Hello, Cy, hello, OMF II

First topic message reminder :

Testing.......

Yes, it is working.

Congratulations to Cyrellys & Co.!

I will be continuing the BPWH blog from Compass Morainn, which was a continuation from the original OMF site on ProBoards, which is in the process of being re-archived from that site.



(cont.)

More ideas for the BGF meeting in February........

We are living on borrowed time...... Is there hope? No hope if there is not a paradigm shift.

Our paradigm has already shifted as far into materialism as it is possible to go. But could there still be a technological breakthrough? There could be, but there are no signs of it, either out there, or down here.

There are, however, many signs that scientific materialism has mostly run its course, and is increasingly vulnerable to being overturned. The bedrock of scientific materialism was the notion of perpetual progress. That notion is, quite generally, in retreat.

Most likely exception..........Artificial Intelligence and the Kurzweil Singularity............. Tipler's Omega/FAP.

Free Energy......? We would be able to see the signs of it, in the heavens.


12:25-------------

What can supersede materialism? Panpsychism/vitalism is the most obvious, initial alternative.

An MoAPS need not preempt further technological progress. There could even be a complementarity, but there cannot be a strict balance, or a simple equality. One has to be derivative of the other, in a strong ontological sense.

From the mere fact that scientific materialism is not the be all and end all of reality, it is a long and slippery slope from material monism to an immaterial monism. The is no happy median. There is no logical half-way point. The point of no return is on day-one of the public puncture of the materialist bubble suit, of their anti-septic chamber.

Most environmentalists ascribe an intrinsic value to Nature....... via the notions of deep ecology, Gaia, various forms of paganism, etc.


Scientific tradition vs. spiritual traditions.......... the One vs. the Many...! Divide & Conquer.


1:10---------- CK called...... at my request, he said he could arrange for me to meet with Chris L in Phila. We'll see.


Science vs. Religion...... in the realm of environmental politics........

Ironically, paganism amongst the newly affluent Chinese is now the primary threat to the large land mammals.

Fertility is still very significantly under the sway of traditional social customs that, very often, are supported by the various spiritual traditions. The same may be said for gender non-equality, which is the major contributor to fertility.

Can we turn these traditions around in time..... on a dime.....?!

Well, how do we spell..... 4M/K/SoT/X2? Then just put this in the context of the MoAPS.


But, in all of the above, there has been no mention of the WMD problem, and this may be the key, precipitating factor, historically and currently.

Should I have mentioned the Bomb at the beginning, or is it best to save it for the punch line? It may be the best segue into the Aviary and the GIC. Think of the anthropics of U^235. This is where the MoAPS comes to the fore.

Think of the Mideast crisis. Think of its eschatological context. Does this also hold for China and NK? Well, there is a Taoist messiah...... Li Hong, who should be added to the big-seven. It is hard to believe that the Kim's do not view themselves in an eschatological context, considering, especially, their passionate embrace of the Bomb, and its exportation. I would be rather surprised to find out that they had no interest in the magical/occult tradition, and their place within it.


It is especially with the Bomb that we can focus on a plan of salvation and the role of metaphysics, therein. But how do I segue back to metaphysics, after all this politics......?

I also need to review Chris' 54 page article.


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

CL does subscribe to ID, but it is rather less than obvious how his CTMU/SCSPL is supposed to fit into that design. It is not clear if he has even considered a pre-Copernican model. If not, then he must suppose the sapience is ubiquitous, but that does not fit with his alleged Christocentricity, now does it? Like everyone else, he is mysteriously reluctant to connect the most obvious metaphysical dots.




(cont.)

Jake Reason wrote:You say the Telos is the rapture or eschaton. Buddha said the same thing in another language. So too are Jack and Tamara, in a different language.

These Teleologies are not much more developed than; the Telos of a Seed is a Tree. And the Telos of the Tree is a Seed.

But why the Tree and seed at all? What purpose, what Telos? To feed an insect or animal. To shade another plant, etc, etc.

But what is the Teleology of the whole shebang?

Presumably most scientists and philosophers would agree that all things are interconnected, symbiotic and orderly in some way or another. It is upon this foundation that science and philosophy can reliably build their observations and conclusions. If there wasn't predictable order and form, science and philosophy would crumble.

Yet why Dan, do you, science and philosophy stop at CTC?

Is it because it is the end of Trees and Seeds, so there's is nothing more to talk about? Of course most would contest this statement as indignantly preposterous. Is it? Isn't this the same as asking, What was the Teleology of the Big Bang Singularity?

Buddha discovered, "all life is suffering". That was genius for a Bronze Age man. He didn't have telecommunications to test his hypothesis. He also figured out an eight fold path to address solutions to suffering. But he too couldn't fathom a Teleology that went any further than a CTC. And never figured why suffering was originally designed. What Purpose? What Final Cause?

If all creation/cosmos is unified and coherent in some form, then would it not also provide all information required to ascertain its final purpose and final cause?

It is my contention that any "theory of everything" must fundamentally address and arguably answer this question.

Anything less is rudimentary imo. No better than the bronze age man.

But I respectfully understand that considering a more comprehensive Teleology is beyond most people's comfort zone.

>

Ironically, more comprehensive Teleologies address and explain both the purpose and final cause of most people's discomfort in this regard. Afterall, a Teleological "theory of everything" includes everything.

Well said above Jake.

But why the Tree and seed at all? What purpose, what Telos?

If I might chime in here a moment...on your question above, the answer of "what" is the revolution of lifetimes. trans. "circle" or "revolving door" of lifetimes.

Why the Tree and seed at all? Because it is one form of Telos. Many think this means ending. No it means opportunity to culminate in rebirth/evolution. Each lifetime rises to such an opportunity at its end/return. IT is a process. An evolutionary process of the Soul.

In order to explain how human beings can become time travelers, Mensky developed an extended version of “many worlds” theory, where the human mind is able to access alternative worlds, including those we would call the future. Mensky has proposed that “consciousness is not produced by the brain, but is independent of it.” In Mensky’s theory, “the brain serves as an interface between consciousness and the body.”

This quote above continues what I just said here. The fascination the NSA and other Pine Gap'ers have with time travel/gateway information is the "dead zone" of information they have run into. Or rather it is a lack of information they have run into. Where the 'story' of mankind seemingly stops. Without explanation.

Dan continually refers to an X-Event. This is the Extinction Level Event they think is responsible for the 'dead-zone'. As many sources have implied THEY the so-called insiders have brought themselves to a conclusion that what the Greens have said over the years about over-population is true, that the world is over populated and cannot survive a narrow window of opportunity due to it. That is why one camp schemes and debates genocide, while other camps talk about "population stabilization" Trouble is the population issue is a premise built upon a perception of reality that is both incomplete and without comprehension of how it functions.

Thus I agree with the last piece above which I quoted about the fellow with the many worlds theory. This is a basic "fact" in Old Irish knowledge. I repeat: Mind is not limited by time, space (relational distance/development of perception), nor place (any set of coordinates in reality).

Yes all things are related, interconnected - even consciousness. This is why often reality is not always predictable. In reality as in the many lives inhabiting it, there is continual and varied forms of telos. Leaps and retreats or to say change in evolutionary state. A continual state of flux for the many expressions of consciousness. It is not the absence of consciousness which would cause a dead-zone because consciousness is always present.

What could cause a dead-zone in any prevalent means of current perception would be the presence of juxtaposition. CHOICE. Nothing is set in stone until you arrive to be CONSCIOUS in it. Therefore where a CONUNDRUM occurs on occasion the pattern holds until the participants arrive and choose. Then the pattern forms from that node based on that black swan moment.

It takes a critical mass of consciousness (i.e. high population focused on a set of issues) to create juxtaposition/conundrum node. Such things are an Opportunity to branch off into an unknown evolution. Nothing being written there...a potential blank slate to begin with....but as always it is also a double edged sword and thus the NATURE of the participants is a KEY COMPONENT to which way any pendulum swings.

Back to the beginning of the conversation, Dan makes sense in the globalist fashion. They are as a culture delving deeply into the philosophic roots of science & religion to find the missing links to the questions that cause confusion and failure to understand and exceed the "dead-zone" point. One way of dealing with the problem from a sociological point of view is what Dan is attempting to construct...replace the zone with an X-Event triggered evolutionary leap to the next state of BEING. There has to be an insemination of coherent reasoning for What, Why, and HOW seeded into the various branches of science, philosophy, academia, and religion. This, Jake, is what you are seeing that makes no sense.

And it also has a great deal to do with the current surface activity to grab all the guns. Their management of an X-Event would be much easier were there no resistance possible.

Not everyone working on this effort is aware of this information. I continually debate just how aware Dan is, or Ron, or any of the other academics they rub elbows with. I continually ask myself why was it the "insider" white-hats of the 1970's sought out the Aes Dana for "their peculiar form of assistance". What exactly was it that was needed most? What was it that was arranged for before even the "request" was made? My grandmother took entirely too much to her grave with her. I am left with a puzzle I'm supposed to be especially equipped to solve and while I sit in the midst, even I still ponder.

Getting real information from all the various factions is like a man of the old west getting his teeth pulled...it is a long and arduous process of listening. The web that has been created to supersede the original path to a positive global governance, spiritual evolution of mankind, and eventual direct participation/impact among others in the universe, is a complex mess. Several groups of white hats over the years have fled the scene incapable of dealing with the whole thing and opting for simple survival. But in this there is no where to hide when an umbrella culture is seriously contemplating planetary suicide for the entire population to achieve what they believe is both possible and necessary.

Cy

dan said:

More ideas for the BGF meeting in February........

We are living on borrowed time...... Is there hope? No hope if there is not a paradigm shift.

Our paradigm has already shifted as far into materialism as it is possible to go. But could there still be a technological breakthrough? There could be, but there are no signs of it, either out there, or down here.

There are, however, many signs that scientific materialism has mostly run its course, and is increasingly vulnerable to being overturned. The bedrock of scientific materialism was the notion of perpetual progress. That notion is, quite generally, in retreat.

Most likely exception..........Artificial Intelligence and the Kurzweil Singularity............. Tipler's Omega/FAP.

Free Energy......? We would be able to see the signs of it, in the heavens.


12:25-------------

What can supersede materialism? Panpsychism/vitalism is the most obvious, initial alternative.

An MoAPS need not preempt further technological progress. There could even be a complementarity, but there cannot be a strict balance, or a simple equality. One has to be derivative of the other, in a strong ontological sense.

From the mere fact that scientific materialism is not the be all and end all of reality, it is a long and slippery slope from material monism to an immaterial monism. The is no happy median. There is no logical half-way point. The point of no return is on day-one of the public puncture of the materialist bubble suit, of their anti-septic chamber.

Most environmentalists ascribe an intrinsic value to Nature....... via the notions of deep ecology, Gaia, various forms of paganism, etc.


Scientific tradition vs. spiritual traditions.......... the One vs. the Many...! Divide & Conquer.


1:10---------- CK called...... at my request, he said he could arrange for me to meet with Chris L in Phila. We'll see.


Science vs. Religion...... in the realm of environmental politics........

Ironically, paganism amongst the newly affluent Chinese is now the primary threat to the large land mammals.

Fertility is still very significantly under the sway of traditional social customs that, very often, are supported by the various spiritual traditions. The same may be said for gender non-equality, which is the major contributor to fertility.

Can we turn these traditions around in time..... on a dime.....?!

Well, how do we spell..... 4M/K/SoT/X2? Then just put this in the context of the MoAPS.


But, in all of the above, there has been no mention of the WMD problem, and this may be the key, precipitating factor, historically and currently.

Should I have mentioned the Bomb at the beginning, or is it best to save it for the punch line? It may be the best segue into the Aviary and the GIC. Think of the anthropics of U^235. This is where the MoAPS comes to the fore.

Think of the Mideast crisis. Think of its eschatological context. Does this also hold for China and NK? Well, there is a Taoist messiah...... Li Hong, who should be added to the big-seven. It is hard to believe that the Kim's do not view themselves in an eschatological context, considering, especially, their passionate embrace of the Bomb, and its exportation. I would be rather surprised to find out that they had no interest in the magical/occult tradition, and their place within it.


It is especially with the Bomb that we can focus on a plan of salvation and the role of metaphysics, therein. But how do I segue back to metaphysics, after all this politics......?

I also need to review Chris' 54 page article.


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

CL does subscribe to ID, but it is rather less than obvious how his CTMU/SCSPL is supposed to fit into that design. It is not clear if he has even considered a pre-Copernican model. If not, then he must suppose the sapience is ubiquitous, but that does not fit with his alleged Christocentricity, now does it? Like everyone else, he is mysteriously reluctant to connect the most obvious metaphysical dots.




(cont.)

Chris has made a partial response to my previous email, but mostly he is being evasive, IMO. He pointedly ignored my request for a meeting, so, by way of response, I have reiterated that request. Will I have to make a federal case of this request? I would like to know what John A thinks about my possible presence. I would suspect that he would likely heed CR, on that score.

One of us has a brand new pair of skates. The other one has a key. Is it Omelet time? No?

He has multiple websites, with minimal indexing.........

Now for the fly in the cosmological ointment. As we have seen, it is the nature of the cognitive self to formulate models incorporating ever-higher levels of change (or time). Obviously, the highest level of change is that characterizing the creation of reality. Prior to the moment of creation, the universe was not there; afterwards, the universe was there. This represents a sizable change indeed! Unfortunately, it also constitutes a sizable paradox. If the creation of reality was a real event, and if this event occurred in cosmic time, then cosmic time itself is real. But then cosmic time is an aspect of reality and can only have been created with reality. This implies that cosmic time, and in fact reality, must have created themselves!

The idea that the universe created itself brings a whole new meaning to bidirectional time, and thus to the idea that cognition may play a role in the creation of reality. As a self-creative mechanism for the universe is sought, it becomes apparent that cognition is the only process lending itself to plausible interpretation as a means of temporal feedback from present to past. Were cognition to play such a role, then in a literal sense, its most universal models of temporal reality would become identical to the reality being modeled. Time would become cognition, and space would become a system of geometric relations that evolves by distributed cognitive processing.

Here comes the surprise: such a model exists. Appropriately enough, it is called the Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe, or CTMU for short. A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Better yet, it bestows on human consciousness a level of meaning that was previously approached only by religion and mysticism. If it passes the test of time – and there are many good reasons to think that it will - then it will be the greatest step that humanity has yet taken towards a real understanding of its most (or least?) timeless mystery.

And so the circle closes. Time becomes a cosmogonic loop whereby the universe creates itself. The origin of our time concept, the self, becomes the origin of time itself. Our cognitive models of time become a model of time-as-cognition. And the languages of cognition and physics become one self-configuring, self-processing language of which time is the unified grammar. Talk about "time out of mind"!

Hmmm...........! Prvt comm.......

I haven't published more than a fraction of what I know about the theory and its implications. One reason, of course, is that intellectual commerce is tightly controlled, and intellectual credit jealously arrogated, by people who, despite the best efforts of others to meaningfully dialogue with them, pursue personal and institutional agendas with total disregard for the long-term welfare of mankind (I refer to what might be called the "media-educational indoctrination complex"). Unfortunately, ideas shared with these people in good faith are generally subject to attack, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, missourcing, conceptual teratogenesis, and garden-variety spin. This is why well-established in-crowds are usually best avoided (until the time is right) by rational outsiders with potentially disruptive knowledge. It's also why most people don't realize how well-developed the CTMU already is.

Tell us about it.......! If Chris wants to learn how to avoid the media, me thinks he has come to the right place!

I would guess that Chris is rather closer to the small is beautiful (SIB) hypothessis that he has, so far, been willing to admit in public. This is what I need to talk to him about in Philly. Also, I'm willing to wager that he is putting a bit too much faith in pure(?) logic. At some point, even the best and brightest have to let the son shine in! No?! And then there Is this.......

My public writings have stressed the logical part of the theory because, without a solid logical foundation, the rest of the theory might appear pretentious (after all, it's a unique sort of metaphysical TOE). It does in fact establish, in a logical way unreliant on traditional Leibnizian theodicy, that this is (in a qualified sense) the best of all possible worlds - we're in full agreement on that, and I have no doubt that you've achieved significant insights of your own along those lines in your BPWH. We also agree on the value of Christianity as an indispensable spiritual advance to be protected from its many virulent enemies. However, I make a distinction between Christian scripture, i.e. the New Testament, and sectarian doctrine, which often bears little correspondence to revelatory texts as they actually exist. A theory dealing with absolute truth cannot be associated with any particular interpretation of scripture; rather, it is a set of interpretative guidelines and constraints on the scripture of any given faith.

I suspect that both Chris and Larry, with the exception of their collaboration with John, are innocent of the GIC. And so they are not quite in the disclosure loop, i.e. they do not yet have a robust/working(!) model of same. Me thinks we can fix that, in a jiffy!



I'm also thinking that I am, once again, attempting to make a federal case out of the OEH vs YEH, wrt the SfA. I'll be happy to take a page out Luther's book, and I only need One thesis. He needed 95. That is 94 too many, IMHO. Life has become so much simpler........ in these latter days!

Hey, sports fans, I don't even need a Cathedral door...... all I need is a whiteboard. And, hey, again...... I have a little game in mind...... I wonder if Larry and Chris would like to play John the Baptist...... aquarium style? Just wondering........



12:45----------

Oh, dear.......... talk about miscommunication......... Cy, quite innocently, supposes that, when I speak of the X-event, I am referring to an XLE! Now, this is mostly my fault, but it is, to some degree, a felix-culpa. Recall, sports fans, that I frequently refer to Xianity. That should be a pretty big clue. No? And, in the case of the BPWH, I have never invoked an XLE. That would be an Oxymoron. No?!

So, please, Cy, et al, if there is something about the BPWH that makes no sense, then there must be a misunderstanding, somewhere along the line. If the BPWH is not coherent, then nothing is.

And, so, Cy, what does Cairo stand for, it being the de-facto capital of the Muslim world? Look it up, please! This is how, very often, language can speak much louder than mere words. And don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

The rest of what Cy has to say, in the above post, is most interesting, just taken in itself. At the least, it gives more insight into her hopes and fears, which reminds me of the X0-event......

Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight.

Now, however, when I refer to the X-event, without qualification, I am referring to the event of the passion, period!

Are we all on the same page, now? Perhaps, then, Cy will, kindly, re-collect her thoughts, and provide a response that relates directly to the BPWH, and not just to her worst fears and suspicions. I wonder what she has been supposing my frequent reference to X2 is all about. Golly, I hardly know whether to cry or laugh. So why am I so lazy wrt acronyms? Well, it does keep the unwary of the scent, evidently.


2pm--------------

What exactly was it that was needed most? What was it that was arranged for before even the "request" was made? My grandmother took entirely too much to her grave with her. I am left with a puzzle I'm supposed to be especially equipped to solve and while I sit in the midst, even I still ponder.

IMHO, Cy and Chris are in similar positions wrt the BPWH. It is just about the hopes and fears of all our years. It is a bit like my grandmother, OCS. As a child, she lost the sight in one eye. As time went by, there emerged the option that she could have a transplant, I believe it was, but she said that she was content to merely live with the hope, rather than the actuality. This explains much of the human psychology, in these latter days.

We are also, mostly unwittingly, playing the game of who has the button........ the red button, the d-day, joker, or is it the ace in the hole? These are no games for the feint of heart. This is no country for old men! Suffer the little children.........


Everybody, especially Jack, is afraid to pick up the red phone, the God-phone, because what will we do if there is no one on the other end? Cry a lot? It would be a sad day in Mudville, woud it not? Lord, we of feint heart....... Hey, what, me worry?


3:35----------

42' with WLP....... trying to suss-out the Philly situation. He's betting that John will still be able to black-ball me, over Ron's intervention. So, I guess I'd better check with CK...... And the call has gone in.......

What do I bet? I'm willing to bet that CK can rise to the occasion.


5:15------------

Having dinner with Sam. Hoping that I don't have to stop off in GF, on the way back from Richmond, on Friday evening. Not sure if the princess and I are still on speaking terms. But, hey, I can always bring my checkbook, if it hasn't gotten rusty. All she has to do is read this blog, once a month, come heck or high water........


5:45----------

Spoke to Kim B. He has volunteered to be Jack's phone person to arrange our next meeting in SF, to which we might entice the L&C show. This might work. There are quite a few balls in the air. No? Who will be the first to drop one?


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

Well, the propsed Philadelphia meeting has been postponed until after John returns from his cruise. The possibility that I might meet independently with Chris, was only alluded to by CK.

Urgency.......? Well, no one I know is holding their breath.




(cont.)

A couple of items of possible interest for the BPW ...

Video: How you can change the past http://bcove.me/zzzkilr1

http://www.starpod.us/2013/01/10/we-the-people-petition-challenges-the-white-house-to-attend-citizen-hearing-on-disclosure/

This too:

http://www.starpod.us/2013/01/09/white-house-destroyed-psychic-government-sources-raise-concern/

From: Ronald P
Date: January 9, 2013 8:29:11 PM EST
To: Larry F
Subject: Re: CTMU >> Immaterialism? >> BPWH >> Eschatology & Jack

Hi Larry,
 
I have been waiting for your "continue e-mail," but perhaps you were sidetracked with other issues.  In the mean time, I did read Chris Langan's paper, and I can see why you find his work intriguing.  Unfortunately I cannot put any of his ideas immediately into practice.  I would much appreciate if Dan Smith had an opportunity to meet with Chris.  Dan is a physicist, philosopher, and theologian with a good record of integrating these disciplines to provide actionable guidance.
 
I understand John Alexander will be going to sea for a few weeks.  Perhaps when he returns we can reconsider some options.
 
V/r
 
Ron

12:45-------------

From: Dan Smith 
Date: January 11, 2013 12:35:17 PM EST
To: Danny O'Brien
Cc: Khori, JP, David Yue, Bill Stever, Ronald P, Sam
Subject: Searching for Answers........

Danny, 

It has been almost six months since I last spoke with you.  I believe it would be timely for us to speak again, at your early convenience.  

There are two reasons why I think it would be timely......... 

1.)  Last Sunday our SfA session ended early, possibly at my provocation, when I suggested that the Old Testament view of Creation was too materialistic, and that it should be replaced by the New Testament view of Creation, which is much more spiritual.  And......

2.)  The email that is appended, herewith, may indicate that there is some urgency to resolving this question as to whether Creation is better viewed in light of the Old or New Teastaments.  

I would like to discuss this with you, at your early convenience. 


Dan 


Begin forwarded message: 

From: Ronald P
Date: January 9, 2013 8:29:11 PM EST
To: Larry F
Subject: Re: CTMU >> Immaterialism? >> BPWH >> Eschatology & Jack

Hi Larry,
 
I have been waiting for your "continue e-mail," but perhaps you were sidetracked with other issues.  In the mean time, I did read Chris Langan's paper, and I can see why you find his work intriguing.  Unfortunately I cannot put any of his ideas immediately into practice.  I would much appreciate if Dan Smith had an opportunity to meet with Chris.  Dan is a physicist, philosopher, and theologian with a good record of integrating these disciplines to provide actionable guidance.
 
I understand John Alexander will be going to sea for a few weeks.  Perhaps when he returns we can reconsider some options.
 
V/r
 
Ron

Hey, sports fans, not too shabby, huh............?

I'm not sure if Ron was merely being negligent twice in row.........

1.) Fails to remove the Eschaton from the subject line of his email to Larry F, touting me as providing actionable intelligence. And......

2.) Includes Chicken Little in the BCC of said 'actionable' email.

Hey, sports fans, you be the judge........ Is Ron losing his marbles, or what?!


1:10-----------

And, already, the responses are coming in...........

Gary....... For what it is worth, I was always taught that the New Testament trumps the Old Testament every time.

me...... Amen, Brother......!


6:45-------------

From: Danny
Date: January 11, 2013 2:29:10 PM EST
To: Dan Smith
Cc: KS, JP, DY, BS, RP, SH

Subject: RE: Searching for Answers........

Dan –

I do not believe that there is any incompatibility between descriptions of creation in the Old and New Testaments.  Clearly, there are differences over how literally Gen. 1 is to be considered and there is room at Grace for people who differ on these points.  I do not believe that there is any need for you and I to meet on these points.  Thanks,

Danny

(cont.)

Gary,

Thanks for the links and for the response on the GFC/SfA issue.


I met with Sam, yesterday afternoon, and we discussed his coming to the seminar. I'm inclined, now, however, to make this another solo outing, to keep the issue as simple as possible.

In effect, Pastor Danny is pleading nolo-contendere wrt the nature of Creation. He did not address the question of urgency. The fact that he responded at all, was a minor plus. As a pastor, his job is to protect the flock from wolves. I might, not unreasonably be viewed as such. In any case, I'm a relatively unknown, uncorrelated target that has been hovering for a couple of years, and that would, at best, be a divisive influence. I'd better make up my mind, before it is made up for me.

I have not a snowball's chance, given even a modicum of objectivity. So what am I looking for? Certainly I'm looking for a learning experience, supposing that I might, conceivably, be back on C2C, or thrust into some other public venue. Upcoming, I do have the BGF talk to give at the end of next month, and there could be another meeting with Jack S, and a first meeting with Chris L, in the meantime. Could these small steps possibly add up to something? Nothing foreseeable. All I'm doing is keeping my hat in the ring, and my powder dry.


Where is the urgency?

The urgency remains with the Bomb and with global credit. Sectarianism features mainly with the emergence of the Islamic Bomb in the volatile Mideast. The gradual dimming of growth prospects is undermining the credit markets, making them more vulnerable to sudden shocks. There is little prospect that the urgency and vulnerability will not continue to worsen. If there is going to be a graduated disclosure process, then time is wasting for there to be any such constructive initiative.



1pm----------

In 21 years with Ron, that one sentence, in the above missive, is the most direct support that he has ever provided, and this coming a few weeks after being urged to throw in the towel. It's hard to find any rhyme or reason in such contrasting communications. As far as I know, this will be the high-water mark for the aquarium. It has been slim pickings.



(cont.)

Admin wrote:
Well said above Jake.

But why the Tree and seed at all? What purpose, what Telos?

If I might chime in here a moment...on your question above, the answer of "what" is the revolution of lifetimes. trans. "circle" or "revolving door" of lifetimes.

Why the Tree and seed at all? Because it is one form of Telos. Many think this means ending. No it means opportunity to culminate in rebirth/evolution. Each lifetime rises to such an opportunity at its end/return. IT is a process. An evolutionary process of the Soul.

Thank you.

Yes. This is the Christo "Kingdom Come", or the Age of Aquarius, the Renaissance of the Spirit.

Our laboring will turn toward our soul. For we have become little Gods and can now through machine provide all the needs of our body with little investment of time. A new age is dawning where the commoner will live like the Noble class of ages past. The Spirit will be the new horizon and the apple of our eyes.

Dan continually refers to an X-Event. This is the Extinction Level Event they think is responsible for the 'dead-zone'. As many sources have implied THEY the so-called insiders have brought themselves to a conclusion that what the Greens have said over the years about over-population is true, that the world is over populated and cannot survive a narrow window of opportunity due to it. That is why one camp schemes and debates genocide, while other camps talk about "population stabilization" Trouble is the population issue is a premise built upon a perception of reality that is both incomplete and without comprehension of how it functions.

What could cause a dead-zone in any prevalent means of current perception would be the presence of juxtaposition. CHOICE. Nothing is set in stone until you arrive to be CONSCIOUS in it. Therefore where a CONUNDRUM occurs on occasion the pattern holds until the participants arrive and choose. Then the pattern forms from that node based on that black swan moment. [nicely said]

Back to the beginning of the conversation, Dan makes sense in the globalist fashion. They are as a culture delving deeply into the philosophic roots of science & religion to find the missing links to the questions that cause confusion and failure to understand and exceed the "dead-zone" point. One way of dealing with the problem from a sociological point of view is what Dan is attempting to construct...replace the zone with an X-Event triggered evolutionary leap to the next state of BEING. There has to be an insemination of coherent reasoning for What, Why, and HOW seeded into the various branches of science, philosophy, academia, and religion. This, Jake, is what you are seeing that makes no sense.

Dan contends you misunderstood his meaning of "X-Event". No apology required Cyrellys, as he requests. He's just nit-picking, like arguing over which Testament is better, Old or New. And this ironically by one who scorns dualism.

You've understood Dan well. He's been hocked on the Pop issue all his life. And he has a valid point. However, I lean toward your view....it will take care of itself. All it needs is our permission. Nature has it's way. And there is the Black Swan, the Phoenix, the Rebirth. A renaissance of the Spirit is inevitable.

Some, perhaps many, most likely, will be left behind. Some simply can't let go of their world as they know it, and they'll kill themselves trying to hold it up. C'est La Vie.

karma, yin/yang and reap/sow will do their thing in their own time. To everything there is a season and a purpose under heaven.

Not everyone working on this effort is aware of this information. I continually debate just how aware Dan is, or Ron, or any of the other academics they rub elbows with. I continually ask myself why was it the "insider" white-hats of the 1970's sought out the Aes Dana for "their peculiar form of assistance". What exactly was it that was needed most? What was it that was arranged for before even the "request" was made? My grandmother took entirely too much to her grave with her. I am left with a puzzle I'm supposed to be especially equipped to solve and while I sit in the midst, even I still ponder.

Politically oriented academics, the kind of which you speak, are compromised by this generation's assimilated neurosis which extends permission to platform atheism as a viable alternative philosophy. This societal neurosis is consequently woven into the language of political futurists and continuity planners.

As CTMU Chris Langan points out, linguistics is fundamentally algebraic - mathematical.

In other words, political continuity planners have a neurotic sub-program running in their futurist constructs.

Now That is a conundrum, yes?

So how will the renaissance arise?

Richard Alan Miller, a Physicist that Ron would certainly know about, so too Kit and Hal, as Miller was a predecessor of theirs. And one of the early originators of the Non-Local Mind and Holographic Universe concepts.

Richard Miller says it will be the 6 year olds who will change everything. In other words, the current future planners will be relegated to the old-world of yesteryear, including their political philosophies.

Kingdom Come, hell or high water, it will come. It's inevitable.

Richard Alan Miller doesn't explain in depth why he specifically insists the 6 year olds will transform the world. You have to read between the lines. He has a ridiculously busy mind and bounces subjects like a pinball machine.

However I believe he makes a great deal of sense in this regard. By the time today's 6 year olds are in their 30's, they will understand this world, its sciences, philosophies and metaphysics more than 70 year old elite academic contemporaries who spent their lives studying all things. They will change everything very quickly. The currently styled Global PtB management will stand aside and toss in the towel. Resistant for a while yet, then willingly by mid century.

We're in for an amazing ride. Buckle your seat belts!

And Smile, for our generation is on Candid Camera.

Well, the Ravens are hanging in there, in Denver......... tied at the half-time. The wind-chill is zero.



7:45-------------

Cy and Jake are displaying a new-age, evolutionary sort of optimism, if I understand correctly. It is easy enough to extrapolate from the past, and look forward to a continuing progress on the material and spiritual fronts, with just a few die-offs, or even an XLE or two, along the way. Recovery continues to happen, as it has in the past.



(cont.)

Thank you Jake. I am reading about Richard Alan Miller now.
Btw I posted the interview I had with TJ in the Exopolitical Mediators section here on the Exopolitics board, if it interests you still. We barely moved beyond scraping the iceberg with a tooth pick but a few things were covered. Ed Komarek followed with a 2hour interview of his own that grew into 3 hours so you'd have to catch the archived version too. I will post a link to his in the same thread a bit later...

Lambing season has officially arrived so I have fewer hours in the day to devote directly to human evolution and our relational being. Please bear with me.

Hi Cy, being that Richard Miller is also highly invested in the sciences of alternative agriculture, I'm sure you'll find this other work of his to be interesting on many levels.

Your interview....
From now on, I'll always think of my sister when I think of you, and vice versa. Your voices are sooooo similar, you could easily impersonate one another.

That aside, I'm 45 minutes into the interview. You are doing a remarkable job! You are very talented at explaining complex socio-political paradigms in a clear, succinct and easy to understand way. And from what I've studied in the past 7 years, your grasp of the intricate interrelated exopolitical issues involving the contact paradigm, is extraordinary!

Bravo. and thank you.

now back to listening further...

And Dan, I'll reply to some of what you've been working on, later as well.

dan wrote:
In effect, Pastor Danny is pleading nolo-contendere wrt the nature of Creation. He did not address the question of urgency. The fact that he responded at all, was a minor plus. As a pastor, his job is to protect the flock from wolves. I might, not unreasonably be viewed as such. In any case, I'm a relatively unknown, uncorrelated target that has been hovering for a couple of years, and that would, at best, be a divisive influence. I'd better make up my mind, before it is made up for me.

Well, I agree the two Testaments are highly segregated by most Christians. An error imo. As we all know, the OT is mostly used as Sunday School curriculum. Professor Christine Hayes in her Yale University Course, introduces the semester as being a topic hardly suitable for children, but rather reserved "for adults only". Further referring to the Old Testament as "a foundational document of Western civilization"!

Dan, I get your drift with regards to the two creation stories. But it's rather moot. The OT and NT should be approached in synergy. You want to unify, rather than divide. yes?

Your GfC hospitality concerns? - These are protocol issues. You are forgetting; When in Rome, be more as the Romans.

Where is the urgency?

Good question! It seems to have faded away somewhat. D-Day appears to have been put on the 'top shelf' out of reach, collecting dust.

The advent of High Speed Internet surely had everyone apprehensively on their toes for awhile. It looked like D-Day couldn't be held back anymore. Now in retrospect, it looks more like an historical blurp - flash in the pan. It appears the PtB are having a hard time getting their ducks in a row.

1pm----------

In 21 years with Ron, that one sentence, in the above missive, is the most direct support that he has ever provided, and this coming a few weeks after being urged to throw in the towel. It's hard to find any rhyme or reason in such contrasting communications. As far as I know, this will be the high-water mark for the aquarium. It has been slim pickings.

Well, April 2007 was significant. But yes, the sentence was surprising to me as well. Especially the wording.

Speaking of urgency... When was the last time you asked him point-blank, about D-Day?

Shouldn't you know? Like father, like son.

Thanks Jake and Cy,

I, too, am listening to Cy's radio interview...... http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tjmorrisetradio/2013/01/11/exopolitics-mediator-cyrellys-geibhendach-compass-morainn-1 . I'm at the 70' mark.

Yes, Cy does come across differently on the radio than on the forum, rather more informal.

I do tend to stumble on the constant harping on the ET/alien paradigm, as opposed to all the others. I have a hard time relating to that exclusive, very narrow PoV. I have to suppose, charitably, that this is an historical artifact or residue. It is a knee-jerk, anti-metaphysical or an extreme anti-spiritual bias, whose psychological provenance remains obscure.

At the 92' mark, Cy is talking about striving for a common language between UFO, religious, and spiritual perspectives. Wonderful, Cy, now just practice some of what you preach.

I can talk the ET/UFO lingo, when necessary, but I will always qualify it by alluding to a more holistic, cosmic perspective.

Now, @97', she is being much more nuanced about structures of governance, using more neutral descriptors, more so than I have seen her do on OM. It is refreshing. I often get the feeling that folks are dipping into their own supply of holy water to throw at me, when I appear on their threshold of perception/comprehension.


4:20-----------

Well, maybe there is still a chance to turn the corner, here at OM, similar to what seems to have happened at SfA, earlier today. It was like God had sent a memo. All at once, I was on the inside, looking out, instead of vice-versa. The nearest thing I can figure as a source was the above referenced memo from CK.


Now, @110', Cy describes herself as a mediator between citizens and government. I know she calls herself a mediator, but I had gathered it was just between humans and 'ETs'. My misunderstanding?! Now she is touting the need for reconciliation between human factions.

@120', I'm waiting to see if she will mention OM........ no......


So, yes, sports fans, if I can manage not to screw things up at GFC and BGF, then the BPW is almost home free, all thanks to one sentence in one memo. Who'd a thunk it? Certainly not me, and certainly not a week ago. Is the moon in the seventh house?


And wouldn't it be the frosting on the cake, the cats pajamas, if we could just get our stories straight, right here at OM?! Listening to Cy, today, it should be a walk in the park.


So, are the Ravens going to be playing in Texas or New England?


8:40-------------

It is just possible that immaterialism is wrong, but the prospects for materialism continue to dim, apace. The gold ring of the MoAPS, is just hanging there, patiently. Can you blame me for for getting an itchy finger? Can I pretend that I never saw it? Nah, not a snowball's chance....... Forgive me, Lord, the trespass I'm about to commit.......

.

My comments in red below. Cy

dan wrote:Thanks Jake and Cy,

I, too, am listening to Cy's radio interview...... http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tjmorrisetradio/2013/01/11/exopolitics-mediator-cyrellys-geibhendach-compass-morainn-1 . I'm at the 70' mark.

Yes, Cy does come across differently on the radio than on the forum, rather more informal.

Hi Dan, yes there is a difference in speaking with the interested public versus ostensibly well-informed academia. The problem with written dialog is the absence of the nuances that temper or tier meaning into appropriate contexts.

I do tend to stumble on the constant harping on the ET/alien paradigm, as opposed to all the others. I have a hard time relating to that exclusive, very narrow PoV. I have to suppose, charitably, that this is an historical artifact or residue. It is a knee-jerk, anti-metaphysical or an extreme anti-spiritual bias, whose psychological provenance remains obscure.

This above paragraph doesn't make much sense to me Dan. Although I realize you ascribe to a holographic universe concept (and I do not discount this in some respects) I have a hard time reconciling your dismissal of the personal experiences of individuals and groups with the many other life forms of the involved universe or of individuals working with the experiencing individuals and groups. (involved meaning hands in the Earth cookie jar) You call it a narrow point of view while investing yourself in one end of it and refusing to recognize the other facets. A holistic acknowledgement of the entire universal and transuniversal/spiritual construct seems to me to require all facets present not a cherry-picked one.

At the 92' mark, Cy is talking about striving for a common language between UFO, religious, and spiritual perspectives. Wonderful, Cy, now just practice some of what you preach.

My friend Dan has been on the receiving end of my sharp words perhaps far too often over his subset theories on eugenics and depopulation (what the system lords term "population stabilization" in order to have it sound more palatable to different operations personnel). The message in the bottle stands. Mass depopulation, by any tyrannical means is not going to be tolerated. I've reiterated it several times in several different ways as I know that theorists such as yourself are kept on tab to help establish the philosophical justification for the choices they intend to make on the rest of the population. There is of course a bit more to my story of course than the communications facilitation between mediators and participants. Or is that the communications facilitation is part of a higher purpose? I'm not in the habit of throwing out an entire batch of apples when only part of one is on the spoilt side. Rot can be excised and the fresher sound portions encouraged for the value of their flavor and texture.

Do I sometimes come across as combative when writing? Yes, it was deemed necessary to enter this life well armed and alert for a cause predetermined as hostile to human potential. I remain prepared to judiciously use that blade to good effect should I encounter that cause at some point in the future. This last part for a handful of observers and their upline who do not habitually keep their thought closets clean. I am fully capable of being as combative in person as in writing. Fortunately it is not yet necessary. Give me not a reason to be.

I can talk the ET/UFO lingo, when necessary, but I will always qualify it by alluding to a more holistic, cosmic perspective.

I don't believe you have been party to the instances I have spoken on a more holistic cosmic perspective so, no, I would not hold it against you for thinking I have never gone there or that I would not. Unfortunately I have had to limit my energy output. But you are welcome to ask MD2 or Jake about them.


Now, @97', she is being much more nuanced about structures of governance, using more neutral descriptors, more so than I have seen her do on OM. It is refreshing. I often get the feeling that folks are dipping into their own supply of holy water to throw at me, when I appear on their threshold of perception/comprehension.

I have never thrown holy water at you Dan. Lol, my kind of holy water tends to reduce individuals to subatomic particles so you would certainly know if I had. I do support your efforts toward working out evolutionary soul advancement, even when I acknowledge mankind is far from ready for such change. I don't in the same hand doubt that at some point it will be achieved...just an argument over the timing.


4:20-----------

Well, maybe there is still a chance to turn the corner, here at OM, similar to what seems to have happened at SfA, earlier today. It was like God had sent a memo. All at once, I was on the inside, looking out, instead of vice-versa. The nearest thing I can figure as a source was the above referenced memo from CK.


Now, @110', Cy describes herself as a mediator between citizens and government. I know she calls herself a mediator, but I had gathered it was just between humans and 'ETs'. My misunderstanding?! Now she is touting the need for reconciliation between human factions.

Here above you have a misunderstanding. I have never called myself a mediator. Not fundamentally anyway. I am a communications facilitator among a handful of other things never yet named. Compass Morainn was created to be a tool of support for mediators and facilitators. This point in the paradigm is about mankind's development. Some mediators work with Contactees and others work with individuals and groups of insiders. My current effort has involved helping with problematic awareness and pulling monkey-wrenches from the works. The goal is to participate in ensuring we collectively as a planet transcend the problem point that has the capacity and ability to bring mankind up short in its trek forward. This is what wildcards do.

@120', I'm waiting to see if she will mention OM........ no......

no I'm sorry I did not encounter a point appropriate for mentioning OM. The truth is that the content of OM and its archive will stand on its own when the time comes. I fulfilled the imperative to ensure its survival per instruction. I do understand why you wonder. But Dan, I do remind you that if your allegiance lies with the Creative Source, then you act by its guidance in its time. That this is not about us specifically individually but as in support of its intent for mankind. This is the core of every apprenticship to synchronicity.

On another note I have a second interview scheduled with her on February 7th (a Thursday). And she would like to make it a regular appearance to cover the many topics I can. So the opportunity will arise to mention OM. All things in good time.

So, yes, sports fans, if I can manage not to screw things up at GFC and BGF, then the BPW is almost home free, all thanks to one sentence in one memo. Who'd a thunk it? Certainly not me, and certainly not a week ago. Is the moon in the seventh house?


And wouldn't it be the frosting on the cake, the cats pajamas, if we could just get our stories straight, right here at OM?! Listening to Cy, today, it should be a walk in the park.

?

So, are the Ravens going to be playing in Texas or New England?


8:40-------------

It is just possible that immaterialism is wrong, but the prospects for materialism continue to dim, apace. The gold ring of the MoAPS, is just hanging there, patiently. Can you blame me for for getting an itchy finger? Can I pretend that I never saw it? Nah, not a snowball's chance....... Forgive me, Lord, the trespass I'm about to commit.......

FiOs. In All Being the Salmon holds all possibilities, all meaning, in mind. The fabric of All Being is not a singular or secular lineal weave but a multi-faceted tartan in multi-plexal splendor. A rainbow of consciousness.

.

Thank you, Cy. Deep down, I knew there had to be a heart of gold, but you, obviously, have mastered the art of disguise. That is an art wherein I remain virtually artless.

I can, kind of, appreciate how you still struggle with the notion of small is beautiful. It is a painfully difficult notion for us moderns to wrap our liitle minds around, despite all our protestations concerning the ancient wisdom.

With all your synchronicities (syn-chronos), is it possible that, out there, in the Big Sky country, you have never had the experience of a syn-topos or syntopicity, i.e. the prototypical chicken-little experience, wherein the big sky falls on you little head, and you realize, perhaps for the first time, that the microcosm could be vastly more real than the macrocosm? Is it the opposite of cosmic-consciousness?

No, it is precisely what cosmic consciousness is all about! Space and time are simply a very generous illusion, afforded to us by the Almighty, so that we, mortals, could figure out how to get our cosmic ducks in a row. Once we have done that, then we all are henny-pennies!

You, just like Jake, want this waking up to be as baby-steps, Ellie. Well, Cy/Ellys, I'm here for only one purpose, and that is to demonstrate that God has a trick up her sleeve, in fact, she is something like me, in that regard, because she, too, in the End, is going to turn out to be a one-trick pony! Her final trick is that we are all, precisely, the reincarnations of each other.

IOW, Cy and Jake, we are soul-mates, whether we like it or not, and the Cosmic Soul, the Monad, is precisely the syn-Topos. D-day is just the syn-Chronos, when the Monad awakens to its Syntopicity. That day will be when the small is beautiful, BPWH, goes viral, which may not be too many moons, from right now. All ye, all ye, in-free!

You suppose that the projection of the 144 million, is like a cosmic Procrustean bed! No. It is simply the Omega event, a very few centuries hence, when the Spirit 'physically' realizes its Syn/topos/chronos. Be there or be square. That is also the Monad's B-day, when it puts on its B-day suit. Do I speak in riddles, Cy? No, I don't.



And, now, I think I understand what R&A were saying to me, when, before Rome, they offered me my 'early retirement'......... Hey, Danny-boy, are you in for a dime, or are you in for a dollar? Speak now, little chicken, or hold your peace. If I recall, I think I held my peace!

All rather symbolic, at least in retrospect....... No?



11:10am------------

It was but a couple of weeks ago that I was suggesting that the game was over, and, now, here I am, suggesting, once again, that the game might be over, but each time from a rather different perspective....... then failed, now accomplished. Where lies the truth of the matter?

When may the fog lift?

Well, a significant part of the fog lies in getting used to the notion that subjectivity does matter, even in instances of possible cosmic import. Very often, salvation is in the eyes of the beholder. Ultimately, it is our subjective state that determines our actions.

The battle is for our hearts and minds. The battle is well joined. The fog is our ignorance and fear, which is all that separates us from the cosmic Self........ our fear of being eaten by self-same. This Hierogamic wedding feast is the A/O event. This is the cosmic Potlatch. I very well understand that there is more than a little trepidation and foot-dragging on the part of the wedding guests. Who would want to be the main-course, the piece-de-resistance?

Hey, don't look at me, I'm just the Comforter! Don't you like my bedside manner? Where is Ms. Manners, when we need her?


Cy.......

This above paragraph doesn't make much sense to me Dan. Although I realize you ascribe to a holographic universe concept (and I do not discount this in some respects) I have a hard time reconciling your dismissal of the personal experiences of individuals and groups with the many other life forms of the involved universe or of individuals working with the experiencing individuals and groups. (involved meaning hands in the Earth cookie jar) You call it a narrow point of view while investing yourself in one end of it and refusing to recognize the other facets. A holistic acknowledgement of the entire universal and transuniversal/spiritual construct seems to me to require all facets present not a cherry-picked one.

This is a mouthful, here........

What I don't understand, Cy, is where you draw the line, between ET and UT. You should know enough by now, to understand that there probably is no line to be drawn, and so you attempt to put asunder, that which God has created as one. This only brings confusion, especially to yourself.

How many times do I have to repeat the hard-core of the BPWH.....? We are One with God. There is only the illusion of separation. By then going on to separate us from the ET's, and the ET's from the UT's, you further muddy the already murky waters, just as when you separate your soul from my soul, and both of our souls from the rest of Creation.



12:10pm--------------

And, then, Cy, you invariably insist upon projecting your worst fears of the Enemy, onto poor little chicken. I too, Cy, am a mediator, but, it seems, in a rather more holistic, may I say cosmic, fashion.

Yes, our Cosmic parent kicked us out of the cosmic womb, and sent us on an Errand into the Wilderness........ pretty far east of Eden. Why would she do this to us, violating our, oh so, comfy Zone?

Well, color me, oh so, apologetic..........

Is there anyone who supposes that God cannot alleviate or suffering, either before or after the fact? Is it not mainly just the pointy-heads who beat their breasts and bewail the absurdity of life in a meaningless universe? How many atheists are there in the fox-holes and concentrations camps?

How can you tell the atheist from the theist? The one holding the AK-47 is the atheist, the one he's pointing it at is not.

My target audience is just the pointy-heads. They have built their materialist castle, not even on sand, but on a cloud of their own materialist abstractions........ one holistic prick, and their abstractions go poof. It will be like taking candy from a baby.



(cont.)

Commendable, Cy!

Dan,

If nothing else, you have invented a New God.

I don't not mean this sarcastically, I'm quite serious...

I'm wrestling with history to find any other God like yours. She is most peculiar. The Greeks would be impressed.

Cronus comes to mind, the eater of all other Gods. But he fails to match up to your God. Perhaps his sister, Rhea? With Her son Zeus being your Jesus, the stone that Cronus could not eat. Zeus - the rock of ages? Or perhaps your God is a synergy of Cronus and Rhea. But that too falls short in defining your Goddess. Unless perhaps Rhea eats her mother Gaia in the end.

Your God is a quandary, there truly never has been another God like Her.

Somewhat a selfish trickster, isn't She? Bares children only to be eaten up. Only She can be. All other lives shall be Hers, and Hers alone.

But ah contrare, she is a good mother! foundling with care, while lovingly devouring their all. "Live in me" is her lullaby, sweetly singing in their ears. Sleep now and awake in me. "You are my dream", She whispers, "my sweet dream, and my dream will live forever, in me".

There has been no other God like Her.

I can't help but think that She really deserves a Greek name, Dan. As Her telos is more descriptively synergous with Greco Pantheon philosophy. But you have given Her a Christian name - Sophia. It's a nice name. However she doesn't accord well in Christo theosophy.

I would not deny you your God, Dan. To each their own. But I don't like Her too much. I don't doubt her endearment to be loving. But She's too selfish for my liking. And Her deceptiveness in creation is most peculiar. To decorate our short life environment with such elaborate cosmic illusion, is much too whimsically frivolous for me.

She has her quirks, though She is an interesting God. It's fascinating to think how you could have imagined Her. Not many people have invented an entirely New God.

Jake,

Hmmm............

Well, I'm glad that you appreciate my creativity, and there is more than a bit of truth in your observation.

True, you will not find 'Sophia' in other texts. Well, she is not unlike Kalki. In fact, after a glance at the wiki, she could be mistaken for a combination of Kali and Kalki........ not terribly Xian, it would seem....... but let us think again........

Does not the X-event/passion somewhat bring to mind the image of Kali and the Phoenix? Was not the J-man bound to rise from those ashes, to slay his Enemy? I claim to be that reincarnation, rather as John was claimed to be the reincarnation of Elijah.

There is a sword coming from my mouth. It is the sword of truth, sent to slay the Lie of materialism. Yes, I do slay the flesh, in the name of the Spirit. This is the door to immortality/eternity.

Is this Heaven's Gate? Yes and no, but mostly yes......... Is it not true that people are dying to pass to eternity?

Is this how CL solves the population problem? Yes, in no small measure. Once we've seen Paris, how will you keep us down on the Farm? I did forget that Cy is the proud mom of five(5) bouncing bambinos. She can do a very good rendition of the Mama bear...... do not threaten her brood. She believes there is a threat, and that, somehow I represent that threat. Now, my Montana sister, Louise (pictured), had no brood, but believe me when I tell you that she felt the same threat, and believe me, again, when I tell you that she did throw her holy water. Can you almost see it in the expression on her face? She, too, had her rather non-trivial connections with the Montana militias. We were told, by the Sheriff, after her death, that two federal agents had come to town to make inquiries, and then attempted to drive up Bruffy Lane to L-S, only to get stuck in the mud, and barely manage to turn around. And Cy seems to think that I don't come honestly by my Mission (creek?). Compared to Louise, Cy is...... well, a lambikin, despite all her vehement protests. Louise was no Earth mother. She was not of this Earth. She rode the desert on a horse with no name. I think I now know the name. I walk softly, and do not bite the hand of the PtB. Because I don't and won't do that, they are more than willing to ride shotgun. It's all in the CL contract, signed, sealed and delivered.


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

My God.........? I am that I am. That is the Eye of the pyramid, of Wheeler's self-activating Universe. I presume to represent that Eye, like none other than the J-man. I represent it to the cosmic orphans that many suppose we have become. I am, then, their inner eye that has been shut for how many lifetimes. I am the kingdom within, now slouching toward Bethlehem, and there to arise........

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Yes, indeed, were we vexed to nightmare. Only now, do I begin to comprehend.

No small wonder that the shepherds quake at the sight. Yes, they might well have preferred a mere Armageddon. That is, now, quite within the human imagination. But this......... no, this not yet, not yet this childhood's end. All the holy water in the world will not quench this passion. This passion is my only staff. No other stick matters. No weapon prevails, not when Dina blows her horn.



5:15------------

Cy and Jake, and almost every other mortal, desire continuity, even and especiallynin the face of death. Sophia and the J-man do not promise that. How do I explain that to Mama bear, just waking up from her hibernation? How do I explain this to the mothers and fathers at GFC? What do they care about anyone riding shotgun?

Well, no, the Christians suppose that Jesus is promising them a perpetual life with their loved one's, in Heaven. Did he not say that? He said it, they believe it, and that settles it. That is their hard-core. I presume to take that away? I must be crazy...... a lot crazier than Louise.

Apokatastasis is no easy sell. Not even the Greeks would buy it. Not then, not now. We don't mind our brain-cells sharing headroom with us. Why should God mind? Maybe he doesn't begrudge us that. But heaven is about us, it is our destiny. God just lives there.

If we, all 10^10 of us, can be absorbed within the God-head, why cannot 10^20 be, just as well?

But that's not what I'm worried about. It's about us, and keeping us entertained. And what will God do, when he's not creating the best possible world? Should that be our problem, too? I think it helps to put our problem in perspective. Eternity is not forever. It is not even a long time. How, then, do we, mortals, relate to an eternal God? It must have something to do with the Kingdom within. Our shared soul is of that archetype. But why, then, should there be a numerical limit or optimum? That seems to relate to finitude, obviously.

Creation, for all its temporality, is also eternal, and so must we partake of both essences, as we do, now, in the shining presence, as does the mystic, who can visit both realms. Will we lose our visiting rights?




(cont.)

The problem that Cy and Jake have, in understanding the BPWH, is mainly that they are operating on a Newtonian model of absolute time. In that model, time created God, not the other way around, as is the case with the BPWH.

'Creating time' does verge on the oxymoronic. It begs the question as to when time was created. Well, time was created in no time, which is not to say, either, that it was created instantaneously, as, say, in the big-bang.

Ok, then, has Eternity always existed? Has God always existed? These are questions that are parasitic upon a Newtonian absolute time, an absolute before and after. What is time out of time. What is beyond space and time? How far is it from here to Eternity? How many eternities are there? How many gods are there? Why is there something, rather than Nothing? All of these questions are ontologically related.

Here is the ontological ground of the BPWH...... to be is to relate. So there are degrees of being, just as there are degrees of relatedness.

The most related thing we know is our own selves. The self, then, quite simply, is the ground of being, in so far as we can grasp the concept of being. Hmmm........ but, then, what about the Sun, for instance? Doesn't the Sun relate to a lot more things than do you and I? Yes and no.......

But, yes, in many religions, the Sun has been worshipped as a god, if not even the singular God, as with Akhenaten in Egypt. It has been argued that the Sun-god was the model for Monotheism, in general, with the Moon coming in as a pale second.

Here is my brief against Ra-worship....... The Sun is virtually nothing without photosynthesis. What is a God, without a Creation? What is a God without worshipers?

But, wait, didn't the Sun create the Solar system? That, in itself, is nothing to sneeze at, algae or no algae. Well, here is where ontology comes in........ I can only quote Protagoras..... Man is the measure of all things. He being the original idealist, it would seem.

What hubris, everyone outside the orbit of the BPWH exclaims! Well, not so fast......

What is the Sun without algae? The only potency of the Sun lies in the algae, and without potency, what are you? Yes, what are you.......?

What did the Sun actually create? In fact, the Sun did not even create itself. The Sun is simply a node on a chain of physical events, stretching back, as we are told, to the Big Bang. In that physical context, the Sun does not even exist, per se. It is a link in a causal chain, but even that is saying too much, because everything is a link in a causal chain, so that fact, alone, means virtually nothing.

If we were going to worship anything physical, we ought only to worship the Big Bang, and, in no small measure, the modern mind is quite disposed to do precisely that, quite evidently.

And what is the Big Bang, if not a manifestation of pure Potency?

But there are several problems with worshiping the Big Bang............ Nay, there is one overriding problem or question........ How many are there? From a physical perspective, it is generally supposed there have been, or are, an infinite number of them. They are, then, a dime a dozen! Why worship dimes or dozens?

But, amongst those infinity of universes, how many could harbor algae? According to present calculation, only about 1 in 10^500. But, with infinitely many chances, there will still be an infinite number of universes growing algae. And, just within our little universe, it is supposed that there could be an infinite number of suns, shining on algae-growing planets. So, what is there to worship........ when life is just an absurdity in an infinity of meaningless universe? Well, existentialists worship the Self....... and we do mean 'worship'! Why? Well, it goes right back to Protagoras, does it not?

We are the measure of all things.....!? Whoa...... What is it, to measure? Measurement is all about Norms and normativity. And, yes, measurement is also about objectivity. But, wait, what is the connection between normativity and objectivity? I think it is simply this....... there cannot be ojectivity without subjectivity! I'm seeing this, now, for the very first time, sports fans! I may have said these words before, and so may have others, but never with any real import.

Quantum theory is bedevilled be the measurement problem. What, we all want to know, constitutes a measurement? It all comes down to a contest between Schroedinger's cat and Wigner's friend.


Noon-------------

And, right now, I'm wondering about the connection between quantum Darwinism and weak measurement theory? See also the Quantum mind-body problem.

But let's get back to the normativity of measurement........ How did I miss this obvious conundrum of objectivity....... no object without a subject? Rocks don't make measurements, and neither do algae. But, this does not mean that rocks don't exist, even on the dark side of the moon.

Nonetheless, science prides itself on its objectivity, but what is objectivity without measurement? Rocks don't measure, and, so, how can they measure up, if you see what I mean.

Yet we suppose that this universe might have existed without us. But how would it have existed, if not objectively? That is precisely the question that science assiduously avoids...... How can something exist, if not objectively? And how objectively, without being objectified?

Objectivity >> normativity >> intentionality >> subjectivity.

And this gets back to existence as being necessarily relational. It is also to say that Nothing cannot exist, unto itself. Or, it is not possible that nothing could have existed.

All of this has to do with the possibility of an XLE.

I think I should start my green talk with an exponential curve, up to the present, with three different projections....... continuing, stabilizing or declining.



(cont.)

dan wrote:Jake,

Hmmm............

Well, I'm glad that you appreciate my creativity, and there is more than a bit of truth in your observation.

Thank you. I appreciate your confirmation.

True, you will not find 'Sophia' in other texts. Well, she is not unlike Kalki. In fact, after a glance at the wiki, she could be mistaken for a combination of Kali and Kalki........

Looking at wikipages, yes, they are also close to a description of your God, Sophia. But they too fall a tad short.

"She is a good mother! foundling with care, while lovingly devouring their all. "Live in me" is her lullaby, sweetly singing in their ears. Sleep now and awake in me. "You are my dream", She whispers, "my sweet dream, and my dream will live forever, in me."

not terribly Xian, it would seem....... but let us think again........

Does not the X-event/passion somewhat bring to mind the image of Kali and the Phoenix? Was not the J-man bound to rise from those ashes, to slay his Enemy? I claim to be that reincarnation, rather as John was claimed to be the reincarnation of Elijah.

Do you pass the 'sign' test, Dan? Where is your witness?

If G-d sent His own unto His own, His own would recognize him.

There is a sword coming from my mouth. It is the sword of truth, sent to slay the Lie of materialism. Yes, I do slay the flesh, in the name of the Spirit. This is the door to immortality/eternity.

In eternity, Truth is not the arbiter of judgment. Truth simply IS. All else fades before it.

The Holy Spirit slays not. But rather leads and guides unto all understanding. There is no ego in the method of the Spirit.

-----------------------------

Yes Dan as you say, your Sophia it would seem is "not terribly Xian." Her prophet exudes a young soul/God.

To everything there is a season.

dan wrote:The problem that Cy and Jake have, in understanding the BPWH, is mainly that they are operating on a Newtonian model of absolute time. In that model, time created God, not the other way around, as is the case with the BPWH.

My goodness, when will you start being true? I am fully up to date with all scientific and philosophical conceptualizations of Time, including eternal. Anyway....

It appears you do not understand Time.

Let me introduce a newer understanding....

God did not create Time.

Oh true, G-d created the orders of our concept of time, but not Time itself. 'Time and G-d' are like our scientific concepts of 'Time and Space'. Two sides of the same coin. There are the same thing being measured in different ways. Yes, I am saying G-d is Time. It is another attribute of G-d. Just like omnipresence is an attribute of G-d.

Nothing IS without there being Time. 'IS' implies Time. "I AM" can not be a truism without Time. Just as Space can not be without Time. Because G-d IS, Time is.

Is there memory in eternity? Is there a past or future? Certainly not the way we would understand it. However, for "I AM" to exist in eternity, then present IS. And where there be present there is Time.

Is there thought, knowledge or "knowing" in eternity? Does omniscience exist in eternity? Well, neither can exist without Time.

Oh, one little tid-bit I over looked that needs a tweek...

dan wrote:Well, no, the Christians suppose that Jesus is promising them a perpetual life with their loved one's, in Heaven. Did he not say that? He said it, they believe it, and that settles it. That is their hard-core. I presume to take that away? I must be crazy...... a lot crazier than Louise.

Actually he never said that. I know it sounds a tad like something he might say. But you'd need to remove "with their loved one's" to remain accurate.

Am I nit-picking? No, it makes a significant difference. As your statement implies the secondary promise (loved ones) is inclusive to the primary promise, however the secondary is exclusively conditional apart from the primary promise.

The Red-Letters are extremely coherent (CToT) and never make this type of error.

Fixed.

----------

So you're going to take that primary promise away? Well Dan, many have tried. You could attempt to take it away from some. But no Caesar, nor Emperor, nor Prophet, Priest, Guru, or Pope, no power on earth has ever been able to take it away from the consciousness of humankind.

So...ya.... I guess you must be crazy.

Oh well

At the very least, Jake, God would have to be the valorizer of time. Without a cosmic Author, time/history is a tale of sound and fury, as told by an idiot! No?!

Could there be a cyclic time w/o God? This would be a pagan time. Even this might be too much. Cyclic time could not be objectified w/o a sapient self. W/o sapience, there cannot be a self, simply because there cannot be a self w/o self-determination or awareness. Here, we speak simply of the I am that I am, or even just the indubitable Cartesian ego.

In saying that time and God are co-determining, you are advocating a twin Godhead of Chronos and Yahweh. This surely is not Monotheism. This is another form of Deism, IMO. Newton also granted an absolute, independent status to time. He was the prototypical Deist.

And about the I Am...... you simply confuse the present with the Presence. There is a rather significant difference. One is logically prior to the other. Which One?!


And thank you for correcting my misquote of Jesus. And so he proves my point.... Who the heck would want to spend an eternity w/o love?! The conclusion is that our egos must be subsumed by the apokastatic Agape. Yes? Surely, Jake, you do not wish to be the cosmic wall-flower, unless in the Tennysonian sense, wherein we are plucked unto the bosom of Abraham.

And, now, as to my ecclesiastical ambitions....... What are my signs? Well, on one of his good days, I tend to use poor little Pelican as my exhibit A. Of course, he would deny me in a trice, and has often done so, but, then, look at Peter, Heaven forbidding that we should ever compare Peter and Ron!! I have but two other exhibits..... the MoAPS and our universal Rapture, conveniently some 200 years hence. That's all she wrote, Jake. I'm just a one-trick pony! Dang me!


Sam is after me to come up with a title for my BGF talk, next month. He is, very naturally, trying to CYA wrt the exhibition of my ecclesiastical ambitions, on his watch, on his nickel. Can we blame him? Hardly! So he proposes the maximally innocuous idea that we poor, beleaguered Greens will simply be sharing our rationales, wrt the future, that enable us to get out of bed in the morning, and face another day.

Well, you know me, and you know that would be false advertising. No?! No...... I don't wish to have a captive audience. They need to be given a fair warning. And, if no one shows up, then so be it.



11:25------------

Convo with John C........ he will not be able to meet this week, as he is in the process of moving. We continued our discussion, from Sunday, about the apparent discrepancy of 75 days in the timeline of the tribulation, as given in the Old and New testaments. You can google this under 1260/1290/1335.........




(cont.)