Three in One

First topic message reminder :

Here we have a slightly new departure, inspired by desert dweller.

Let’s see what happens.  Hopefully, we’ll come up with a better title.  

This is a slight detour from the Great Distraction in the Sky.  

Yes, I have claimed to be a monist, but it seems that you can’t be a monist and Personalist at the same time.  More technically, we’re talking three persons in one substance.  

There is to be a strong emphasis on history, as inspired by Joachim da Fiore, where Disclosure leads us into the age of the Spirit.  

Folks who don’t buy into this Metanarrative are welcome to argue against it, but they are not welcome to be continually advocating some alternative or for nothing.  

Personalism is the name of this Game.  

All other gamers are invited to state their games, but game elsewhere.  Thanks for the understanding.  

I hope that this will reduce the confusion in these parts.

And I do hope and trust to have the continued understanding of Cyrellys.  If an open mind is not to lead to nihilism, we must respect the personal nature of mind and of mind’s ‘objects’.  


9..........

There are several artifacts that need pointing out...... specific links will be given later.......

The mnemonic

The earlier blogs and websites.  

The abortive BPWiki..... it should be resurrected, in due course.

KWF and the Chronicles

There are various YouTube channels, which might be pointed to.

Etc.......


We must respect other persons, at all times.  

We must respect others’ opinion, as long as those opinions may be cogently argued, and that includes arguing that said opinions deserve the label of being a better BPWH.  And, by the way, that mnemonic is for best possible world hypothesis.  


SR,

Hang in there, please.  

Let me say, however, that there is no outside.  smelly is as near to the outside as you are liable to see in this world.  The outside is parasitic upon the inside, as you may see, pretty clearly in this case.  

What we so faciley refer to as the ‘objective’ is actually the intersubjective.  That is the sense in which I am a monist.  The Monad is the One substance in which all persons reside.  All persons are equal, but, historically, three persons stand out.  In the patriarchal nomenclature of the historian, Joachim da Fiore, we have the age of the father, the age of the son, and the age of the spirit, aka the Aquarian age.    


10:10.........

To inaugurate the Aquarian age, we have TSA, which was just to provide an excuse for the grey lady to clamber aboard.  Following that will be tsa2&3, in that order.  However, it would be more accurate to name it tla3.  This is where J&K come into the picture.  As I have previously mentioned, tla3 is a cover operation, unbeknownst to both j and k, (as was tsa1), but not entirely unbeknownst to the church.  This is what I hear from a sometimes unreliable source.  Seeing is believing, as we say in the disclosure world.  I’m not sure what tsa2 is supposed to be.  tsa2 and tla3 might be the same, for all I know.  Grant may be better informed on this matter.  


Tonight, there will be a three hour Rabbit Hole meeting, with host Grant Cameron, 8-11pm/EDT..... https://zoom.us/j/387693722 . I plan to be there.  


The roll out for tla3 was in Colorado.  I did not attend.  Neither did J or K.  I have received no further information about it.  OM is to be the site for the next phase.  Some links are to be offered, but they are not available, as yet.  The overriding issue is between the physical and the metaphysical aspects of the rattling cage and any associated phenomena, ie, to what degree is this a portal phenomenon?


11:50.........

Sign,

I see that you had a question for me, as to the source of the BPWH........

The source is just my own imagination.  I have never claimed otherwise.   I have never claimed to be a channel or contactee of any sort.  I have only claimed to be an ‘expert’, ie. a former drip under pressure.  

I pursue truth in the only way I know how, ie. logically.  

Science claims to have a hegemony on truth.  I dispute that claim.  

I even dispute their claim to a hegemony on empirical truth.  

The only claim that I might vouchsafe to science is their claim to analytic truth, which I see as an empty claim, since they have no analysand, if I have stated that properly.  


The analysand of personalism is persons, as the analysand of atomism is atoms.  

Persons are the only things in themselves, to paraphrase Kant. All else is derivative therefrom.  

Deists and pantheists, among others, disagree.  

Persons, unlike atoms, do not, cannot, just swerve in the void.  

Persons can hardly exist apart from other persons.  

We are social beings.  There is a hard to define milieu of persons.  The best existing theory of this milieu is provided by panentheism.  

Unless you are an atomist, the only other alternative is pantheism.  Pantheism has no explanatory power.  It can only accept what is.  

Panentheism provides a transcendental dimension.  It provides a vantage from which to critique the world.  It provides a vantage from which to postulate the BPWH.  That is what I have done.  No more.... no less.  


1........

However, if this is, indeed, the BPWH, then all critique is futile.  

A paradox.  

Yes, but it is a paradox we can live with.  It is a paradox that most of us agree to take upon ourselves..... and share.  

We find freedom in our imagination and poetry, and in imagining God’s Kingdom on Earth.  

Yes, many have tried to storm the gates of that heaven.  

But when we finally get to that Gate, we turn around and realize that our sojourn to that point was, at least, half the fun.  Enjoy.......

smelly has crossed that Jordan.  He curses me for not taking the plunge....... so does the Princess.  Don’t worry about me, I’m just admiring the view.  I have seen life from both sides, now.  

Fear not.  Disclosure is at hand.  It may not be quite what we expected, but it will suffice unto the day.  


You may not treasure your innocence.  Allow me to, vicariously.  This is our childhood’s end, children.... suffer the children to come unto me.  

smelly calls us muppets, derogatorily.  There is no derogation in God’s Kingdom.... not even for smelly.  

I have spoken of our very worst fear.  This is the chyu situation.  I told the Princess that our biggest problem was that we have no problems.  

She looked me in the eye.  I blinked.  

We cannot blink.  

Yes, some were chosen.  Even I was chosen.  Now, all are chosen.  If I have any message, that is my only one.  

Yes, we do circle back to tribalism.  That is from whence we came.

The very last tribalism, on this side, is to be witnessed on the hills of Judaea.  

Come down, out of the hills.  We goyim do not have cooties.  

Is there an or else?  Yes.  Ask Harvey.  

All that’s left is........ me, too......


(cont......)

"If truth is that which doesn't change, the truth of man is not the man we know" - John Butler

Okay, I'm going to try and reign in the topic at hand.

The title of this thread is "Three in One," which is a reference to the Trinity.  Dan asked the question as to whether or not you can be a monist and a personalist at the same time.  Ackbar and Smelly are monists, as is Dan (though I find him somewhat inconsistent); whereas I am a Trinitarian.  My argument is that one cannot be a personalist and a monist.

Persons are knowing subjects, which can be thought of as either a "self-awareness," or a "collection of thoughts."  To possess such a subjective, incommunicable property as being "a person", one must exist and be distinguishable in relation to other objects and/or persons.  This is what makes a subject, a subject; distinction.

The ontological grounding of this observation is found in the eternal Three-in-One; or in the Holy Trinity.  Being infinite, eternal, omniscient, and "simple" in substance - the Father's own perfect self-knowledge eternally generates a perfect self-image (for to behold an object in the mind is to have an image of the object in the mind), and this self-image in the mind of God is known as God the Son.  

In other words, the Father's intensive self-knowledge refracts in on itself, eternally generating a second person, or self-awareness (or “collection of thoughts).  And this is an emanation of His very own nature, hence why He is called the Father.  He can't but generate and emanate the Son, because of who and what He is.

"...who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person (or hypostasis, in Greek), and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had [c]by Himself [d]purged [e]our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

God the Spirit is commonly understood to be the hypostasis of the love between the Father and the Son, or the Power shared by the Father and the Son.  But for now, my focus will be on the Father-Son relation.

So not only does this revealed truth tell us that personalism requires a plurality of sorts, but it also shows us that personal relationships are at the very heart of reality.  We were created by the divines persons-in-relation, in order to be divine image bearers-in-relation.  Take a closer look at Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [...] in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."  

Therefore, our own self-awareness is not just an "aspect of God," or a fragmentation of His consciousness.  Our personal individuation is real and good, just as it is in the very persons of the Godhead.  We are meant for union and communion with "the other"; which is seen archtypally in the persons of the Godhead, and analogically in the creatures through the institutions of divine worship, marriage, and in the broader social relations of human society.  

We are meant for communion with "the other," and yes this can be so intimate that it leads the soul in to an experience similar to that of John Butler.  But to say that we are identical to the other, is to confuse the object with the subject, and to collapse into the impersonal nihilism of monism.

If you don't believe me, even Smelly oscillates between saying he only believes in Himself, to saying that He only believes in "me and Marissa."  Look back up at Genesis 1:26,27.  It's a beautiful thing...

I’m with John...

Relax into it baby...you ain’t got no problems, we all are always vacillating between nothingness and complete absorption in life.

We can be snuffed out any moment, for me, that’s it.

And through our emotions, the daimonic is made flesh, who seem to have a part of us on Earth.

These are concepts, in stillness, they can become clear to you.

We can feed our Daimons and not run, face mara head on baby.

Mara ain’t got shit on Humanity.

You just have to relax into it, but here as separate appearances, we are also always apart from no-thing.

But I have learned, as Blake, don’t deny our Daimons, that’s what the UFOS are about, to my DNA I feel it.

Just listen to where we can make it to here and now.

We can all go and look.



It’s an all out muppet assault.

Get to the doors...the doors....

Your thinking, dd, is a tad formulaic.......

Come with me, dd, to free thought.  Thought is the only thing that is free, so let it be..... free.  

The heck with presuppositions.  The only presupposition, if there be any at all, is that thought exists, and it’s the only thing we can ever know to exist.  Everything else is suspect.  

With the primordial thought comes the primordial question......

Why is there something, rather than nothing?  And what is that minimal something?

Nothing can exist in isolation.  No thought.... no atom by itself.  

Think of the unobserable universe.  What can it be, other than an abstraction?  

Besides that primordial thought, even if it were to vanish, there still exists the primordial potential for the primordial thought.  

Potency is a thing in itself.  Unless you posit limits, potency is necessarily unlimited.  

This line of thought is the only line that makes any sense.  All else is merely socially imposed limitations...... meant to keep us down on the farm...... from thinking for ourselves.  

For instance, did Jesus die to save us from our sins?  No.  Jesus died to save us from our self-imposed limitations.  Did Jesus know that?  It can easily be argued that he did.  

Did Buddha know this?  Does smelly know this?  No, in both cases.  

Really?  

In neither case were they willing to push the envelope of freedom to its extremum...... for you and me.  

Buddha had no clue about communal love.  Jesus is the embodiment of communal love.  Buddha and smelly are the embodiment of self-love through self-abnegation.  Jesus was about self-realization.....  through communal love.

Now...... here comes the biggie.......

What about God.....?

God is the Alpha and Omega.  God is love.  You and I are to be One with God.  You and I are nearer to God than any other entities.  

Each of us is totipotent, up to and including the Godhead.  

Did God create us?  Yes, and we create God.  We are participating in our own Creation.  Ours is a partipatory/bootstrapped world.  It is the only possible world, because it is the best possible world.  End of story.  

No biggie...... after all is said and done.  

Big Love.......? Yup, I’ll buy that.  



(cont.....)

I can't wait until this conversation takes the inevitable eschatological turn...

It's going to be amazing June July August !

BIG LOVE ....to all....

Dan knows about the "BIG LOVE"

Dan,

We have our differences, and I see you as being a tad inconsistent. Your last few paragraphs are spot on, right after you denied a fundamental tenet of mine; penal substitionary atonement. It's okay, I do not know you well enough to have any reason to question your sincerity of faith - and I don't question it. But I do think you are mixing the tenants of faith - namely the revelation of Christ (which has clearly made an impact on you) - with the tenants of Cartesian humanistic rationalism, and those two do not cohere together as side-by-side presuppositions.

You see, we all have presuppositions; precognitive assumptions and convictions about the nature of reality, which give rise to our interpretations of reality - and not the other way around. This shows to me the absolute necessity of divine verbal revelation. We need communication from absolute reality itself, in order to have any foundation for predication about reality.

Reality must therefore be personal - a "Him," not an "It" - for only persons can communicate. And in order to communicate, persons must be in a subject-object relationship. For as you yourself observe, “thoughts cannot exist in isolation.” Indeed, at a fundamental level, even thought is not alone;, thoughts give rise to words, words give rise to actions/actualization. Think Father (thought), Son (Logos/Word), Spirit (Action/Actualization). These subsist as self-aware persons in the Godhead. And hence, we return to my outline of the Trinity given above…

You tell me I’m a tad formulaic, yet most of what you write seems to be formulaic. No? Others might say I’m too dogmatic, to be more “open minded”, yet they have their own unexplored dogmas about “open mindedness,” which they hold to with an unchanging faith. Others might tell me to ditch the Word of God and “think for myself”, only to eventually replace it with some other words, which claim to reveal the true nature of reality to me...

I’m not buying it. Never have, never will. There is no neutrality. Only presuppositions, worldview, and the antithesis between them. The only way to test a worldview is through “pushing the antithesis,” or by exploring it’s inner-coherence, and its ability to correspondend with reality/experience.

Now you’ve asked a few questions…

Why is there something rather than nothing, and what is that minimal something?

God is the minimal something, who exists; I AM THAT I AM. He is simple in substance, Triune in awareness. Creation exists by His Decree, and is the Best Possible World in which He will Glorify Himself, by bringing creatures into existence who will share in that glory.

Your last question asked whether God is self-realized through love. My answer; the Trinity. That reality overflows to the creatures He has chosen to bring in to existence, who likewise find self-realization through love - chief of which is the love of God, then it spills over towards other creatures.

“We love because he first loved us.” 1 John 4:19

“but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:14

Dan,

A quick side question.  I read somewhere that Ron is a Roman Catholic.  Is that true?

Also,

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "we created God?"

//God is the Alpha and Omega. God is love. You and I are to be One with God. You and I are nearer to God than any other entities.//

Amen. It is said that it was jealously of this fact that provoked Lucifer.

"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things." 1 Peter 1:12

Dan wrote:Well, ok, wk, how much would be the right amount of history, or the best size for the parade, as we march off through the portals.

IF my theory is correct and all of us are living every choice we can make in an infinite universe. then we have it covered.

But is seems to me that you are saying it's all over for us when omega comes along.? That seems a bit of a waste to me.

One more post for me today then I'm of to look at some ancient Chinese bronzes.

DD

To me your are practicing a form of social anthropomorphism. I don't have a lot of time to explain but look at it this way.

Many people think when they read Shakespeare that they actually understand what they are reading, thing is is that many of the definitions of the words he used are not the definition of today, not to mention the grammar. I recommend Dr. John Mcwhorter, I consider him a very cool linguist. I think maybe you still need to read history that is less Abraham centric.

Of to make visual comparison of artifacts before and during the axial age. I think I will find some clues there. It's amzing what we can learn from expression in visual arts and artifacts.

If we stop and listen, it’s all clear.

The only way anyone sees it is on their own.

We can’t talk each other into anything, look at Dan and I.

We must leave the boat we used to get into the middle of the stormy ocean and swim to the bottom of the ocean.

It’s in walking away from our ideas and beliefs we finally open to the moment.

That’s where the BIG LOVE is.

dd,

I see no presupposition.  Yes, something exists.  It’s pretty hard to deny that, even or especially if it is a mirage.  

The only thing that can’t exist is nothing.  It is not an accident then that something exists.  If one thing is essential, then so is everything else.  It’s that simple, dd.  

Once any sort existence is established, everything else follows by coherence, which is the simple observation that accidents can only arise from nothing..... which does not exist.  

Creation, dd, is no accident.  Were you and I created?  Not really.  You and I cohere.  God coheres.  

The world is both the minimum and maximum self-coherent ‘object’.  

Nothing can exist in isolation.  Relationalism or coherentism is the sine qua non of existence.  

And what is coherence about?  Coherence, first and foremost, is about cognizance.  It is the essence of cognizance.  

Isn’t coherence, then a presupposition?  

Well, I’m saying that incoherence cannot exist, any more than accidents can.

The world cannot be divided into the knowable and the unknowable.  

The unknowable cannot exist, any more than the unobservable.  

My monism is that nothing can exist apart from the whole.  We cannot exist apart from God.  God cannot exist apart from us.  

There are many appearances of separation.  These ‘separations’ are a necessary part of the whole.  

Through these separations, we can explore every alternative to Truth.  When we have finished exploring every alternative, only Truth remains.  That is the historical juncture at which we find ourselves..... just about now.  


2............

In other words, we’ve been looking for love in all the wrong places.  Love is not somewhere.  Love is everywhere.  

Love is news from Nowhere.  

Love is no accident.


(cont......)

WK,

What makes you think I haven’t read outside of the “Abrahamic Traidition?”  My journey out of secularism began by reading the Bhavagad Gita and Upanishads.  I chanted Hare Krishna until the “visitors” showed up.  I think in my case they are more accurately called diamons... I’m still trying to determine if I went as far as smelly, or further, 15 years ago...

I am also intentionally anthropomorphic, as Scripture is.  Anthropomorphism is necessary for epistemological reasons.  Imagine a 3D being trying to communicate and reveal itself to a 2D being...

In the case of the Biblical worldview,  the 3D world, along with the  higher dimensions, are meant to purposefully reflect the Creators mind, as they come from His decree/mind.  They are designed for revelation and communion with His image bearers.  It is the theater of His glory, as Calvin would say.

This isn’t just something that I am constrained by, but you as well.  For you are human, and every concept you have is a human concept.  So unless there is a correspondence between you and absolute reality, there is no coherence or workable epistemology. We are all idealists at heart.  God is absolute reality - the absolute mind - and we are His image bearers who think hos thoughts after Him...

Dan,

What you are describing is panentheism, or emanationism.  However...

(Cont...)

Emanationism may be thought of as temporal.  Temporarility, in the BPWH, is only an apparent dimension of logic....... of the Logos.  

The Whole is logically self-contained or bootstrapped.  That does not mean it has a beginning or an end.   Reality is embedded in Eternity.   It is a closed timelike curve.  Alpha = Omega = Christos.    

Note-bene:...... the CTC is singular. There is nothing cyclic about the world. We persons are cyclic when you take into account the single soul theory of the world. You, me and Jesus are soulmates.




(cont........)

Dan,

In Trinitarianism emanation occurs within the Godhead.  The Father eternally generates the Son, and spirates (or breathes out) the Holy Spirit, as distinct hypostases in the Godhead.  Creation is not an emanation if God, nor an extension of Him.  Creation was a choice of God’s free will, as He eternally decreed it.  In so far as He eternally decreed it, creation was necessary.  But God’s will was free in choosing to create.  However, when he does create it follows the order of persons in the Godhead.  The Father creates by the Son/Word, in the Spirit.  Read Genesis 1 again...

When it comes to coherence, I see that as a first principle of intelligibility.  However, a presupposition must give ontological grounding to such a first principle.  This is the realm of faith, or “basic beliefs.” Faith goes beyond reason, and grounds it.  As the scholastics used to say, “I believe in order that I might understand.”

This is why revelation is necessary.  In order to predicate anything about reality, we must already know some things reality, and vice versa.  Ontology and Epistemology are bound together.  This is the circular nature of human experience that we are all bound by.

I say divine simplicity is the grounding of coherence, and simplicity is itself coherent.  Making God and creation correlative, erodes the Godhead from being a concrete universal.  All that God provides for epistemology and ontology becomes eroded by creation, and we end up like smelly again...

dd,

Try not to be silly.......

There cannot be a Creator without a Creation.  Could God create a second best Creation?

So much for free will.  

Newton was an absolutist.  Physics now is all about relations.

Absolutism leads to death camps.  Don’t take that path.  I warn you.  

Your absolutism is just a measure of your fear and insecurity...... of your lack of faith and love.  

Absolutism is the hobgoblin of small and timid minds.  God will spit you out for not measuring up..... for not standing up.  


It does not matter what Ron believes or doesn’t believe. He doesn’t get paid to have beliefs. He gets paid to do a job. He does his job.

.

Dan,

Understood with Ron.  I shouldn’t have asked.  In reflection, revealing that one way or another would lead to all sorts of wild speculation.  I know he is protecting the county and I respect him for that.

But returning to our conversation.  Doesn’t everything you just said sound... absolute?

Absolutism doesn’t lead to death camps, humanistic idealism does, IMHO.

Humanistic idealism........ death camps.....?

Perhaps you are referring to Marxism, but it was neither.

Personalism is all about personal relations. There is no room for absolutes.

You are a literalist/fundamentalist. You don’t understand the first thing about Jesus.

I don’t understand what you are doing at OMF.

I don’t think you do, either.

.

Dan,

I was thinking more of Hitler.  Surely you were not thinking that standard Christian orthodoxy leads to Marxist death camps, so that’s not what I had in mind.  Orthodox Christians are usually the victims of Marxist death camps...

However, I do see Hegel as the father of Marxism, though Marxism is inverted form of His idealism.  

Fundamentalist Literalist, eh?  Those slanderous pejoratives used against someone who simply holds to what every christian has ever believed - no matter how educated they are - is usually a way to shut down the conversation.  If that’s what you wish, I will go away...

What am I doing here?  Well...

(Cont...)

What are you doing here dd?

Excellent question.

Have you realized IT yet?

What do you mean by...”God’s free will”

How do you know?

Just a bunch of crap from books is about the extent of your depth, kidding

What’s it like to be dd?

The experience of it?

Get personal maybe.

IT has always been and always shall be beyond your belief.

Hahaha, good luck.

I'm here for three reasons, maybe four.

Curiosity

Intellectual Stimulation

A head start

The first is satisfied, as much as it is regularly peaked in OMF. The second happens every now and again (think of Dan's discernment challenge). I think I'm getting there with the third.

The fourth is to learn poetry, I think.

That's where you come in Smelly.

What's it like to be DD?

I had some thoughts that I was thinking about sharing. However, I'm too exhausted from a 10 hour work day and a Cross Fit workout. I'm going to be away from the fam for a few days, and they come first.

Maybe this is a start. I'm sure Smelly will call me a Muppet for posting this. I guess in light of the poem/video, being a Muppet is an honor. It means I'm part of the greatest show on earth, in the Best Possible World.

Dan,

You know what, call me all the names you want.  I'm intrigued about this personalism you speak of, and personal relationships, and the coming inter-subjectivity you have spoken about.  It sounds like this is essential to the paradigm shift that you foresee on the horizon.  Can you elaborate?  

I'm guessing it has to do with what Smelly just challenged me to.

...Here I go again, trying to get that head start...

If someone shares genuinely, from wherever they are, very good.

You will need to face Mr. Butler, the goat is giving wayz, he can set any of you believers straight...enough

There are many shades of grey, black and white apart of all.

I demand the best, alwayz demand the best from people by giving your best.

Well met Human...maybe.

It takes a lot to make a Human, poetry is but one necessary ingredient, our natural way of communicating.



It takez flowerz too.

Pain and love.

Darkness and light.

Nice vid.



Speak to me in music sometime, whatever u like, humans of course are always singing and dancing and having fun.

I don’t seem to remember the heart having any one particular place it calls home.

It fills all of this.

Hi,

First day posting. Gatecrashing. Hope that is ok. I have skimmed over the first page of comments on this post, and the last, but not read any links. I am that person who comes to a wedding uninvited and eats the cake while listening in on the conversation part way through, and then asks if they have the gist of it because it is so interesting.

So am I right in saying you are having your say as to what you think is on the other side of the Xendra's that for instance, disheveled balaclava man wears when he talks about his experiences, and folk like Smelly (great name BTW) and desertdweller are saying it is the "D" baddies, and folk like Dan (hello!) and balaclava man think it may be the doorway to "Source" or the "Creator" or where we once came, the spirit world, etc? Is that about the gist of it? Ok, thanks. Just wandering.

dd,

It is ironic, your video of Calvinism v Arminianism........

In this case I come down on the side of the textualists, for the question of (non-) freedom of action.  I hold to the freedom of thought and imagination, under the rubric of rationalization.  

I am an historical determinist, as it relates to the BPWH.  

There are no accidents.  There is a reason for everything..... and not just a personal reason....... a cosmic reason.  

You could say that we are the brain cells of God, although I don’t believe in the functionality/efficacy of literal neurons.  

The closest thing I have to a presupposition is the observation that analytical science has no analysand, in the logical sense..... there are no atoms.  In the end, there are only persons.  And in the end of persons, there are only one/three Persons.  

The end of physics is the Anthropic Principle.  

The end of biology is the mind-body problem.  

Those are not presuppositions.  They are observations.  Physics and biology are running on the fumes of a virtually, universally rejected worldview.  

Analytical philosophy met its Waterloo in 1950, at the hands of Quine.  

We now have postmodernism..... wherein everything goes, academically speaking.  

What is a body to do...... return to the word of God?  That is what you have done, dd.  

But to which word of which God?  Wars are fought over such questions.  How many more wars can we afford?

Analysis recognizes only facts.  There is no truth, except in technical contexts.  Every fact is merely an historical accident.  

Mathematics is, to a degree, an exception.  It is trans-analytical..... higher truths emerge within mathematics...... there are theorems of great beauty.  

Some of that beauty carries over into theoretical physics, with the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’.  

Two masters degrees in physics, along with the Anthropic Principle, provided a launching pad for the BPWH.

Five years of struggling over anthropics and the mind-body problem launched me into immaterialism.

What was my presupposition? It was only that analysis and reductionism were ultimately an insult to human intelligence.



(cont......)

Just wandering, welcome. I’m here as my Self only, who are you?

Dan won’t stop using his words, so I show him how words can be used for anything and most importantly my role is to show philosophy is no answer to life and science is an incomplete one.

Dan and I are both immaterialists.

He is a confused one or has a great act going.

Share your opinions, or listen, better yet, dance.

We do not agree life should be allowed to happen.

It doesn’t matter what they are doing with ufos, nothing is really out there, it’s all really in here.

They don’t even see really prob what’s happening on OMF.