Sun goes out?

New topic……..

1440z…….

That is the question.

But can the Sun go out…….. without using up all its hydrogen……. H + H => He, etc…….?

This will happen in another 10^10 years, if you believe in nuclear physics.  

chick believes in nuclear physics……. up to a point…… up until the best possible point.  

Contra Chivo, chick conceives that the essence of the Sun precedes its existence.  

JP Sartre, on that score, was one of the dumbest persons ever to have existed.  

Yes, Sartre’s essence consisted mainly of that piece of myopia.  

But Jean Paul fulfilled a necessary role in the downfall of philosophy.  

JP issued the coup de grace to philosophy.  

Now we could start over….. from scratch….. mostly back where we started, swinging from trees.  

Not that there is anything wrong with swinging from trees.  

Au contraire……. mes amis……

The history of philosophy is much like history itself…… we start from the Source, and end up back at the Source……. and we know ourselves, as if for the first time.  

JP could never answer the simple question, which is the beginning of all philosophy…….. to be or not to be?  

Why is there something, rather than nothing?  

Given that there is something, what is that something liable to be?  

It’s liable to be a whole…….. nay, it has to be of one piece.  

We don’t know of anything that has parts.  

We can’t know of anything that has parts.  

We can’t know of anything that is not somehow a part of us.  

What about a distant star ?  


1900……….

There is a stark contrast between materialism and immaterialism…..

With scientific materialism, everything is an accident.  

With immaterialism, nothing is.  

Everything is composed of thoughts .  

Are there not random thoughts?  

If there is one thought that is not random, then no thoughts are random.  

The same goes for stars .  

Every star is composed of a myriad of thoughts.  

Is every hair on our head numbered?  

chick suspects so.  

Consciousness is the mystery of all mysteries.  

Could thoughts emerge independently…… anymore than atoms might….. anymore than bits of space and time might?  

Ok, but what is holding it all together?  

Well, what holds our thoughts together?  

Our skull ?  

Do our thoughts emerge from space and time, or is it the other way around?  

The modern mind has become very comfortable with the former.  

Are you quite sure the there is zero probability of the latter?  

If the probability is not zero, how would you calculate it?  

Why is there something rather than nothing?  

Do unobservable universes exist?  

Is there such a thing as an unobservable phenomenon?  

How many observers are there?  

Could it be that we and the I Am are all of a piece?  

Will Sartre ever forgive me if I suppose that the essence of the Logos Spermatikos preceded its existence?  

Or is there a difference?  

I ask you.  

When we want to know why there is something……. what do we mean by something?  

Why is there anything……. or why is there everything?  

Can there be anything without everything?  

Can one thing have meaning?  

It’s like the dictionary problem……. can you define one word without reference to all of the others?  

Is there such a thing as a non-circular definition?

How big is the smallest circle?  

How about defining zero?  

Can any number be understood without reference to one?  

Can one be understood without reference to zero?  

But zero did not exist until relatively recently in mathematical history.  

How could we ever have gotten along without it?  

I ask you.  


2100………

We didn’t.  

Nothing was always implicit in thing.  

In this context I’m reminded of the ten thunders of James Joyce…….

Couldn’t there have just been nine?  

In actuality, there should have only been one.  

That is the Metanarrative.  

In the perfect narrative, nothing can be left out.  

It’s beginning and end must form a closure.  

Obviously, there can be no such thing as an infinite narrative.  

Essential to this narrative is us.  

Might not one of us have been left out?

The one who is often considered the most essential of all of us made a simple statement…….. the first shall be last…… and perhaps it was his most important.  

What you do unto the least of you……..

And what about all of us killed, etc……..?  

Suppose we remove a grain of sand from a beach ?  

One of our smartest said that it would be like dropping a bomb.  

If we can’t remove a grain of sand, what about removing a second of time?  

It would be very difficult to remove a nanosecond from the Big Bang.  

Over the aeons has it gotten any easier?

How about removing a second from the Omega….. from the Telos?  

You can dismantle a car, but I don’t think you can dismantle the world…… particularly not the only one……. the best possible one.  

Only the father knows the day and the hour.  

The Sun is the most entangled piece of our whole world……

…… the most essential ‘thing’ of our Metanarrative.  

When the narrators move on, can anything be left behind?  


2200………

I think we’ve all heard of co-dependent arising.  

Well, now you’ve heard of the co-dependent finale.  

What about the I Am?  

What is the I Am, if not the cosmic Potency?  

The Logos Spermatikos……… can the Cosmos be half pregnant?  

Was Nothing ever not pregnant with Something?  

If it only took God six days to create the world, could it possibly take more than six days to uncreate it?  

There’s a name for it…….. Occasionalism.  

In other words, God could not have rested on the seventh day.  

It would have been all over before it had even begun.  

Uh, uh…….. God will not take a snooze until the best possible time.

New Year’s Day? Well, the Princess has mostly recovered.



(cont……..)

Scott Hillen sends New Year’s greetings from Ireland.  

He hopes to be back soon……. looking forward……..
……………


It’s a bit strange how we have to mind the gap between East and West.

The BPWH fits rather neatly in that crevice.  

This logical no-man’s land may be an essential piece of choreography for the Endtimes.  

Another thing is that I hope I don’t have to go back into Disclosure mode.  

Sub specie aeternitatis, there is virtually no need for a Disclosure.

We will have all of Eternity to be Monday Morning quarterbacks with regard to the Eschaton.  

We can be virtually certain that our collective decision was to KISS the Eschaton.  

We all just freeze 🥶 in our tracks, and wake up on the other side……. slam, bam, thank you, ma’am……. or something like that.  

As to the timing, we can second guess our eternal selves, but I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.  

It will turn out to have been a virtual no-brainer.  

I would like to see anyone second guess the best possible Eschaton.  

Now, foot has suggested that time may become a bit jumbled up as we fall into the event horizon of the Eschaton.  

I think we can allow ourselves to have faith that it will be the best possible jumble.  

And why couldn’t the Princess have told me this forty years ago?  

Well, I guess she wasn’t around then.  It took a little while to get our heads together.  

Does it look like chick is complaining?

Hey, I would have been willing to walk two miles for the best possible Eschaton.  

Is Chivo going to tell me that he told me so?  

Why not…….. but someone did have to work it out with a pencil …… just to save the appearances.



(cont………)

Galactic command approves harvesting SOL after observation drones conclude no intelligent life exists on any of the system's planets.



Sun goes out. Story over. ;-)

Have a happy new year!

Dan:

But can the Sun go out…….. without using up all its hydrogen……. H + H => He, etc…….?

This will happen in another 10^10 years, if you believe in nuclear physics.  

chick believes in nuclear physics……. up to a point…… up until the best possible point.  


You can dismantle a car, but I don’t think you can dismantle the world…… particularly not the only one……. the best possible one. Only the father knows the day and the hour.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay

Ultimate MADness ... "The effects could range from complete cessation of existing fundamental forces, elementary particles and structures comprising them, to subtle change in some cosmological parameters, mostly depending on potential difference between true and false vacuum."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07331

In conclusion, we have shown that the lifetime of our universe in a metastable Higgs
phase is crucially dependent on the absence of any nucleation seeds, and a primordial
black hole could drastically reduce the time it takes to decay onto a different ‘standard
model’. Instability of the standard model is therefore more problematic than was
hitherto supposed. Further exploration of the parameter space, using a wider class of
bubble nucleation scenarios, should give us the range of Higgs parameters which lead
to a long-lived standard model in the presence of black holes.

Given bubble nucleation expands at the speed of light, we might want to get those warp engines up and running soon!


Existential threat

If our universe is in a false vacuum state rather than a true vacuum state, then the decay from the less stable false vacuum to the more stable true vacuum (called false vacuum decay) could have dramatic consequences.[5][6] The effects could range from complete cessation of existing fundamental forces, elementary particles and structures comprising them, to subtle change in some cosmological parameters, mostly depending on potential difference between true and false vacuum. Some false vacuum decay scenarios are compatible with survival of structures like galaxies and stars[7][8] or even biological life[9] while others involve the full destruction of baryonic matter[10] or even immediate gravitational collapse of the universe,[11] although in this more extreme case the likelihood of a "bubble" forming may be very low (i.e., false vacuum decay may be impossible).[12]

The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it.

A few months later I told Andrei Sakharov about the bubble. His reaction was: “Such theoretical work
should be forbidden”.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0112031.pdf

English Standard Version

https://biblehub.com/revelation/6-14.htm

The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.


Isaiah 34:4
All the stars of heaven will be dissolved. The skies will be rolled up like a scroll, and all their stars will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like foliage from the fig tree.

Isaiah 54:10
Though the mountains may be removed and the hills may be shaken, My loving devotion will not depart from you, and My covenant of peace will not be broken," says the LORD, who has compassion on you.

Jeremiah 4:24
I looked at the mountains, and behold, they were quaking; all the hills were swaying.

Ezekiel 38:20
The fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, every creature that crawls upon the ground, and all mankind on the face of the earth will tremble at My presence. The mountains will be thrown down, the cliffs will collapse, and every wall will fall to the ground.

Nahum 1:5
The mountains quake before Him, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles at His presence--the world and all its dwellers.

2 Peter 3:10
But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare.

Revelation 16:20
Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found.

Thank you, Gary, for getting into the spirit.  

Over the aeons, the pressure has built up……. you could call it civilization and its discontents……. keeping us down on the farm.  

Letting off all that steam gradually……?

We shouldn’t count on it.  

It is liable to come as a shockwave from the future.

We’re not talking about cause and effect.  

This gestalt switch is being propagated back from the Telos.  

The Monad is entering our ‘atmosphere’, as if out of nowhere……. in prospect, but not in retrospect.  

And it won’t be a moment too early…… or too late .  

Yes, the physical analogy as with an unstable vacuum is a good one.

It is like dropping a seed crystal into a supercooled solution.  
……….

Fore posts Madonna and Quavo…….. interesting 🧐.  

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t80p500-what-music-are-you-listening-to#38346

……….


And what would be the trigger that would cause us to drop the ball?

chick is hard pressed to come up with that one.  

Again, I don’t think it will be a cause and effect.  

There would be an underwater landslide…… from within our collective unconscious…….. a Mt. St Helen’s effect.  

A veritable tidal wave breaking on our shores.  

Would we sleep through it?  

That’s not likely.  

When we wake up, we won’t be in Kansas anymore.  

One might well suppose that the internet would act as an early warning system…….. would pick up on something portentous.  

That is only a possibility.  

Wouldn’t there be an Amber alert…… at the least?



(cont……..)

The tidal wave has already crashed.

And we are wrecked now on the shores of love.

We meet each other as we awaken from our long sleep.

0400zulu……..

chick will wager that there is not a single science student in the world who would believe that the Sun might go out in an historical time frame……. let alone in ten years.  

What if we phrased the question differently?  

What is the chance that consciousness might go out?  

There would then be some puzzlement.  

Yes, there could be an extinction level event within the next century, say.

Sapience could annihilate itself in that time frame, but the world would continue with some form of biology, and life would continue in the rest of the universe……. no big deal.  

Heck, we were only ever a flash in the pan, anyway.  

That may well be…… I certainly can’t prove otherwise.  

However, at what point might an existential question become a metaphysical question?  

At some point THE question arises……. why is there something rather than nothing?  

I claim that this is a metaphysical question.  

A good scientist would just look the other way……. not our problem.  

Well, science has made the future everyone’s problem…….. well, except for Chivo maybe.  

Science forces us, common folk, like you and me, to confront the future.  

Real people lose real sleep over these questions.  

All that chick wishes to do is restore some sleep for some people.  

That is a fairly modest ambition.  


0500……..

But here is where are forced into the metaphysical game.  

Let’s go back to the original question……. why is there something?  

This question is a little trickier than it seems at first glance…….

The question has to be ramified, if that’s the right word.

Why is there someone to ask the question in the first place?  

We’re not just dealing with existence, we’re dealing with existence squared.  

This is another way to phrase the Anthropic problem.  

But this almost never comes in any science curriculum.  

And very few are the philosophers who have asked it.

Let’s Google it……..

It is commonly suggested that there is no problem, because the apparent Anthropics is just a selection bias.

You might think that scientists would be willing to leave well enough alone.

But, no, they have felt compelled to go on and invent the Multiverse.



(cont……..)

People aren’t real.

Soylent green is people.

Sun stays on, reality goes out:

In a recent interview, Keanu Reeves had his mind blown trying to explain the premise of The Matrix to a teenager, who – rather than being horrified at the idea that we might not be living in 'reality' – simply couldn't understand why anyone would need to know the difference between what's 'real' and 'not real'.

The internet went into predictably technophobic meltdown, but the kid's got a point. Reality, as the occasionally thrilling but often disappointing Matrix Resurrections proves, doesn't always live up to expectations.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-22/the-matrix-resurrections-review-keanu-reeves/100704690

Gary,

We will count our lucky stars when we find out that there is deeper reality behind our mundane reality.

So, yes, scientists were compelled to go on and invent the Multiverse.  

There is not a shred of physical evidence for the Multiverse, yet the alleged existence of the Multiverse is the primary evidence scientists use to discount any and all metaphysics.  

The primary support for physics comes from mathematics, mathematics is decidedly non physical.  

Science is supported mainly by the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, which no one can explain.  

The only evidence for the Multiverse is mathematical.  

Consciousness is, of course, our main argument against physicalism.  

There is not a shred of evidence supporting the physical nature of consciousness.  

Most moderns are agnostic about these questions.  

If moderns share any belief system, it is scientific materialism, yet there are very few people who identify as scientific materialists.  

I just googled scientific materialism (SM).  

It only has a two paragraph entry stating that it is mainly a pejorative used by Creationists.

Ok, but then what is a non pejorative term for the consensual belief of moderns?  

Let’s try to find that term on Wikipedia, starting with SM and using the ‘see also’ links…….

Next up is scientism.  

But, again, ‘scientism’ is considered to be mainly pejorative.  

See-also directs us to ‘high modernism’…….

High modernism is a form of modernity characterized by an unfaltering confidence in science and technology as means to reorder the social and natural world.  The high modernist movement was particularly prevalent during the Cold War, especially in the late 1950s and 1960s.

And this is mostly a dead end.

Scientism also directs us to technocentrism…….

Technocentrism directs us mainly toward ecological topics.  

We need to find a different starting point.  

Modernism is almost entirely about art.  

At the very bottom of the disambiguation page for Modernism is Postmodernism……..

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse defined by an attitude of skepticism toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism, as well as opposition to epistemic certainty and the stability of meaning. It questions or criticizes viewpoints associated with Enlightenment rationality dating back to the 17th century, and is characterized by irony, eclecticism, and its rejection of the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.
……….

Since the late 1990s, there has been a growing sentiment in popular culture and in academia that postmodernism "has gone out of fashion". Others argue that postmodernism is dead in the context of current cultural production.

Oh dear, just when we thought we might be getting somewhere.



(cont……..)

Philosophical Naturalism puts a name on the opposition to philosophical Personalism.  

The BPWH is based almost entirely on philosophical Personalism.  

The phrase ‘philosophical Naturalism’ is, in and of itself, an oxymoron.  

There is no philosophy in nature……. sorry, all you naturalists.  

At the core of philosophical Naturalism are so called ‘natural values’.  

Again we have an oxymoron.  

The closest we can get natural value might be deontic logic.  

But overshadowing all talk of natural value is the is-ought fallacy.  

Another possible starting point is…… https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/



(cont………)

The sun goes out on religion?

Gary,

In case you didn’t notice, the Sun went out on religion about three hundred years ago.  

The question is…….. when is the Sun going out on science?  

In case you hadn’t noticed, the Sun has already gone out on science.  
…………..


The problem of naturalism is entangled with the problem of teleology.  

These problems are also entangled with the problem of norms.  

Norms may be related to common law and natural law.  

Then there is the problem of ethics v. morals.  

Next to is v. ought, we have fact v. value.

Then there are obligations.  

Much of this sounds quaint to modern ears.  

When societies are functioning smoothly, these questions are academic.  

When societies break down, these issues become more serious and more personal.  

Does modern society face a breakdown?  

And what does any of this have to do with the Sun going out?  

It has to do with whether reality is subjective or objective.  

We may not have a clue, on that score.

Do we know that we don’t have a clue?  

Certainly not us……. modern minded folks.  

As much as anything might, the tic-tac story in the New York Times signaled the end of the modern mind.

And why do we care?

Well, if reality is not objective, the Sun is about to go out.

And that is a good thing.



(cont……….)

Even as a youth, my interest focused on science……… particularly on astronomy and meteorology.  

It wasn’t until graduate school in physics that science began to lose its luster for me.  

It wasn’t until I was seven years out of school that Jack Sarfatti’s ‘Beyond Space and Time’ rekindled my interest in the philosophical aspects of science.  

But there was no way to combine philosophy and science.  

As Charles Misner at UMd put it too me, quite bluntly back in 1976..…. philosophers were meant to play second fiddle to scientists……. scientists lead……. philosophers follow.  

Me?  

I encountered Sophia in 1977.  

I walked out again, after my second master’s degree.  

I studied philosophy/ontology on my own until 1991.  

Over a five day period in the spring I experienced, spontaneously, synchronicity and altered states, but no particular phenomenon.  

I felt being led to action……. see something, say something.  

I latched on to the crop circle phenomenon in England.  

In about a month, I had obtained Ron’s phone number.  

I was able to say something, finally, by the fall of that year.  

And a little over a month ago, three tells me that the Sun is about to go out.  

I became an immaterialist/eschatologist in 1981.  Since that time I have been attempting to immanentize the Eschaton……. it was always difficult.  

Then someone whispers in my ear…….. and it’s a new ballgame.  



(cont……..)

1700z……..

Sub specie immaterialism…….

No people, no Sun…….. no Sun, no people.  

Back in the 80’s, I met with Amit Goswami on one of his trips back to DC to visit his daughter.  

He bills himself as a monistic idealist, but also as a creative evolutionist, as I found out.  

This is the problem with metaphysics based on the Eastern traditions.

There is very little emphasis on coherence.  

Rather, Eastern traditions strive for compromise.  

As a professor of physics, Amit was not about to throw out scientific cosmology.  

Our lunchtime conversation did not get very far.  

How was I to explain to him that one cannot compromise with the Truth?  

The monism of the East does not extend to Truth.  

Where did the notion of Truth come from?

As far as I can ascertain, it comes from the jguy……. I am the Truth….

It has something to do with persons.  

I speak frequently of the CohTT, the coherence theory of truth.  

Coherence comes only with sapience.  

It is necessarily inter-personal.  

Is there anything that can come before or after an inter-personal Truth?  

Can there not be a super truth or a transcendental truth?

The reigning wisdom on that score is pluralism……. many truths…… which are necessarily incommensurable.  
……..


This is all very abstract.  

What does it have to do with the Sun?  

Well, the Sun is the closest sensible thing to the Monad.

But, is not the Sun our ultimate Object?  


2000……..

Yes, the Sun is our ultimate Object, but that doesn’t make it objective.  

It is the ultimately impersonal thing that we can experience.

Did the Sun create us?  

Or did we create the Sun?  

If we exist, we are immortal.  

That is a big ‘if’, but the Sun is definitely not immortal.  

The question is……… do I exist?

Or……what?  

To be or not to be?  

Do I exist in my own right?  

Or……. am I some sort of epi-phenomenon?  

How do I know that I’m not an illusion.  

Am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a person, or vice versa?  

Science is unable to tell us that we are anything more than sacks of chemicals with delusions of grandeur.  

I certainly cannot prove otherwise, however, I can make it at least as plausible as the next person.  

If matter comes before mind, then science has a very plausible Metanarrative.

If not, we’ll have to make one up.



(cont……….)

Dan: No evidence for multiverse


Tardigrade in quantum superposition: biological multiverse

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-a-tardigrade-micro-animal-became-quantum-entangled-with-superconducting

Human in alien induced superposition -; Evidence for multiverse

The prince sat in meditation through the night. During the first watch of the night, he had a vision of all of his past lives, recollecting his place of birth, name, caste, and even the food he had eaten. During the second watch of the night, he saw how beings rise and fall through the cycle of rebirth as a consequence of their past deeds. In the third watch of the night, the hours before dawn, he was liberated. Accounts differ as to precisely what it was that he understood. According to some versions it was the four truths: of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering. According to others it was the sequence of dependent origination: how ignorance leads to action and eventually to birth, aging, and death, and how when ignorance is destroyed, so also are birth, aging, and death. Regardless of their differences, all accounts agree that on this night he became a buddha, an awakened one who had roused himself from the slumber of ignorance and extended his knowledge throughout the universe.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Buddha-founder-of-Buddhism/Previous-lives


"sacks of chemicals with delusions of grandeur" in quantum superposition

Sun to earth: "I can't light, no more of your darkness"

1600z…….

To explain the shining and the non-shining of the Sun, it helps to understand the mathematics of Sophus Lie.  

In physics, the transformational symmetry groups give rise to the conservation laws……. this is particularly in regard to translational invariance under space translations and rotations, and to time displacements.

These mathematical invariances in the laws of physics give rise to the conservation of linear and angular momentum, and to the conservation of energy, respectively.  

Translational invariance in time and the conservation of energy are essential features of the Metanarrative.  


1900……..

I’m suggesting that the crucial feature of having a level playing field within Creation gives rise to the symmetry and conservation laws, which, in their turn, are essential features of the Metanarrative.  

And the Sun…….?

The Sun is the Source or, at least the nexus, of space, time and energy symmetries/conservations.  

In significant measure, the Sun is the nexus of all ‘physical’ entanglements.

From a metaphysical perspective, the Sun is the Source of physics.

One could equally assert that the Sun is the Source of all appearances……. or, as Barfield might say, the Sun saves virtually every appearance……. and that is putting in mildly.  

Space and time are coterminous with the Metanarrative…… and so, therefore, must be the Sun , of course.  

When the portals open, decisively, everything under the Sun will disentangle……. right along with the Sun.  

The other side of pratītyasamutpāda is co-termination…… the world collapses back upon the Source.  

Yes, that will be one wild ride.  

You might wish to hold onto your hats 🧢.  

As kids might say…….. again, again……!

But, as Gottfried would hasten to remind us……. there is only one best possible world…….. as in the identity of indiscernibles.

Does that mean that we can’t come this way again?  

Do keep in mind that we are all time sharing on the singular cosmic Soul……. the I Am……

We can only repeat the Metanarrative 10^10 times!  

Perhaps we are all slightly jaded with the Eschaton.

That simple fact might explain a lot of things…….



(cont…….)

Don’t count the days; make the days count.

Yes,

Thanks for the sage advice.

And we can’t help but notice that he did say ‘days’ and not ‘years’.

A sobering use of words.

And chick is not here to count the days.  

chick is here only to provide the best possible perspective on our best possible Metanarrative……… all of it.  

And, yes, given that we have experienced a co-dependent arising, we should be expecting a co-dependent return……. a dependency in which the Sun necessarily plays a central role.  

In each case, with both the Alpha and Omega, there will be a dramatic gestalt switch…….. if, indeed, the cosmos is personal……. and I think that we all sincerely hope that the cosmos is personal, after all.  

That is precisely why three is here with us, now.  

We are in good hands…….. we may rest assured.  

There are very many of us, of course, who are only able to see the gathering shadows………

The collective fear is easy to exploit.  

Giving into the fear may be very tempting.  

Hope becomes a rare commodity.  

When push comes to shove, however, I think we will begin to better appreciate the well-springs……. the resources….. that we all harbor.  

Just take a few deep breaths…….. it’s that simple…….



(cont……….)

1730z…….

I always figured that we came from Dreamtime, and so we would go back into Dreamtime.

That would be the story of the Millennium……. gradually heading back to the land of Nod.  

That’s been my working hypothesis, since I became an immaterialist in 1981……. up until 11/22/21, while heading back to the Miami airport.  

Things change……..

Now we see as if through a glass darkly……..

Even if we had all of Eternity to decide about walking through the Portal, we’d probably still wait until the last minute.  

The last minute might come in five days or in five years…….

I went skydiving
I went rocky mountain climbing
I went two point seven seconds on a bull named fu man chu

Just know that everything is entangled with everything else……. especially our egos.  

We learn pretty quickly that we are social ‘animals’.  

We learn more slowly that so is everything else…… including, especially, the Sun.  

Scientists used to think that we were just bystanders.  

But, lately, they’ve been having another think .  

We like to think that the Sun is something special.  

Yes, it is the organizing principle around which our physical world revolves…….. but, as far as metaphysics is concerned, it is just a big candle in the sky.  

Explain one, and you have explained the other.  

Here’s a place that we could start……. The Psychoanalysis of Fire, Gaston Bachelard (1938).


2230………

I got a call from a ufo friend (FTGM)……..

He had heard from someone else that I had predicted that the world was going to end over New Year’s……. ha ha…..

Well, not to put too fine a point on it…….. yes, I had.  



(cont……..)