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.)

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.)

dan wrote: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?!

No confusion. I was speaking more holistically. Present/Presence both fundamentally reflect a reality of 'Now', which is Time.

Yes, "Cyclic time could not be objectified w/o a sapient self" - as I worded: 'IS' implies Time. "I AM" can not be a truism without Time.

However I wouldn't use "cyclic time" to describe Time as it may be experienced in Eternity. ie: your alluding to "eternal presence" might be a more accurate conceptualization. The only cyclic potent of Time in Eternity, might be exemplified in the eternal relation between Bride and Christ - Agape is reciprocal, requires a form of Time - cyclic Time occurring instantaneously, if you will.

As an aside, I do not see dualism as the opposite of monism. Dualism is simply a description of the appearance of monism.

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.

I do not see Ego surviving eschaton. Ego in itself is a form of separation. It must inherently be relinquished upon atonement. They cannot co-exist.

The book "A Course in Miracles" contains imo the most detailed understanding of the shedding of Ego in the hereafter. When I cross examined ACIM with the NT Red-Letters, I found no contradiction and the Red-Letters became clearer.

For instance; Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Abraham's Bosom) There is no Ego representation of Lazarus. I've not heard any Christian note this. The rich man however still harbors Ego. The 'gulf-fixed' separating the Rich man from Abraham's Bosom is an auto-cause of his Ego.

If there be a purgatory, Ego would be its reason to exist.

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!

Peter and Ron deny thrice, LOL.
The Catfish wouldn't qualify because he can't remain true, nor real. Only a 'true' witness could suffice.

However, if your ecclesiastical ambitions are focused mainly upon worldly politics and societal engineering, then the Pelican may have some import. But that still remains illusive.

dan wrote: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.........

A fuller understanding of this, imo, can be found when we incorporate Preterism in synergy with the futurist interpretation of the Great Tribulation.

The Jewish-Roman War was also 7 years: 66-73 CE

It's a long study, I have been able to harmonize the two views. However it would take a lengthly essay to cross reference all the prophecies, here. If I had the time, it might qualify for a PhD thesis. As you mention, Google can offer some assistance.

Thank you, Jake, for these further clarifications. I, too, look to a synthesis of the preterist and futurist interpretations of the apocalypses. I was interested to find the contrast between the prophetic and apocalyptic writings. The contrast seems to arise in association with the notion of dispensationalism, a rather thorny issue, mainly within Christendom. It also verges into the gnostic doctrine of God's omnipotence being curtailed by the intervention of demiurges or fallen angels, and so becoming an obstacle between us an God. The addition or removal of these obstacles or veils demarcate, via apocalypse, the various dispensations. The prophetic writings appeal to a more linear or continuous outworking of the plan of Salvation, or so I gather.


And, yes, I do believe that heaven will be egoless....... selfless? Maybe that, too! But not a Nirvana, either. There will be shape-shifting. Perhaps we will be personifying God's thoughts, in various guises. We are then the healing agents of God's multiple personality disorder, the agents of that intercourse and reconciliation. We become increasingly so, just with the ramification of our communications. These are aspects of the universalism, leading up to the spiritual Apocalypse that will preempt the Armageddon, at the last, dramatic minute.


And, yes, Jake, this Apocalypse is how the Second Coming will also fulfill the Great Commission.



7:30---------

I notice that some Christians seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between Heaven and the Millennium, and I don't blame them. This point came up with John, today........

The point of the Tribulation is to cleanse the world of sin, sinners and evil. It should then return unto our prelapsarian state of innocence and grace. There should then be no more suffering.... no more disease and death. Does this mean that the mosquitos will disappear, or that they will become immortal.

But, wait, then what about our fertility? Hmmm........?

There is definitely a widespread confusion about the Millennial kingdom of God, on Earth, that is supposed to be ruled over by Jesus, come again.




(cont.)

Dan, fyi ... http://gucas.academia.edu/ShanGao

"The puzzle had been plaguing me. Day after day, I gradually doubted the reality of continuous motion. But I still felt in my bones that the particles must move in some way. Finally, in the early morning of 12 October 1993, I experienced a sudden enlightenment. At that moment, I felt that my body permeated the whole universe and I was united with it. I "disappeared". A clear picture then appeared: a particle is jumping in a random and discontinuous way. It is not inert but active; it moves purely by its own "free will". Maybe God does play dice in the atomic world. I finally broke loose the tightest shackles of continuous motion with the help of inspiration."

GSB/SSR wrote:
Dan, fyi ... http://gucas.academia.edu/ShanGao

"The puzzle had been plaguing me. Day after day, I gradually doubted the reality of continuous motion. But I still felt in my bones that the particles must move in some way. Finally, in the early morning of 12 October 1993, I experienced a sudden enlightenment. At that moment, I felt that my body permeated the whole universe and I was united with it. I "disappeared". A clear picture then appeared: a particle is jumping in a random and discontinuous way. It is not inert but active; it moves purely by its own "free will". Maybe God does play dice in the atomic world. I finally broke loose the tightest shackles of continuous motion with the help of inspiration."

Gray, what an amazing coincidence that you would post this!

Just last month I also experienced a visual epiphany concerning continuous motion.

I was concentrating on Einstein's thought experiment of riding on a light beam. When suddenly I saw everything. The visualization only held for a few seconds and then vanished. Unlike Shan Gao's epiphany however, I saw the macro realm rather than the micro realm.

For those few seconds that I could hold the focus, I saw matter and the electromagnetic spectrum all at once. I saw everything swirls in motion. Not randomly but conforming to laws. I saw there is no vacuum in space, in absolute terms. Even in intergalactic space. (like Tesla's ether) I saw that as space expands the new space immediately fills in. Like a fluid. Everything is one, there are no gaps, just density variations. I saw that gravity was not a force, but mechanical (cause and effect) by the motion of matter and energy.

It was an astounding experience.

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

Regarding Shan Goa's - "a particle is jumping in a random and discontinuous way...moves purely by its own "free will"

Fascinating! 'Mind' seemingly works like that.

Thank you, Gary.....

I do need to catch up with Shan Gao. I notice that he has published almost a dozen books, just within the past year, all available on Kindle. He is definitely a proponent of panpsychism, and seems to lean toward idealism generally. I have downloaded his Understanding Quantum Physics.

Would you please provide the specific source of the quote you give, above?

I am thinking that there must be some logical links between Shan Gao, Chris Langan and Craig Dilworth (Simplicity), but I have nothing firmly in mind, at this point.


@Jake...........

You suggest, from your own vision, what seems to be a materialist version of Shan's vision, which may be the version that he is pursuing. I will be seeing if I can find a more immaterialist version, buried somewhere in his work.



In the meantime, I've been reviewing the BPWH eschatology in preparation for Grace and Green. The main question remains the continuity between here and eternity........




(cont.)

Dan,
You posted while I responded to Gary. In case you missed it because of the page turn:

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t6p765-hello-cy-hello-omf-ii#1684

Jake,
You suggest a materialist version of Shan's vision, which may be the version that he is pursuing. I will be seeing if I can find a more immaterialist version, buried somewhere in his work.

No, it wasn't a materialist vision. Material is the condensation of energy, while conforming to laws -information. It's All Light! And it's Alive

Dan,
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding concerning material and energy.

Describe immateralism.

Jake,

>> It's all light, and it's alive... <<.

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit.........



What do I mean by immaterialism......? No phenomenon is real, unless it is perceived.

And that is just for starters........ There are no unobservable phenomena. But this begs numerous questions...... Are atoms, dinosaurs or the big-bang real, even though they can be observed indirectly?

I'm inclined to say no. But what I subscribe to more positively is that to be real is to be related, and the most related things we know of, directly, are our own selves. Relationalism thus implies idealism.

The immediate implication is that we have to posit a cosmic self, in order to explain and to interrelate our own disparate selves. Thus is God the first corollary of relationalism/immaterialism.

Most pagans and new-agers posit planetary gods that mediate between us and the cosmic God. For many reasons, I don't subscribe to this latter point, not the least of which is its incompatibility with Christianity, and we have covered this ground many times. It's all about the BPWH.



Back to eschatology.........

We have the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, and we wish to integrate them as best possible. We wish to optimize the historical continuity between the two realms, as we also wish to find continuity when connecting the historical Omega back to the earthly Garden or Alpha.

How much of our 'dematerializing' takes place before and then after our actual transfer? The presumption being that it will not be business as usual, once the still extant residue of humanity joins the dear departed, in heaven. IOW, most of us make this transition, postmortem, wherein we are fitted with some form of glorified body, to put it most simply. Wrt the remnant, clean-up crew, some of the 'glorification' will be taking place before, during and after the transition.

But why not take the easy, discontinuous route, via the deep-six? Well, I don't want our long delayed rapture to turn into a Heaven's Gate. The aesthetic of ked's and applesauce is just not right, sorry.




(cont.)

dan wrote:Jake,

>> It's all light, and it's alive... <<.

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit.........

I could only hold the focus of the vision for perhaps 4-6 seconds. And it came only after intensely trying to imagine riding on a light beam, while holding in mental RAM all the scientific knowledge I have. Only then did I understand how Einstein came up with his theories.

And it was during that thought that the vision came to view. But I can't call up the full vision from memory at will. And so I can't fully describe it, as only part of it is in my physical memory. All I have is a watered down version of the epiphany moment.

"It's All Light": All that is, that can be seen and measured with our existent limitations, can be reduced to Light. And there is no such thing as absolute vacuum. Light is everywhere, down to the most infinitesimal time/space. When highly condensed, wrapped up into a subatomic sphere of time/space it appears as what we call the building blocks of matter.

"And it's Alive": This is difficult to explain without being able to see the vision and describe it from memory, as one would describe the memory of a vacation. I could briefly see everything including the electromagnetic spectrum. I can't see it in my mind now.

All the energy is active (continuous motion) in a purposeful manner. Like a symphony. But that doesn't explain it either. As it's so complex and enormous in scale that I couldn't see or understand the symphony. It wasn't a religious experience, just a visual. I could simply see that everything was moving for a reason, for a cause and effect, and with an immense amount of information in every cubic centimeter of the Cosmos. I can't explain it, its too much, it simply appears as if, it has to be Alive.

What do I mean by immaterialism......? No phenomenon is real, unless it is perceived.

And that is just for starters........ There are no unobservable phenomena. But this begs numerous questions...... Are atoms, dinosaurs or the big-bang real, even though they can be observed indirectly?

I'm inclined to say no. But what I subscribe to more positively is that to be real is to be related, and the most related things we know of, directly, are our own selves. Relationalism thus implies idealism.

Sounds like you are describing 'thought' (or Spirit).

'Thought' too, is organized energy. But a different form of energy than in our cosmic space/time. I'm doubtful that 'thought' can be seen nor measured in the cosmos. Only its effect.

I'm not sure about this, as mind can recognize 'thought', and brains can store memory.

Much work to do

Thanks, Jake......

Ok, what you are calling condensed light, I would be inclined to call condensed thought, as you suggested earlier.

How would that 'work'......?

Our biological connection with 'matter' is built up through a process of cyclic habituation, both personally and interpersonally. The 'material' world is spun out by us, as if we were making our cocoon, which we are, and which it is.

How do we spin the Sun, for instance.....? Is it a 'biological' process? On the modern view, it is we who were spun out by the Sun. Allow me to make a slight correction.......

The Sun acts as our dynamo, energizing our food web and our weather systems. Food is condensed sunlight, as Jake would suggest. If it were just condensed thought, where would we get the energy from?

Presumably, when we get to heaven, energy and metabolism are no longer an issue, and that is one reason why I am pursuing the problem of the transition between here and there. That transition may help to shed some light on the energy problem.

We have Bachelard pursuing the psychology of fire. Where is the energy in that? It might seem that, with immaterialism, I am trying to run that film backwards, which is not entirely off the mark. I mentioned this in terms of heliotropism, back on the BPW site. How do we connect the psyche with metabolism?


4:40--------

With Henry Adams, we had the Dynamo and the Virgin. Now we need Psyche and the Dynamo!

This is where I got to, about a month ago....... Creation is the dynamo of heaven, complete with (soul) windings and and an armature in the magnetic aperture, i.e. in the gap where O >> A. But does this explain the Sun? Where is Ra, when we need him? Or what about the Son?

Mass is not conserved in the process of Creation, so why should we worry about energy? According to the BPWH, fossil fuels is primordial, i.e. built in to the Creation, with no energy transfer being presumed. The fossil fuels are restored in the O >> A redemption, the Alpha acting as a secondary attractor wrt the Omega.

Perhaps we need to revive Freud's pneumatic model of the psyche, in order to power the cosmic mind.

Ok, our psyches are like honeybees, sent out from Eden to bring pollen back to the Hive. What then is the pollen? It could be our eidetic memories. How so? How do we mine or transubstantiate the akashic record?

We do this in the process of memory consolidation. The Many is transmuted back into the One. Is this not just a perpetual motion machine? Or is it Eternal motion? Well, even in physics, the universe is supposed to be a spontaneous quantum fluctuation that has run amok..... a virtual free-lunch!

Or how about fear and hate being transmuted into Agape, cosmic honey? Hey, how about some agapic honey in your gas tank? Think of the MPG's!

Where does this leave poor Sol? Twisting in the wind?! Trying to hide behind Luna?

IMHO, there is no fire in Heaven, so how did Prometheus steal it? Using one of Zeus' thunderbolts...... speaking of dynamos?!



(cond.)

The simplest way to power an immaterial cosmos is by using a psychic analog of Boyles' gas law....... Our egos expand on the outward stroke, and then release energy as they psychically meld, on the inward stroke. It may be just that simple. Atheist existentialism represents the the psychic apogee of that orbit. It is the Internet that is now precipitating the return stroke..... in which we become as a super-cooled liquid that is about to be seeded with an ice crystal, on D-day. This is the knowledge implosion of the BPWH/CL.

Is this what powers the Sun...... instead of hydrogen fusion, it is actually ego fusion?! Surely, I jest!

Well, by the same token, I am also being a tad skeptical of metabolism, in general, photosynthetic and otherwise. Metabolism is just one version of our variously habituated phenomenological cycles, one of which is heliotropism. Atoms, photons and the Sun emerge as the 'condensation' of these phenomenologies. They all emerge out of our primordial Dreamtime, which, across the O >/< A gap, is an extension of our final, Rapturous Dreamtime, of the 144 million, which will culminate in about 200 years. Yes?!

Eternity serves as the psychic battery for this single stroke engine, which has only this (best possible) singular circuit. You and I are the windings on the armature. Now, if only I could explain how a candle works! Should it be more difficult than explaining the Sun? BTW, there is no Sun in Heaven, nor in our dreams, so you needn't bring your SPF 50.

We've all heard of pyromania, so why not pyrotropism, as a slight extension of Gaston Bachelard? Fire emerges from our Zeus/Prometheus complex. But then how does lightning emerge?

Lightning can be blamed, in part, on cosmic-ray muons, of a distinctly heavenly origin. And, just on the scientific account, lightning may have played a crucial role in triggering the nitrogen cycle. This is part of the lore of the Anthropic principle, out of which emerges the BPWH, once its materialist veil has been stripped!

Is the possibility that lightning may not be subsumable under the rubric of fire going to be another headache for the BPWH?

Lightning is a definite outlier, in the phenomenal world. Who ordered that?..... to borrow a phrase from II Rabi. And, as I was searching this phrase, I stumbled onto the reports of a new particle, out of Russia, the E(38) boson, which, unlike the Higgs, does not fit into the Standard model.


2:15-----------

Where does lightning fit into the BPW? Where do thunderstorms fit? If thunderstorms are like our meteorological cupcakes, then lightning is the frosting. Do we want egg in our beer? Of course, we do! But then think of all the might-have-beens! But lightning does manage to come off as natural, where pink elephants might not.

Why did we have to have the muon, other than to help naturalize lightning and so the nitrogen cycle? Could Creation not have worked with only one generation of fermions? I'm trying to remember my physics. Were the other two generations meant only for the entertainment of physicists? Hey, that's no small thing!

Given 'thunderstorms', i.e. cumulonimbus events, if there were no associated lightning, meteorologists would then be faced with puzzling natural lacuna. No? We could say the same for static electricity, to which lightning is related. But we are still lacking an immaterial or metaphysical explanation.

I see no hint of a phenomenological import for the higer generations of fermions. Now, the symmetric 4x4 matrix of the Standard particles is suggestive of a mathematical necessity, but I've not seen that spelled out explicitly. And, on closer examination, the four gauge bosons do directly fit in with the 4x3 matrix of the fermions. It seems to have been appended, only to artificially enhance the appearance of symmetry. Somebody is messing with our minds, it would seem.

Furthermore, the only arguments against even higher generations of fermions, are the experimental data, which do not appear to have any import outside the laboratory, not even in the alleged residue of the big-bang. But wait, again, does the Higgs play a role, other than in the mass splittings between the generations? Well, actually, the Higgs is directly involved mainly, or only, in the mass splitting the two pairs of gauge bosons, and that splitting does have serious natural consequences. Ok, enough physics for now.


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

But, we are still left with the phenomenology of fire and lightning.........

Much of the problem with metaphysics is just to formulate a clear description of the problem, and given that formulation, the answer may seem obvious.

We could also invoke the problem of the norther-lights. Are they frosting on the Eskimo pie, or just a fancy way to avoid another natural lacuna?

All of the luminous phenomena involve extensions of the atomic physics that emerges from metabolism. And, closely related is color vision, which, in humans, at least, seems only to add an aesthetic dimension. And this brings us back to the whole issue of vision and perception, which is coming full-circle, whatever that circle might be.


One of the most serious aspects of the mind-body problem is the provenance of color, not the physics of it, but the metaphysics.

The problem is that photons aren't colored, and neither are the braincells or synapses. So what is going on, and what does this have to do with the Northern-lights? The same may be said of tones and tastes, and every other quality and intentionality that comprises the entirety of consciousness. This is the foundation of immaterialism.

We speak glibly of abstractions, but it is not at all clear how a pure abstraction could be entertained by any mind. Oh, yes, the next time you see a computer, ask it to explain to you the difference between the abstract and concrete, and, while you're at it, the difference between quantity and quality, or between is and ought, or conscious and unconscious! Is this being mean to our silicon friends? Ought we be nice?





(cont.)

Jake Reason wrote:

GSB/SSR wrote:
Dan, fyi ... http://gucas.academia.edu/ShanGao

"The puzzle had been plaguing me. Day after day, I gradually doubted the reality of continuous motion. But I still felt in my bones that the particles must move in some way. Finally, in the early morning of 12 October 1993, I experienced a sudden enlightenment. At that moment, I felt that my body permeated the whole universe and I was united with it. I "disappeared". A clear picture then appeared: a particle is jumping in a random and discontinuous way. It is not inert but active; it moves purely by its own "free will". Maybe God does play dice in the atomic world. I finally broke loose the tightest shackles of continuous motion with the help of inspiration."

Gray, what an amazing coincidence that you would post this!

Just last month I also experienced a visual epiphany concerning continuous motion.

I was concentrating on Einstein's thought experiment of riding on a light beam. When suddenly I saw everything. The visualization only held for a few seconds and then vanished. Unlike Shan Gao's epiphany however, I saw the macro realm rather than the micro realm.

For those few seconds that I could hold the focus, I saw matter and the electromagnetic spectrum all at once. I saw everything swirls in motion. Not randomly but conforming to laws. I saw there is no vacuum in space, in absolute terms. Even in intergalactic space. (like Tesla's ether) I saw that as space expands the new space immediately fills in. Like a fluid. Everything is one, there are no gaps, just density variations. I saw that gravity was not a force, but mechanical (cause and effect) by the motion of matter and energy.

It was an astounding experience.

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

Regarding Shan Goa's - "a particle is jumping in a random and discontinuous way...moves purely by its own "free will"

Fascinating! 'Mind' seemingly works like that.

Bingo!

Now that you've been there, return. Come and go. It is no different than trekking in the wilderness. Once you've been somewhere once you can always get there again.

Now allow your perception to track the various patterns of awareness....and allow those patterns to become full expressions of consciousness and observe them in action. Free will.

Energy, random, discontinuous, coherence, pattern, awareness, free will, intent, consciousness, effect.

Next relationships and collectives...ever widening inter-connections in a macro-organism.

Cy

@Jake...........

You suggest, from your own vision, what seems to be a materialist version of Shan's vision, which may be the version that he is pursuing. I will be seeing if I can find a more immaterialist version, buried somewhere in his work.

Not immaterialist...the root of life...foundation of relationships...

"It's All Light": All that is, that can be seen and measured with our existent limitations, can be reduced to Light. And there is no such thing as absolute vacuum. Light is everywhere, down to the most infinitesimal time/space. When highly condensed, wrapped up into a subatomic sphere of time/space it appears as what we call the building blocks of matter.

"And it's Alive": This is difficult to explain without being able to see the vision and describe it from memory, as one would describe the memory of a vacation. I could briefly see everything including the electromagnetic spectrum. I can't see it in my mind now.

All the energy is active (continuous motion) in a purposeful manner. Like a symphony. But that doesn't explain it either. As it's so complex and enormous in scale that I couldn't see or understand the symphony. It wasn't a religious experience, just a visual. I could simply see that everything was moving for a reason, for a cause and effect, and with an immense amount of information in every cubic centimeter of the Cosmos. I can't explain it, its too much, it simply appears as if, it has to be Alive.

Correct. The literal synapses of mind/Consciousness.

We can only learn to understand a fraction of its cause, intent, effect triadic pattern. What we perceive directly in outreach is what I have referred to as Synchroncity. It is the scaled down strands most easily accessible perceptionally by ourselves. This is the Creative Source and Synchronicity is its hand in action.

Return and learn to interact directly. You've seen it in that respect now see it in action in your environment and respond when it outreaches directly to you. No Fear.

Cy

Dan said:

We speak glibly of abstractions, but it is not at all clear how a pure abstraction could be entertained by any mind. Oh, yes, the next time you see a computer, ask it to explain to you the difference between the abstract and concrete, and, while you're at it, the difference between quantity and quality, or between is and ought, or conscious and unconscious! Is this being mean to our silicon friends? Ought we be nice?

Dan those are not so much abstractions as they are facets of expression. And an expression is....

Cy