the Telos, which is also repeated.  There is no explicit mention of the crucial concept of sapience.  Along with the MoAPS, I'm not likely to forget it.  

Notice that the idea of deep time has now been replaced by logical time that is juxtaposed with historical time.  Together, they give us 2dT.  


I'm back on Dec 12 entry.......

There are several ideas not included in the mnemonic.......

1.)  There are the two 'parcs'.... Jurrasic and pokotok.  

2.)  There is the Ark gap, from O > A.  From 144M > 144K.  

3.)  Deep time is also geological and paleontological time, with the historical division being ~12-24K years ago.... precessional time, see Hamlet's Mill.  


I'm back on p22, the first week of December, struggling with cloud chambers.....

It my wont to subsume the physics back into the phenomenology of the BPW.  Is that fair?  I could be accused of circular reasoning.  

Where would we be w/o the phenomena associated with cathode rays?  Where would we be w/o electricity and electrons?  Chemistry and metabolism would be logically stranded.  

Is necessity the mother of ontology?  Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?  

Are our physicists responsible for the physics, teleolgically?  

But all of us participate in the ontology.  Is that not the premise of the SM/PW?  

There is substance in those electrons.  Do our dream electrons have no substance?  Can we not dream of sparks and shocks?  

Relationalism is missing from the mnemonic.  Is substance absolute or relational?  Is it not relative to the observer?  Is it a quality or quantity?  

Newton was a substantivalist, wrt space and time.  Leibniz was a relationalist.  I'm a relationalist wrt electrons.  We have decided that electrons are the ultimate shape-shifters wrt chemistry.  Very contextual, they are.  It's the same electrons in water and ice... same everything.  

I dream of skating and bathing.  I wear a jacket when I skate, dream or otherwise.  I can imagine skating in a pair of trunks, but it seems wrong headed.  I am such a slave to fashion.  Are electrons not fashionable?  Do they not conform to the Standard Model?  We can change our models w/o influencing the physics, however.  

The Tree stays put on the Quad, all night.  It is also contextual.  Is there a qualtative difference, in these regards?  Would you care to name it?  Then there is the detonation switch on the Enola Gay.  Who ordered that?  I guess we did.  Dare me to chalk it up to teleology.  What is the end of faith?  

Is the Bomb holistic? Are we about to find out? Are electrons holistic? Is substance holistic? Can you explain it with the Higgs Boson? I can talk around substance, but I sure can't put my finger on it. Who can? But we all do, every day, unless it's something substantial.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:15 am

Looking back at the latest mnemonic, there is a common theme.... unity.  I'm thinking particularly of the unity of consciousness, eg. the SEP entry.  


I also spent time on the Parmenides entry, particularly on sections 3.4 and 3.5.  

I am pretty solidly in the Parmenidean camp, with the very major caveat........

P. has no concept of the BPW.  His is what later became the gnostic view.  Plotinus came closer.  Parmenides' is rather similar to the Hindu view, which, very likely, he borrowed from.  If Plato is the father of Western philosophy, then Parmenides is the grandfather.  

The impetus behind monism likely derives from the implied unity of consciousness.  Personal identity likely grounds that implication.  

But, yes, the concept of unity permeates the entire mnemonic.  Paricularly, it is the concept of coherence.  That is what philosophy strives for, and it was there from the beginning.  Mission accomplished.  

The unity of coherence is what we have to bring against atomism and physicalism.  


The most striking feature of mundane unity is the monism of the consensual present (MCP).  Yes, we have already mentioned issues dealing with the finite speed of light, and the problem of defining simultaneity.  

The problem of simultaneity besets physical cosmologists.  

AN Whitehead is an example of a philosopher who got many things right, but who got hung up on simultaneity.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:45 am

I probably should include Whitehead amongst my, now, big six philosopers..... PPKHWB.  He was relational about everything except time.  His 'actual occasions' were arrayed along the advancing frontier of time.  They were his monads, but with windows.  They were drops of proto-experience.  I toyed with similar entities, until I was forced, by the dint of logic, to put all my eggs in the sapience basket.  There might be room for them alongside sapience, but only in a peripheral fashion.  

Whitehead's times were still too much in the thrall of evolution.  He could not possibly have ignored Darwin.  Then, Darwin was cutting-edge.  His sword has become a bit dull.  We can now see around his shadow.  We need be less in the thrall of deep space and deep time.  There can be two dimensions of time..... lived time and logical time, all embedded in eternity.  

I see Whitehead as a partial restorer of the ancient coherence.  I go all the way, while acknowledging the centrality of the prophetic tradition, and the fact that science can now be treated as a sub-coherence.  The centrality of its role in the teleology of history need not be denied.  Science is history.... a great story.  

Back to unity.........

The cup of unity runneth over, in regard to the mnemonic.  I would hardly know how to begin counting the ways.  How many ways can you count the One?  With how many flavors and colors does it manifest itself?  The One can be ignored, as it has for millennia.  But then it will come back in full force, with the MoAPS.  It is the crux of the prophetic tradition.  Did Jesus not see it coming?  He was too close to the One.  It was never absent from him.  He could see mainly its ever present shadow.  Sometimes you must be lost, in order to be found..... true for us mortals.  

Holism, monism and the Telos are the big three (HMT).  Then there is the small world hypothesis (SWH/CTC).  The idea of the microcosm (uC) is essential, particularly in regards to our sapience.  The Truman Show (TS) provides an essential clue, especially as to the social nature of the Katechon.  You have to understand the social/personal nature of the Katechon to understand the MoAPS.  


The traditional systems of unity emphasized an eternal unity and/or a creation event.  Jewish tradition spoke of a global in-gathering at the end of history.  There was to be a final battle in the Zorastrian tradition.  

The idea of Apocatastasis continued that jewish concept, within early Eastern christianity.  Otherwise, though, there was .to be a final separation of good and bad.  Teilhard was the first one to bring back Apoctastasis, in the form of his Omega, as the final stage of evolution.  I really should include Teilhard in philosoper's Row.... PPKHWTB, now the big Seven.  

I should point out that Barfield's version of immaterialism was explicitly of the geocentric, lived-time variety.  The Omega was certainly implied.  The CTC was after his time.  He did not particularly speak to monism, again, it was strongly implied.  Teilhard's Omega was to be a million years hence.  Mine..... I'm not nearly that patient.  He foresaw only a gradual consolidation of the Noosphere presaging the Omega event.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:19 am

I'm reading the Stone Reader..... just starting the section on science.  It only slightly departs from the naturalistic, analytic tradition.  There is not the slightest hint of a MoAPS, but I haven't yet gotten to Nagel's piece.  

I'm rather curious as to how the contributors and editors will manage to whistle past the MoAPS.... I mean, really!  Is it not just staring them in the face?  Who or what do they suppose is holding up the sky.  Apparently they must suppose that any immaterialists amongst them have just gone around the bend.

NB., the UEM should be included in the mnemonic.  So should the Mandelbrot, in some fashion.  Also organicism....emergentism.  This note was cued by Williamson's piece, where he notes that mathematics is not science.  

We can all feel sorry for poor Rosenberg, set up as the token naturalist.  Williamson is given a rebuttal, and uses it effectively.  


Nagel simply summarizes the main argument of M&C.  Kitcher's rejoinder, however, is most instructive.  

Well, Nagel does leave out a very significant component of M&C, namely the design argument.  I imagine that that omission was the political price he was forced to pay to retain his professional status.  

All, then, that Kitcher has to do is reiterate Williamson's pean to the 'spirit' of science.  Hey, surprise, it's gonna be reductionism all the way down.  Yes, philosopers understand that touching the anthropic principle is tantamount to touching the third-rail.  They will not even criticise the bizarre attempts of physicists to work around it.  

No, the philosophers will not whistle past anthropics, they will pass right on by, in stoney silence.  MoAPS......?  Not on their watch!  

In this entire book of 133 essays, the anthropic/design/cosmological argument gets only one very brief and dismissive mention. I guess it was worth the 19 bucks just to confirm my suspicion about the continued myopia of modern philosophy. Relying on Wikipedia is much more fruitful for the aspiring philosophical speculator. And don't expect anyone else to put the pieces together for you, if you're not satisfied with the BPWH.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:12 am

I've mostly finished perusing the Stone Reader.  It's greatest strength was that it came out strongly against strong AI.  It's greatest weakness was that it only once mentioned anthropics, and dismissively so.  No mention of anti-reductionism, except in the case of SAI.  There is no hint of anything speculative.  Hey, we're just doing our jobs, with a modicum of competence.  We're keeping the conversation going.  We're going to stick with the postmodern established order.  We rock no boats.  Do not look to us for any hint of a MoAPS.  

Of course, there was no mention of any existential crisis wrt the human race.  It was only about some mild criticism of going about our business as usual.  

To see the light, you also have to see the dark.  No, the Stone was not going to the dark side.  The implied message was to keep a still upper lip, and, if we keep our polite, intellectual conversation going, we will muddle through.  

Hey, that's good advice for the spectators.  Those who need more solace, you can turn to religion, and we won't take you to task.  Just don't become a fanatic.  

If you don't take the big-bang as gospel truth, then you might wonder as to what is holding the world together, ie., you take the biosphere and noosphere as your primary data.  We have a great deal of unity in diversity.  It might even be wonderful if we could stop the clock.  But the clock won't stop and the threats keep piling up.  If only we had a workaround, a work-through.  

You just wish that someone had a less radical workaround than the BPWH.  But what you are actually looking for is perpetual progress.  Why can't we have that?  And, if progress has to end, why does it have to end on my watch?  

If time and space are infinite, why can't we have infinite progress?  Well, if you buy into the scientific cosmology, then you must suppose that we're not special..... the universe is already populated with sapient being, not terribly unlike us.  

But then what?  What's supposed to happen next?  Unless you espouse some form of transhumanism, and some sort of stardrive, then we're left about where we are, twisting in the wind.  

Yes, we could make a paradise on Earth.  Most of us would settle for that option, easily.  Well, life would have to be more regulated, but, still.  

But, after a century or two, life might get boring.  We have a universe filled with sapient civilizations.  Was this the 'plan' all along?  Even without a teleology, we end up with a Telos, of sorts.  

There appears to be a natural end state to evolution, if we don't invoke transhumanism, SAI or stardrive.  You may feel free to adopt one or all of those.  For most, the burden of proof would seem less than for the BPWH.  

Well, the default option that most everyone would assign high probability to is that we simply do oursleves in.  We were but a flash in the evolutionary pan.  We were just an accident, after all.  Here we are setting aside the usual religious eschatology.  

It would seem very natural for an unnatural thing like sapient civilization to collapse, under it's own weight. We thumb our noses at nature, and what do we expect?

Many expect there to be a deus-ex-machina. Is that not what I expect? No, I expect a deus-in-machina. It's all part of the system of things, and we're all in it together. And, yes, we are cruising for some cosmic drama.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:36 am

I suspect that the holographic analogy of the world may be misleading for several reasons.  For one reason, the hologram, itself is taken as a part of the world that it projects.  IOW, is taken to be a two-dimensional object in a 3D world, and that both share the same dimension of time.

From an immaterialist view, this would be wrong on both counts.  

What might be a less misleading analogy, that would still capture the intuitive aspects of holography?  First, we would need to get clear what those intuitions are.  

The basic intuition is that we are not passively observing an independently existing world.  No.  Now I'm projecting my bias onto holography.  The basic intuition is the Kantian one that the phenomena and noumena may not be the same.  

Science has interpreted this disjunction in a particular manner.  It is the task of the immaterialist to pose another way.  Science has interpreted the disjunction analytically.  The immaterialist is wont to move toward holism.  The scientist wishes to distinguish objective  quantity from subjective quality.  My move is toward the holism of felt meaning.  

The scientists and immaterialists agree that there is an underlying substance wrt the phenomenal world.  They choose atoms and the void.  I choose a cosmic mind.  Mathematical physicists choose mathematics as their underlying substance.  

If you consider mathematics and logic to be virtually synonymous, then the physicists and I are on the same page, with the Logos as the common substance.  

If what I just stated could be made more obvious, everyone is on the verge of immaterialism.  What is not obvious?  

The claim is that mathematics is the ultimate substance.  I look around and I don't see any mathematics.  We could all say the same of the Logos and of God.  

How, then, do mathematicians differ from theologians?  Not as much as they might like to think.  The problem, from my perspective, is that they both fall back on the scientific cosmology.  

This is not accurate, especially if we include the young-Earthers.  What they all accept is the objectivity of the world.  

One might think that the mathematicians would lean toward pantheism.  In fact, they do, in the guise of Pythagoreanism.  More than one mathematical physicist has stated that God must be a mathematician.  You might wish to grab them and say.... aren't we mathematicians, too?  This thought, if it has occurred, has not been recorded, with a very few exceptions.  

Two possible exceptions are Eddington and Wheeler, but neither of them would have touched a non-Coperican model with a 10ft pole.  

It seems one thing to suppose that atoms are the stuff of mathematics, especially in light of the quantum, but it is quite another to suppose that stars could be, also.  This remained true, even though both dabbled in anthropics.  

This would seem to be a strangely truncated form of idealism, until you factor in that both were cosmologists, by profession.  Gravity might be seen as a purely mathematical structure, but not the stars and planets.  

This is where 'holography' has to come into the picture.  But this is holography mediated by time..... we might call it 'teleography'.  

We might also call it 'cyclo-graphy' or 'fractalo-graphy'.  The '-graphy' part of logicisms indicates that they are taken to be projected from some noumenal reality.  

This is indirect perception..... yes, but....  We indirectly perceive a phenomenal tree, but, all the while we are directly perceiving the noumenal tree, with its felt meaning.  It's part of our status as mortals to be overwhelmed by the phenomenal.  


Yes, this noumenal tree is rather like the conceptual tree, even the Platonic tree.  

The substance of the tree, though, is phenomenal.  No?  We're speaking of the heft and hardness, etc. of the wood.  These are phenomenal properties.  Yes?  They're not mathematical.  Well, in point of fact, the exclusion principle, underlying the hardness, is mathematically based.  It has to do with the anti-symmetry of the electrons.  

Well, we're just getting back to the quantum realm.... the noumenal realm of science.  What breathes fire into the mathematical formulas of science?  Is it not the observer?  It seems rather obvious.  But do we also breathe fire into the Sun?  I would certainly lean in that direction, if I could get away with it.  

One problem is this...... we can see mathematics in the tree, but we don't see the tree in mathematics.  This is, of course, where monism and holism come into the picture.  

Immaterialism has no problem with the generic tree..... it is the individual tree that is at issue.  I point out that it is the individuality of the observer that confers individuality on the tree.  Individuality is the province of persons.  

Does a robin not individualize a tree by building a nest in it?  I suggest not.  Generic trees have generic nests built by generic birds.  IOW, individuation cannot be local.  It must be global, lest we run up against the PII.  

Yes, conceivably, we could 'fingerprint' a tree.  Or, say, that a tree is fingerprintable.  It is the potential of trees to be fingerprintable.  But whose potential, actually?  Actually, the potential rests with us, sapients.  And, even with us, the potential is interpersonal, not personal.  

Wigner pointed out this problem when he introduced his 'friend' to the the observation process.  With Schrodinger, it was just the cat and the observer.  Isn't the cat also an observer?  What, after all, constitututes an observation?  There's the rub.....

On the one hand, any bit of decoherence constitues a measurement, but that describes virtually all situations, and decoherence is not the same as collapse.  It has not been demonstrated that measurement is not essentially normative.  Certainly, it is on the classical level.  How would the quantum analog be any less stringent?  

Wigner, not so subtly, is pointing to the regressive/social aspect of any normative process.  Measurements must be replicable.  Who observes the observer?  This is true, regardless of whether the process is quantal or not.  But hold that thought........

With a slight shift of focus, we consider the case of the unobservable universe, standard fare with the Tegmarkian/multiverse crowd.  The weak anthropic principle (WAP) folks are prepared to hypothesize an unlimited number of such entities.  

I was going to question the meaningfulness of such a hypothesis, but, first, I must distingush it from a similar hypothesis about unobservable planets in this universe. The distinction is not obvious.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:09 am

Hold onto the question about the ontological distinction between planets or worlds and universes, particularly with reference to observability.  What if any are the distinctions between ontology and epistemology?  

While you're holding that thought, I have to go deeper into that last distinction, between ontology and epistemology......

More particularly, I'm thinking of the distinction between energy and information.  This distinction defines the crux of the distinction between materialism and immaterialism.  

IOW, we get to choose between food and circuses.  Off the top, everyone would prioritize food, but we're going to go deeper.  

Which is the priority...... food for the body or food for the soul?  Yes, without food for the body, nothing else matters.  But, if the choice were to minimize one in deference to the other, it would be rather more frought.  

To put it another way, not many mothers would place their own survival above that of their child.  Is this choice only due to our DNA, as too many would have us believe?  I'm thinking not.  

IOW, consider love v. food.  Nolo contendere.  

Ok, let's get back to energy v. information.......

It's not hard to view the cosmos as a cosmetic or ornament, from our POV, without considering the Sun, specifically.  The Sun is a lot more to us than an ornament.  It provides light and food.... information and energy.  Turn off the Sun for a week, and the Earth becomes an ice-ball.  

Do we, immaterialists, not get the point?  

We get it, but.......

The materialists have their 'ifs', we have our 'buts'.  The materialists can 'threaten' to turn of the Sun, we can threaten to turn off the 'light', i.e. consciouness (Cs).  So what...?, say they.  They dare us to blow ourselves to bits, and they'll even provide the means.  Hmmm.......


The materialists do have a big stick, and they don't mind wielding it.  Any time we start to get uppity, they can shove the universe in our face.  If we suggest that the universe looks too special, they can wave the Multiverse at us.  

We can point out that science is the special province of sapience.  Sure, they say, but am I disbelieving the results?  I don't disbelieve any of the measurements, it's the literal interpretation that I question.  

Well, it's the materialist interpretation that I question.  In its place, I'm suggeting an information circuit... a singular 'CTC'.  

The starting point for this alternative interpretation is Wigner's UEM.  Mathematics and logic are the most basic forms of information.  

But who breathes the fire into the math?  Scientists would point to the initial conditions that caused the universe to be what it is.  As an informationalist, I could equally point to the final conditions.  

Ok, I'm welcome to invoke teleology, but, then, what is the universe for?  It is for the self-realization of.... ourselves.  It is a cosmic bootstrap.  But this is a special bootstrap, in that it is eternal.... it is the best possible bootstrap.  So, there.........


No, Virginia, there's no smoking gun.  But, yes, Virginia, there's all the holism that you could ask for.  How much, exactly?  Exactly?!

Everywhere you look, you can find it.... so much so, that scientists find it downright embarrassing.  They seek to ignore it, even to cover it up, or so it might seem, if we fail to fully appreciate the enormity of their myopia.  

But, still, won't we need a smoking gun, in order to convince the public?  Well, quite obviously, we are lacking something.  Until three months ago, I was nearly convinced that Disclosure would be the smoking gun.  But then the CtN came and went...... nowhere.  Now what?  Your guess is as good as mine.  But, hey, do we really suppose that our destiny is not in the very best hands?  God has only to lift a finger.  We just don't know which finger it will be.  

I mean, hey, surprise us......!!!!!

Yes, I do occasionally wonder, who is to get the fickle-finger-of-fate award?  


Informationalism would put sapience at the center of the action.  We would be at the center of the cosmic informational circuit, CIC/CTC.  

The Sun is only secondarily an energy source, mainly being the source of the informing light.  Photosythesis is seen as just a part of eco/metabolic circuit.  Yes, it is a crucial part, but energy does not motivate the informational circuit.  We do that.  We are the driving force.  The Sun remains well in the background of the informational scene.  

Yes, I can thank Gary for keeping my feet to the fire of information. We have then a crucial logical chain.......

UEM => Informationalism => Logos.   (UIL)

This chain of reasoning should given a place in the mnemonic.  

Yes, we have the information explosion, motivated by science and technology.  But, with the MoAPS, there will be an information implosion into coherence.  At the same time there will be a phase change of the Noosphere, from pupa to chrysalis.  This phase change is the primary energy source of the cosmos.  This is the true, metaphysical source of solar energy.  

(Technically, I'm referring to the metamorphic stage between larva and chrysalis, as I've explained before.  There probably is a technical name.)  

As with the transition from water to ice, there is a great deal of 'energy' given off as with 'latent' heat.  This is our metaphysical/cosmic energy pump.  This is what drives the cosmic CIC/CTC.


We don't have much room left for the mnemonic on a single line.  There is no acronym for the MoAPS to be viewed as a metamorphosis of the noosphere.  Would that be MMN?  Ok, there it goes into overflow mode......

Being able to find a place for the Sun in an informational economy is quite a relief.  We'll see if it stands the test of time.  I had always implied as much, but there's nothing like 'spitting' it right out.  

On Nov 24, p.21/300 there is reference to us as the multiple personality disorder (MPD) of God. Also mentioned is the CTC as an ERB.

On Sept 24, p14/200, I refer to the ring-pass-not of the MoAPS. That probably has some to do with the Vectors and the September surprise.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:43 am

With this rather lengthy mnemonic, we have the rudiments of a course syllabus.  This would be an introductory course in alternative philosophy for first year college students.  I can't think of a single college that might have such a course listed, but there are some small, alternative, liberal arts colleges out there, where an imaginative president and a radical instructor might push it over on the rest of the faculty.  Word, then, might get around.  

Another approach would be to use this mnemonic as the chapter outline for a book, but I can hardly think who might publish it.  A self-published book might act as a complement to the blog, but adding zero to zero, audience-wise, does not amount to much.  

What I really need is a little..... no, a lot of synchronistic luck.  If the time and place were right, I'm sure that could be arranged.  

Even if the R&D show has gone away for good, which is always possible, it has left its mark on the record.  For one thing, it would be very difficult to replicate, and it ties into a narrative for Disclosure, like none other.  

Speaking of narrative, I have not mentioned the concept of a metanarrative in the 'outline'.  It is a crucial aspect of the coherence.  

There are still other important pieces that I've left out, and that would include the idea of disclosure and the R&D show.  Those would fit in with the Katechon and the Truman Show.  There are other movies, and the like, which should be included.  There is Childhood's End and the Matrix, to mention two, off the top.  There is also Contact and 2001.  None of these replicate any significant part of the BPWH, but they deal with significant aspects of the historical and social context, particularly in dealing with the global context.  Then there was Melancholia, to deal with some of the psychology.  


I should add metamorphosis to uC/MR, microcosm and morphic resonance..... uC/MR/MM.

Now what I need to do is put everything in a logical order.  But, no, that's not going to be possible.  After all, we're dealing with holism and monism.  There is no linear order.  What we need is a narrative, coherent sequence.  

Another crucial concept I've neglected is potentiality.  That may go with 2dT, the two dimensions of time.  Potentiality determines the logical or deep dimension of time... 2dT/Pot.  

Where to start the logical/pedagogical metanarrative.....?  

I'm tempted to start with personalism or holism, but maybe that's too big a bite.  A more modest beginning would be with organicism.  

Even more modest, and less controversial, would be teleonomy. There is, of course, a slippery slope.........

Teleonomy > emergence > organicism > vitalism > holism > teleology. Quantum biology fits in here, some place.

Once we get to teleology, it is a small step to personalism. Then we can launch into the BPWH.

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:15 am

I spent part of last night reviewing glyconomics, with an eye to its holistic potential.  

Glyconomics came about partly though the success cum embarrassment of the Human Genome Project, in 2000..... there weren't enough genes, only 19,000 at last count.  The fruit fly has 17,000. What gives?  How do we account for our extra complexity..... sapience and all that?  

The smart money is on glyconomics.......

It turns out that we have about 100 times as many kinds of glycans, polysaccharides, as we have genes.  More information could be stored in our limitlessly complex 'sugars'.  

Just one little problem, I think.........

The glycans are not coded for, directly.  Hmmm......  Haven't we been told that Darwinian selection must have a durable material basis.  Individual glycans seldom last for more than a few hours.

Protein construction is highly conservative, with their genetic template.  Glycans have no such template.  Immunology, which is one of the functions of glycans, does exhibit a memory lasting years, but it is rudimentary.  

To my mind, glyconomics raises more questions than it answers......

Almost overnight, we realize that the biological cell is, say, 100 times more complex than we had imagined.  Is it irreducibly complex.....?

No.  I'm not saying that.  

Is it more complex than a beehive..... than an ant colony..... than Peoria?  Is it more complex than an atom?  

Yes..... yes..... yes.....  no!!

If we set aside whatever sapience there may be in Peoria, looking at things behavioristically,  I would much rather map out the complexity of Peoria, than of a eukaryotic cell, with notations about every kind of glycan.  

But of an atom......??  

Yes, of course, if you allow me to include in that atom the role that it plays in our anthropic world.  

But, yes, even if I'm stretching the point a bit, there is a point......

We are looking at complexity microcosmically..... we have worlds within worlds.  I don't mind reductionism, as long as we realize that even the lowliest, shape-shifting atom is infinitely complex.  That's not really reductionism..... that's holism, all the way up, and all the way down.  


But I think we may also be talking about substance..... microcosmic substance.  

Microcosmic dirt.......?!  That, too.  

Also, transubstantiation.  For an immaterialist, like me, everything is transubstantiated.  

This is just another way of describing pantheism..... of the immaterial kind.  More accurately, I'm a panentheist, because I hanker after the big 'R', the one in the sky..... talk about transubstantiation!  

But an atom weighs a lot less than a person.  Maybe not.  It depends on what we make of the Higgs boson..... speaking of substance.  

Now, hang on...... allow me just a bit more poetic license.......

Besides being holists, we're also monists.  Everything is absolutely simple, especially in the eyes of love.  How much does simplicity weigh?  Simplicity is like a neutrino, it weighs next to nothing.  

A neutrino has no parts.  Love has no parts.  An atom has parts, even, or especially an immaterial atom.   It's weighed down with all..... what?  It's weighed down with all that knowlege it takes to understand the protons, electrons and bosons.  

Persons.......?   Not so much.  But are not persons weighted with Karma?  

Well, that all depends........ before or after.....?   Huh........?  

Hmmm....... it all depends on the Judge..... you know.... the one who puts the feather on the scale!  

I mean the One with the light thumb!  

Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 8537
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:11 am

In taking on the scientific establishment, as I am, I must use discretion.  I need not fight their battles.  I'm not beholden to do their job.  I'm quite content to let them keep the iphones ringing, and the telescopes scoping.  My explanatory burdens are closer to home.  

IOW, the grindstone that I must keep my nose on is consciouness (Cs).  

It is important to distinguish substance and mass.  That's not difficult.  What is more difficult is to try to understand the subtleties of substance.  As a case in point, I've used the terms transubstantiation and incarnation.  Both have to do with substance, but they can be seen as having opposed meanings.

My substance is relational, but there are two opposing aspects of the relationalism wrt substance and burden.  To be is to relate, but those relations can be karmic.  That is also the katechon.  

The katechon.....?  We exercise self-restraint.  Those are the terms of our incarnation.  We go with the flow.... it need not be burdensome.  It can be inspiring to oppose evil.  

With incarnation, we aim toward substantiality.  We aim toward coherence.  We aim toward a constructive narrative.  These are the positive aspects of substantiality.  

And then we have the veil of nature to contend with.  We anticipate that truth will be revealed.  In the meantime, we operate on faith and conscience.  

Truth......?  Will it set us free?  Free from what....?  Free from our burdens.  Free from responsibility?  Free from our coherence?  We follow the CohTT.  

The truth is simple.  It is One.  This is what everything else tells us.  This is what everything tells us that is not the truth.  Yes, if it isn't love, I'd sure like to know what it is.  

We just have to decide if we're here by accident or not.  What does it feel like?  Does it truly feel like an accident?  

Are there truly an infinite number of dead worlds and univeres out there?  How much faith does that belief require?  A mustard seed?  

Then you have to ask.... which are more real.....?  Atoms or persons?  

As I explained, yesterday, atoms are more complicated than cells, and cells are more complicated than Peoria.  Yes, I know, this runs counter to materialist thinking, but I'm not that.  See, materialists think that relations don't count.  And they believe in the absolute objecthood of atoms.  What then are persons?  I guess we don't count.  Remember, we're accidents.


So we have two kinds of substance to deal with...... karma and truth.  I think that the pantheists suppose that karma is neither good nor bad.  But they don't have a concept of truth, certainly not personal truth.  In my mind, karma is everything that is not truth.  Yes, everything points to the truth..... especially love.  

The truth is One.  It has the ties that bind.  It is the gravitas.  It is the great attractor in the sky.  Yes, this is confusing.  This is what the Omega/rapture is all about.  

We separate gravity from gravitas.  Gravitas from veritas.  

People still suppose that the truth can be partitioned.  They follow the correspondence theory, CorTT.  The CorTT will, inevitably, lead to the CohTT.  Well, it will be a setup.  And, in the End, there will be a quantum leap.  For most, it will be a leap for joy.  

No, I cannot guarantee that there will be no tribulation.  I can guarantee that it will be the least possible.  

What does truth feel like?  It is the opposite of a burden.  It is something substantial.  Everything begins to make sense..... especially one's own life.  

Life is a struggle....?  Yes, when we see it mainly as a struggle for survival and acceptance.  We feel the weight of the katechon.  When the katechon is lifted, we can breathe, at last.  We can see the light of truth.  Once, we were as children..... now we will allow oursleves to come unto the Truth.... unto true love.


We've been climbing uphill, battling the forces of nature.  Now, we've only to coast back home, enjoying the new sights, as we go.  Yes, we will have responsibilities.  It will not be 72 virgins.... not quite yet.  

Yes, we will all be born again.  

We will know ourselves, as if for the first time.

We will still be mortal, but death will no longer hold us in its thrall.  

The only substance that anything possesses will be the truth.  That will be the only currency.  Really?  Communism?  Communalism.  Everything will be an intentional community.  

There will be plenty to do and plan for the final Exodus.  We want to roll up our footprint, within reason, and start setting up the final 12 Megalopolises.  Intentional megalopolises?  Yup.  Made up of all those communities.  

We merely suppose that we're not here by accident.

Yes, we have all been slaving away..... but, ultimately we are the cosmic agents.  

True, but what's much more important is that is a personal world.  It is for, by and about persons.  IOW, we volunteered for being here.  

Ok, we can simplify that......

We are here neither by accident, nor against our will.  Rather, we are here as a coalition of the willing, if you will.  

Many see this mainly as a stepping stone, on a much longer journey.  

I doubt that.  

Mainly, I say, it is incoherent.  Persons are nothing, if we're not ends unto oursleves.  

Is there something that we cannot learn here?  Do tell what that might be.  

Hey, we're just not ready for this show to be over.  

This is where monism comes into the picture.  

Monism was actually snuck in with personalism.  Personalism is certainly not individualism.  Pantheists suppose that...... we're on our own.  It took the prophetic tradition to counter this.  

It has to do with our sapience.  Sapience is inarguably interpersonal.  

And, as I'm wont to say, the MoAPS is going to be a knowlege implosion.  That's what coherence is about.  The truth is simple.  In the end, it has to be personal.  It must be graspable by everyone of us.  

E pluribus, Unum.  


It is simply not clear what, if anything, sapience would do for an encore, after we've had our MoAPS.  

We'd have to start all over again.  From the perspective of eternity, we will, but, of course, our circuit is necessarily singular.

All of this makes much more sense, if it is understood that we share the same fate.  Most tend to think otherwise.  Most like to suppose that they will be among the select.  That makes sense, only in the most superficial manner.  

I'm also wont to say that we are like the brain cells of God.  Is God, then, some sort of super-person?  


God is mostly like one of us, but with special access to the Monad.  But God is no barrier to that access.  God personifies eternity. We all get to see eternity through her eyes.  

Each of us is a mask of God.  God is the person without a persona.  She is utterly simple.... the simplest of all persons.  The least affected.  The one without guile.  

When each of us is w/o guile, that is when we become one with God.  That is apocatastasis.  That is the end of all being.  

Transhuman? No, transparent.


Sponsored content

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2 - Page 18 Empty Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Sponsored content

    Current date/time is Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:21 pm