Yes, rather good.
It deserves to be circulated to these lists.
This is postmodernism
at its best.
At its best, however,
PM is unable, by its own internal logic, to effectively criticize
the scientific worldview. The only way to criticize one
construction is to offer another more inclusive construction.
If that other, more
inclusive, construction is not essentially Leibnizian, then we have
not the foggiest notion of what it could be.
Yes, the mind abhors a
vacuum. And so does a mindful nature. Science attempts to
fill that vacuum with atoms swerving in the dark. Was any more
preposterous hypothesis ever put forward? Has any hypothesis
ever been more slavishly idolized by every would-be master of this
Then there is..............
Alexander Batthyany and Avshalom Elitzur
(eds.), Mind and Its Place in the World: Non-Reductionist
Approaches to the Ontology of Consciousness, Ontos, 2006,
323pp., $94.00, ISBN 3937202986.
William Seager, University of Toronto at Scarborough
Might be a good idea for you to e-mail a
brief CV of you[r] own to [...] They don't know who you are or
how you fit into the meeting vetting process on RP's behalf.
Mr. Smith [a]
goes to Washington:
1975. reads Jack Sarfatti's Beyond Space and Time, begins
learning about anthropics, and going on to metaphysics.
1977. a Sophia encounter
1978. 2nd masters in physics, from Univ. of Md.
In between: freelance computer programmer in and around Baltimore.
1991. Phenomenological interlude seeming to result in connecting
with CF/RP in DC. First time that CF has heard of eschatology.
c. 1995. meets with Chris Straub of the SSCI. Introduces
Gordon to CF.
1998. almost introduced to James Woolsey by CF. Glass ceiling
In between: interesting interaction with CF on and about 9/11/01,
as reported to FBI. Very little contact otherwise.
2004. resumption of R&D show.
2006. interactions focusing on RD, GN and one other avian.
To learn about the end of physics, Google on Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.
The end of physics hypothesis has gone mainstream, just in the past few
months. The next intellectual shock will come when this fact is linked
to another idea coming out of physics, this from Robert Laughlin of Stanford
http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/books/b01jan02/index.htm. As stated
in Wikipedia: this book is an argument against the overuse of
reductionism in fields such as
string theory, and emphasizes that the future of physics research is in
the study of
But I wouldn't hold my breath. This is where some sort of external
political intervention will be required to jumpstart the necessary linkage
'Consciousness Makes a Difference: A Reluctant Dualist’s Confession' --
Avshalom C. Elitzur. In this
to his book, mentioned above Avshalom claims a to have an irrefutable
argument for interactive dualism and against materialism.
Avshalom avers that the mind/body problem is real, otherwise it would not
be so baffling. There is no other problem in the world that is
anything like it, nor even approximating its conceptual impenetrability.
If it can be argued to be a pseudo-problem, then there are no genuine
problems in the world. If it is a real problem, then we can be
reasonably assured that our understanding of the world will require an
alternative to materialism/physicalism. Dualism being incoherent, this
leaves idealism as our only path to coherence. Why is holism such a
bugaboo to the modern mind? It has to do with all our compartments.
What will we do without them? It is all about the tragedy of the
The following was sent out on 10/19:
The message? I
recognize that the interpretation you give below has become the
standard view/version of the message and its disturbing nature.
This version, however,
only partially resembles the version to which I happen to subscribe.
It is based upon the modern scientific worldview and states that
the visitors are from ‘Planet X’. In my (postmodern) version
the visitors are from ‘Dimension X’. The visitors do not come in
space ships; they come through portals that may sometimes appear as
So, yes, I am a
radical immaterialist or idealist. We are residing in a
virtual reality, an actual (dream-like) creation in which all
sentient creatures participate along with whatever additional cosmic
intelligence there may be, which may be viewed as God-like.
What we so blithely think of as reality is actually the construct of
a cosmic conspiracy in which we are the unwitting, now about to
become witting, co-conspirators.
In other words, the
world is indeed a stage. Deep space and deep time are merely
the phenomenological appendages of any sentient existence that is
designed to function in a pseudo-independent fashion, i.e.
independent of the Creator. This is merely a slight
restatement of what is commonly referred to as the Strong Anthropic
Principle (SAP). Phenomenal nature is the veil that
necessarily conceals a self-revealing God.
So, yes, the
Creationists are right about the origin of the world, but wrong
about its substance, because they are dualistic (mind/spirit vs.
matter). There are two great spiritual traditions: theism and
pantheism. The theists are right about there being a Creator,
but wrong about there being any real distinction between the Creator
and Creation. That distinction is only an illusion
(Matrix-like) meant for the temporary benefit of us creatures.
The pantheists are right about their metaphysical monism, but then
they mistakenly throw out God along with the dualistic bathwater.
Wrong move. Panentheism (Whitehead) was a partially
All of these issues
have sailed right over the heads of virtually every ufologist.
The Buck Rogers mindset of the ufologists has greatly muddied these
phenomenological waters, and so they have been the unwitting
co-conspirators in this sixty-year cover-up. Not to say that
their confusion hasn’t been aided and abetted with strategically
planted bits of disinformation. The Serpo story is a case in
point. It was designed to partially disguise the actual
interdimensional nature of our ongoing cosmic intercourse.
Disclosure, then, is
actually our awakening to the illusory nature of our ‘reality’.
It is the parting of the veil of nature. It is simply the
final revelation/apocalypse that is the historical basis of the
theistic tradition, i.e. the self-revealing, self-concealing God.
That is, what I claim
to be, the message behind the visitation. The three main
visitors (EBE1,2,3) may be viewed then as the actual fulfillment of
what used to be merely the apocryphal Biblical story of the Three
Magi (as in Majestic, etc. and bearing gifts from afar). They
were here to help prepare us for our inevitable awakening.
How do I know this?
Mainly because of a very well-directed nudge from ‘Sophia’ about
thirty years ago, and some help from Jack Sarfatti’s ‘Space-Time &
Beyond’ (1975), etc. How do I intend to prove it? Simply by
continuing to provide an intellectually/spiritually coherent focus
for an ongoing (accelerating?) process of disclosure.
On 10/18 the topic of Korea [a]
was raised. This requires a little recap.
Let us recall the 'axis of evil'. In that case Iran and Korea were
linked. UG has recently confirmed that he was called to DC last spring
to brief GWB on Iran. Now we have the other end of that axis. We
know that the Shiites are strong on their millennialism. Ahmadinejad
is widely seen as a Y2X contender. On the other hand, China, whose
proxy is NK, is extremely nervous about the millennial likes of the Falun
Gong and the Moonies, while us Westerners simply yawn. Is it possible
the the axis has two poles relative to Y2X. Who is Iran's sponsor?
Is it the Y2X friendly faction of the 'Illuminati'/Sufis, putting the
squeeze on GWB and CF?
If someone were to ask my opinion, that is certainly where my biases
would lead me. Then what?
If there is a next step it is to Hollywood. I'm ready to fly there
on a moment's notice. DI is the man on the spot. He seemed
favorable to the BPWH on Friday. Has he since been read the riot act?
Is he inside or outside the circle of aquarium untouchability? Will GN
help or hinder the Y2X initiative?
Yes, it would seem that Hollywood would be the best place to play out
this hostage crisis. It would be a remake of the 1980 hostage crisis.
The dailies could be
posted right here. This could be interesting. So maybe there
could be at least a virtual drama.
All we need now is a serviceable treatment for this updated version of
Kingdoms Come. And what will be the update on the 1/21/1981
control: on 10/14 I mentioned a review of Mind and Its Place in the
World. One of the contributors is Peter Lloyd. Peter sent
two emails on 10/21 referencing this website. I don't recall who sent
the reference to the book, but Peter had recently met with Jack in Paris.
Peter currently resides in Malta. A collaborator of Peter's is Susan
Waitt who has been contributing on Jack's list for some time. It was
Susan who sent the BPW link to Peter.
Active idealists constitute a small world. That Peter and I had not
run into each other earlier, indicates that our individual radars are not
what they could be. Jack is our mutual radar man in this and many
Having said this and recognizing Peter's perspicuity in tracking me down,
I will move on to an instant critique. But first the links:
Peter B Lloyd home page.
Consciousness and Berkeley's Metaphysics (1999).
Paranormal Phenomena and Berkeley's Metaphysics (1999).
And next some politics. In his comment on the second book, Peter
mentions Dale Graff as having been an inspiration for that book. Peter
may not know that Dale is a member of the Aviary. If the Aviary were a
positively functioning group, Peter and I might have been linked up long
ago, but alack-alas. Dysfunction rules.
I regret to say that our own CF is the source of much of that
dysfunction, and it is no surprise that other avians look cynically upon
anyone so associated. I have to trust that there is a method in this
madness. It is about the timing and the nature of disclosure. CF
has been functioning apparently as an obstacle thereto. What I
continue to suspect and hope is that CF is operating from the larger, shall
we say 'cosmic' playbook, a playbook not accessible to the other birds.
They do not realize the magnitude of this drama, and are being deliberately
kept in the dark. If I'm wrong, at least I am making one big mistake,
and not just a lot of little ones. The reason for the long and
continuing 'delay' is simply because of the eschatological enormity of what
is to be disclosed, a perspective that is lost upon the other avians.
And this also constitutes a critique of Peter and every other idealist
out there. This is where the physics comes in. With that comes
the anthropics. With the anthropics comes God, or some reasonable
facsimile thereto. As noted previously, western idealists tend to
follow their eastern colleagues into pantheism at the expense of theism,
except for those who come to idealism through their religion. Recall
that I came to the 'religion' at least in part through the
metaphysics/anthropics, with a nudge from Sophia.
Idealists, pantheists and even theistically oriented idealists all suffer
from an acosmic blind-spot. This can only be corrected with a strong
dose of anthropics, a topic and body of evidence that they uniformly eschew.
To put it simply, disclosure now becomes a piece of cosmic
Revelation/Apocalypse/Apokatastasis. Creation is nothing without the
attendant veil of Nature. The rending of that veil on a
cultural/global scale can only have an eschatological function. This
is the cracking of our cosmic eggshell. It is utterly irreversible.
The cover-up has simply been a piece of Creation. The Great Revealer
has been the Great Concealer. Don't blame the CIA or the
(anti-)Illuminati. They were just accessories to our enforced
Y2X is the Great Party Pooper. Well, that does depend on one's view
of Apokatastasis. Space and time are a piece of Creation.
Infinite time and space would simply constitute another barrier between the
Creator and the creation. The best possible world is necessarily
finite in every quantitative sense, but not qualitatively.
Quantitative infinities are simply our usually misguided projections of
God's qualitative infinity. Infinite love militates against the former
infinity. That we have such difficulty comprehending that seeming
paradox is owed largely to our materialistic misapprehensions. If one
piece of candy is good, then a infinite amount of candy would be the best.
Sorry 'bout that! All good things must end. The only thing that
does not end is goodness itself. The good too often obscures our
vision of the Goodness. Goodness is truly beyond all space and time.
Restoration of the cosmic ouroboros is the Telos. There is only one
such, although it may have infinite 'dimensionality' as well as
functionality. The Mandelbrot is the best quantitative metaphor that
we have for the qualitative infinity that is God.
If my speculation about a 9/11 conspiracy is correct, then there already
exists a monotheist/eschaton conspiracy. RS and BJ right now appear to
be working overtime to break up this conspiracy, while CF is backing off.
But who is playing the China card? What dog does China have in the
Messiah plot? NK? Is their only agenda now to become the new
Amerika, after the Xians, Moslems and Jews have killed each other off in
their mutual Armageddon. What does NK bring to that table? Does
the Armageddon pot need any more stirring.? Any external, pagan
intervention would be a pretext for the messianic plotters to pull together
It is more likely that the Xians would be using the China card to add
further weight to their Y2X scenario vs. Islam's
Mahdi. But I don't
think that is a real issue. Moslems already realize that the Mahdi is
a piece of Y2X; it's in their scripture. China would certainly sense
this. They simply don't want to be left out of the fun. NK is a
useful bargaining chip to that end. Yes, China may only be playing for
extra time. Just a few more years, perhaps. China might have
actually engineered 9/11. That would have been the smart thing for
them to do. But then we would have tried harder to stop it. No?
9/11 could have been to everyone's advantage as a surrogate for
Armageddon, with Iraq as the main result. With the clash of cultures,
we are seeing a brief reprise of the Cold War, for the purpose of last
minute adjustments and realignments in the global Intel. By now, all
the major players in the messiah plot have to be on board. There can
be no major holdouts. Isn't everybody more than ready for a new
bit of fun?
I have to go with the
only thing that makes sense to me, which is the BPWH.
has been something extra. I would actually be able to survive
without CF, but not without the BPWH.
I believe that we are
created in the image of the Creator, and the primary result is that
we will be able to reason about Creation when the time has come for
us to do that.
You and I both know
that the scientific-materialist paradigm is on its last legs.
A new paradigm is about to be born that will include the paranormal.
The paradigm will shift [actually be 'inverted'] in the nearly
foreseeable future. As always in the past, there will be a
personal paradigm shifter. This will be an historically
unprecedented event that seems most likely to fulfill the most
general expectations concerning the advent of the Mahdi, Maitreya,
Knowing what I know,
having the connections and resources that I have, it would be
extremely irresponsible for me not to remain open to this
possibility, and indeed, not to actively pursue that possibility at
If you were to use
your connections and resources to thwart such an obvious and cosmic
opportunity, I would imagine that your future existence, in whatever
form, would be even more unbearable than that of Adolph Hitler’s.
But, hey, I’ve been wrong before.
RS claims to have spoken with DI about these matters. It could be
he who passed along a cease and desist order, or several others. All
is fair in love, war and messianics. We are not expecting anyone to
roll over and play dead. Que sera. It is only marginally in our
hands. Obstructions can be transformed into facilitations in the blink
of an eye. Where there is a cosmic will, there surely is a way.
We were reminded yesterday of an accusation made against DF of a very
peculiar sort, from an equally unlikely source. 'Bizarre' might be
more accurate. I happen to have been an observer on the alleged
occasion as mentioned here previously, I believe. It goes to show the
unlikely extent to which folks go in attempting to keep their options open
in these environs. I would suggest that we are kidding ourselves in
this regard. Les jeux sont fait.
And the walls do have ears, and opportunities are often coincidental.
Whenever a bit of information is ejected from the black hole south of
Baltimore, I do try to pay attention, hashing it out here. I was
having difficulty rationalizing this last reported incident, and somebody
took pity on my rapidly diminishing cranial capacity.
There might have been a drug deal in El Paso
[a] that went sour/south.
This was not a government operation, but it did impinge upon the
consciousness of one of us. We don't need to know this, except as a
cover story for a bigger drug deal, going down as we speak. The bigger
drug deal is the Aquarium deal, of course. And, yes, there are
concerns about foreign intervention in an allegedly domestic operation, as
if our own put-upon DF did not have enough other things to contend with.
The only domestic thing about the Aquarium is the vino that is sometimes
imbibed in its pursuance.
So, yes, there was to have been a meeting with RD that was puthoff,
allegedly due to indiscrete inquiries about a parking lot shootout, nearly
south of the border. I'll believe anything, once. But this is
now just a cover for a much bigger drug operation that we all know and love.
We speak of the viral memes being disseminated by Typhoid Rick, and the
'antidote' being disseminated by.........whom?
I'm not making this up. This is what I was being told a few minutes
ago, by you know who. Ok, so Rick is the particle and I am the
antiparticle? I don't know how else to interpret what I was just told.
Or is it the other way around? This was supposed to have been for the
benefit of Gary, who was raising this old (drug inquiry??) incident for
reasons better known only to himself. Can't you just see all of this
being explained in some official report? Not. Make of it what
Gary will. The only way to kill off the rapidly spreading pandemic of
conspiracy mongering is to point to an Uber-Conspiracy. This does seem
to be the function of the Aquarium vs. the Aviary. And we are just
being reminded that this is kosher and government inspected. If there
are any complaints they may be taken to the FBI, which has been thoroughly
inoculated against these shenanigans for many a decade already. And,
yes, the SSCI was briefed on all of this, way back in c. 1995. So why
the shootout? Well, that may have been for internal consumption only,
to keep us all on our toes, even when things seem slack. It is only
meant to add a bit of spice to what should be old news to the interested
parties. Reminders can be useful.
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Check out Culture CampaignR
Before I reply to your last email, would you clarify these comments you
made in our last phone conversation:
"I am A-48, I am RAM"
"xxx knew of the attack of 9/11 before it happened"
"If you were to use your connections and resources to thwart such an
obvious and cosmic opportunity, I would imagine that your future
existence, in what ever form, would be even more unbearable than that of
You got me there. Since I don’t know or have forgotten what A-48 is, I
have no idea what I might have meant by such a statement.
As far as RAM-Star goes, there is a rumor that CF was chairman and that
he abdicated and left me in charge. I doubt that you will be able to
find a paper trail on that.
There is speculation on the BPW site about various of the
Aviary/aquarium actors. I believe there may be some speculation that
might be interpreted in the manner you suggest. If you would like me to
speculate further about that, try giving me a call at: ----------.
As to the final quote, how might we best unpack that statement?
Here is one suggestion for you:
Adolph Hitler is often cited as the best example of pure evil in human
form. He bears personal responsibility for the tortured deaths of
millions. It is my belief, however, that he did play out a necessary
functional role within the context of our best possible world history. I
am prepared to offer some speculation about the deeper meaning of that
role. Nonetheless, it will remain a stain upon his soul, for as long as
that soul may exist.
Something similar might be said for Pontius Pilate. The sin of the
crucifixion, like the sin of eating the apple, may be referred to as a
'felicitous sin'. It could be argued that Pilate facilitated our
salvation by expediting Jesus’ death. Nonetheless, I don’t know of
anybody who would want to trade places with Pontius or Judas. How would
one go about removing such an albatross from around one’s neck? Only
with a lot of help in high places.
That brings us back to the present. Many agree that humankind has never
been more in need of salvation than now. There is a great deal of
uncertainty as to what form that salvation could take. Many people pray
for the imminence of that eventuality. Many people also act in creative
ways toward expediting that eventuality. I place myself amongst the
You, however, suggest that I am pushing this line of endeavor beyond the
pale, that I am storming Heaven’s Gate. The worst case scenario is that
such an endeavor could land one in the boots of the Anti-Christ. That is
a risk that I am willing to take on behalf of a possible greater good.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
You claim to be certain that I am misguided in this effort. I find such
certainty about such complex matters to be problematic to the point of
possibly constituting an evil in itself. Do you claim to know enough
about God’s plan of salvation to be able to rule out the possibility
that angels and/or aliens might have been enlisted in expediting such an
Advent relative to the Powers-that-Be? The idea would be to enlist an
advance party to neutralize the potential opposition. That, at least, is
a significant part of the BPWH.
I understand that you have significant contacts with significant players
on the world stage. You might end up playing a critical role on one side
or the other of this issue. One could say that you have spent much of
your life in the pursuit of being in just such a place at just such a
time. I doubt that it is an accident.
I am simply pointing out to you that you have for better or worse been
put on the spot. Whatever decision you now make, could be decisive on an
historical scale. It is not inconceivable that this scale is absolutely
unprecedented; that is how I choose to conceive it.
[a] passed along two links:
Here is George Dvorsky:
" Relatedly, Buddhist atomists like
Dharmakirti argued that the only thing that exists are Buddhist atoms
(described as being point-sized, durationless, and made of energy) and
states of consciousness. Similarly, Gottfried Leibniz and A. N.
Whitehead believed that systems ordinarily considered to be physical
were constructed in some sense from more basic mental entities - what
are now referred to in process philosophy as 'Whitehead occasions.' "
Yes, Leibniz referred to his atoms of consciousness as monads.
Nowadays we can simply speak of information. Such is neutral monism.
This is also postmodern pantheism. Must it be Godless?
There is the problem of
This theory posits that all consciousness
is the result of the combination, in accordance with the law of
association, of certain simple and ultimate elements derived from sense
But then from
If this is right, every part of this
study would be perceived at first in the context of the totality of the
personality and all recollections of the reader. Single parts would on
subsequent conscious reflection become dissociated from this totality.
However, associative connections such as those expressed through the
hypertext-links on every page would then recreate an 'undivided unity of
perception'. Seen in this light, the complexity of my work could not be
reduced to a few elementary ideas, but would best be appreciated by
linking it to an even greater complexity of ideas and recollections in
the mind of the reader—which is, as Bergson argued, what happens
Ergo, God must exist as the ultimate Ideator of all irreducible ideas,
this by including the principle of esse est percipi, and then
voila you have the basis of the BPWH.
How do pantheists and informationalists manage to avoid their reckoning
with the God concept? It beats the heck out of me? Let's get
real, boys and girls!
I am now reading
Informationalism (2004) by Damon Woolsey. Damon casts this as a
version of 'neutral monism', a moniker coined by Bertrand Russell, later
providing a logical basis for Whitehead's 'process philosophy'. The
modern reemergence of informationalism is attributed to John Wheeler.
It was given a special impetus in its application to black holes by Hawking,
Physical objects need not consist of
actual substance, only mathematical descriptions. Indeed, I hardly
find it necessary to argue against materialism at all; physicists have
done all the hard work for me. There is still the matter of why there
seems to be real concrete physical stuff, consisting of what
philosophers call substance, but as we shall soon see, appearances can
in its ontological sense, remains the most prevalent alternative to
physicalism among the intellectually and technically inclined, even probably
unwittingly amongst many who have never actually encountered the term.
A good place to start is with the Wikipedia's
Claude Shannon provided the only quantitative measure of information: for
a binary message of length N, it is simply 2^N. However,
It is important to recognise the
limitations of Shannon's work from the perspective of human meaning.
When referring to the meaning content of a message Shannon noted
“Frequently the messages have meaning… these semantic aspects of
communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
Here is the rub. We blithely think that information is something
scientific and quantitative. Claude cautions us. The only actual
definition of information is so narrowly construed as to be irrelevant to
any ordinary, especially philosophical, discourse.
In ordinary discourse we are concerned only with the semantic aspect of
information. When we say that we live in the Information Age, we
confuse that with the Digital Age and so, very naively, we think we know
what we are talking about, when in point of of fact we know virtually
nothing of the kind. A very brief perusal of this last article
will easily demonstrate what a muddle is this topic, form any formal or
philosophical sense. In short, 'information science' is simply an
oxymoron from the git-go:
Information is notoriously a polymorphic
phenomenon and a polysemantic concept so, as an explicandum, it can be
associated with several explanations, depending on the level of
abstraction adopted and the cluster of requirements and desiderata
orientating a theory. The reader may wish to keep this in mind while
reading this entry, where some schematic simplifications and
interpretative decisions will be inevitable. Claude E. Shannon, for one,
was very cautious: “The word ‘information’ has been given different
meanings by various writers in the general field of information theory.
It is likely that at least a number of these will prove sufficiently
useful in certain applications to deserve further study and permanent
recognition. It is hardly to be expected that a single concept of
information would satisfactorily account for the numerous possible
applications of this general field. (italics added)” (Shannon
, p. 180).
There simply does not even exist a philosophy of information that could
deserve the appellation of 'informationalism'. On the other hand, most
of modern philosophy deals exclusively with the problem of semantics.
And we all know what a muddle that is.
Information is essentially a subjective matter, yet amazing levels of
intersubjective communication are possible. There are indeed great
communicators, whose communications are able to move people to sacrifice
their lives in the context of the meanings contained therein and over time
periods measured in millennia. The relative ease of communication and
translation does point to a commonality of mind that transcends any
quantitative or objectifiable measure. It is natural then to posit an
overriding mental subject, of which our individual subjectivities are
reflections. Religion is simply the binding of humans together in webs
of meaning. The positing of a transcendent being is a perfectly
natural reflection of the otherwise inexplicable effectiveness of human
discourse. Once again the burden falls on those who would deny the
obvious. The failure of the scientific method to have any significant
impact in the realm of semantics, should alert us to the irreducibility of
the mind, well apart from the even more intractable problems of
consciousness. Semantic holism is just an aspect of the unity of the
mind, pointing directly to a collective unity of all minds. I doubt
that there can be any stronger or more prevalent indicator of something on
the nature of a cosmic intelligence.
In this same vein we should reexamine the Anthropic Principle. This
Principle manifests the necessarily subjective side of physics, a point that
was first raised in the context of the quantum measurement problem.
Measurement is ultimately a semantic problem. There can be no
measurement without meaning and interpretation, i.e. observation. Can
there be observation without observers? More technically we have the
registration or recording problem. Can there be physics without
physicists? Seemingly the universe can get on just fine without the
intervention any life forms at all. But explain to us then the ontic
status of unobservable universes? Is that the same status as the 'dark
side' of the moon?
One is tempted to dismiss such abstract concerns until one begins to
appreciate the very abstract nature of physics itself. From whence
comes all that mathematics? Can mathematics be said to exist in the
absence of mathematicians? Why do otherwise sober physicists find it
so tempting to conceive of a Pythagorean God? If mathematical physics
did not exist, we would pay no more attention to the ontic status of
mathematics than we do to the ontic status of tennis. Is the semantics
of mathematics and logic so very different from linguistic semantics?
Are the two fields not mutually dependent? I would certainly hesitate
to draw a bright line. As in every branch of knowledge there is the
endemic and perfectly intractable problem of foundations. Everything
is supported by everything else. No wonder that the ouroboros should
be the mascot of every metaphysician. It is certainly the icon of the BPW.
It is not at all difficult to wax poetic about the holistic nature of
mathematics, as I have in these pages. Take any significant theorem of
mathematics and you will be amazed at the breadth and complexity of its
proof structure. I remind you simply of the 15,000 pages constituting
the derivation of the theory of exceptional groups, of which no one
mathematician has a full grasp. Seemingly every field of mathematics
was required to support the long sought proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Holism is rampant in mathematics. Is it not also rampant in physics
and everywhere else? From this perspective, the Anthropic Principle is
perfectly natural. It should hardly be remarkable. It is all one
'semantic web'. What else could contain such a superstructure other
than some cosmic subject? It beats the heck out of me.
On the philosophical side, I wish next to address the problems of
perception and of the continuity of mind, as in the question of survival.
Both of these issues gain and lend support in the context of the Semantic
Web, i.e. Network of Being. But there are two more pressing political
matters that need to be addressed first. There is also some recent
correspondence which bears posting.
I notice, however, there is a review in the New York Times today of
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
by Marc Hauser (2006). Here is prime example of how a reductive
science, e.g. molecular genetics, struggles to explain a very significant
piece of the Semantic Web, i.e. morality. Anybody can tell a Just-So
story, but that is hardly science. Just-So story telling is, however,
a legitimate piece of the coherentism that is the foundation of the BPW.
If the scientists are not careful, they will be skewered on their own
petard. They can just think of me as Cupid. Later.........
(Remind me to discuss this interesting paper: Jon Barwise --
Information and Impossibilities (1997).)
This was from yesterday:
It has been awhile since you and I have had the pleasure of discoursing,
but as usual we have the God question before us.
You pride yourself on your pragmatism, and perhaps in the past I have
not appreciated nor exploited this proclivity of yours to its fullest
So may we wax a wee bit pragmatic about the God question? There are two
pragmatic issues that stand out:
Where lies the burden of proof for the (non)/existence of God?
Given the positive likelihood of that existence, who will then deign to
represent said entity?
Since there already exists a vast, proven proclivity for a deep felt
belief in a cosmic intelligence, pragmatically speaking, the burden of
proof in the intellectual arena lies with those who choose to deny this
most distinctively human of all our traits.
Virtually no one doubts that modern scientific materialism and pure
physicalism have had their heyday. Postmodern eclecticism is upon us,
with a vengeance. Everything is once again possible and tolerable
amongst the intelligentsia. The God question is easily the most
significant of all these resurrected possibilities and topics of
intellectual discourse. There is not much point in discussing any lesser
issue, until we are able to properly dispose of this one.
The intellectual burden has shifted and is still shifting back into the
laps of the God deniers. Nolo contendere?
Thus the only truly practical question before us is who will now deign
to represent said entity?
But here again, there hardly is an issue on the pragmatic side. If there
were an issue, it seems to have been settled in a nicely political
fashion. The simple fact is that there is no visible competition. Must I
apologize for this fact? Should we not rather thank goodness, and get on
with what little remains of the representational job at hand?
There are only two things that needed to be done: Link revelation with
disclosure. Link the putative Visitation with the cosmic agency of
These have already been accomplished herein.
If there is to be a human agent of disclosure/revelation, this is
exactly where you would expect to find any such, already politically
linked to the putative Source.
I simply defy anyone within the sound of my voice to come up with a
better scenario for revelation/disclosure than the one given here, which
is an integral part of the Best Possible World Hypothesis. Simply by
definition, there can be none better than the best of what we may
collectively imagine. If I have done only a passable job of representing
and initiating our collective/cosmic imagination in these regards, then
it is a fait accompli. You need hear nothing more from me in this case.
The ball is in your court. Get on with the game of Cosmic Pokatok or
There are two upcoming meetings of note: one with BJ this Hallowed Eve,
and then with Eduardo and
CF & Co. tomorrow. The latter is being billed now as the second annual
'Aquarium meeting', but note that several very significant fish will be
absent from this administrative-type meeting. This is not a board
meeting, in other words. And as before, any absent souls are invited
to send their proxies, in whatever form is most appropriate. Some
might think it would have been more convenient to try to combine these two
meetings today, but besides a logistical problem, there was also the
semantic problem of meeting with a 'witch doctor' on Halloween. The
water-cooler commentators would have had a field-day, bless their hearts!
But listen up, now. Here is the word from on high. BJ has
concerns about the professionalism of CF relative to these sorts of
shenanigans. It may be BJ, though, who is having a problem with the
semantic web. BJ equates professionalism with compartmentalism, we are
told. This is well and good with well-defined problems, but when
dealing with something such as threat assessment in its fullest meaning,
compartmentalizing is liable to lead to tunnel vision. There are risks
of muddying the water, but there may also be benefits that are deemed worth
the risks. Crystal balls do tend to be cloudy, but they may still
suffice. Where were the crystal balls on 9/11, you may ask? That
is a question that more than a few of us have attempted to divine. I
can certainly tell you where one of them was.
And how about them threats? I'm not overly concerned in the
long-run. But could there be something worse than 9/11? Would it
come from that same general direction? An outstanding threat is that
of a paradigm shift. The makeup of the meeting itself, and the fact of
its being noted here might well be taken as a sign of these paradigmatically
unsettled times. It is my suspicion that threats of the kind being
considered may be intended, humanly or otherwise, as inducements to sticking
with the cosmic plan. This is not a poker game that I would
voluntarily choose. Fatalism has its role, but this does not preclude
every reasonable precaution. At the point of its matriculation or
hatching out of our cosmic shell, humanity is at its most vulnerable, as our
visitors of all stripes would be well aware. It behooves us to beware
that we are all persons possessed. Possessed of what or for what is
the issue at hand. What exorcism is desirable? What we may be
looking for is cooptation. That is the radical alternative. That
is the paradigm shift/inversion. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
It's easy enough to see the stick here, but where oh where is the carrot?
The world is getting to be more dangerous, in that there are more things
to go wrong, and more disgruntled and misguided people around to make sure
that they do. We decry the excesses of fundamentalism/fanaticism, but
that is one of the strongest inhibitions we have against further corrosion
of the social fabric. Literalism of any kind is the first victim of
changing concepts. The literalists are then the most threatened, and
the first to act out. Terrorism may be seen as a logical reaction to
the disruptive threat of the Internet. The fact that terrorists have
to resort to the Internet does not argue against this idea.
Then there are the economic threats. Peak Oil being the most
obvious of these, not to mention Peak Debt, etc. Do our creditors plot
against us? Debtors and creditors have to be cautious with each other.
When will that caution vanish? When will patience end and panic set
in? Is Armageddon not avoidable? This simply describes the
mental state of the panicked paranoid. What can be the checks on
panic? If there is any external intervention to this end, we would
immediately become enslaved to that externality, at the expense of any
further internal development. Fireside chats with God. How does
that sound? It is all in the bedside manner. Where is the model?
What will happen with the people staying home and not going to Wal-Mart?
Those will be interesting days.
The centrifugal forces are extreme. Will the center hold?
What center? Haven't I been saying that we need a center? That
is what the semantic network is about. To be is to relate. There
has to be a relational center of gravity. That is what YX1 and YX2
must be about. I'm still here typing because the meeting with BJ is
off. I hope that is not an omen. It may be beneficial not to
make two trips in two days, and hopefully I will feel better tomorrow.
The lunch meeting on Wednesday was scaled back to CF, myself, Eduardo, AF
and Mark P. I was told that about an hour before the scheduled lunch,
there was a spate of talking amongst the prospective office guests, who then
decided to go elsewhere. The day before, I was told that elements of
the BPW site had been circulated in the office. We can only speculate
as to whether this reaction was a reflection of the ongoing tension between
the Aviary and Aquarium.
In the meantime, Gary Bekkum
continues to report on a re-substantiated(?) FBI visit presumably to BJ,
although CF had claimed recently that the report by BJ was suspect.
Just further indication of the poor state of communications hereabouts.
The confrontation between the Aviary and Aquarium also includes PM [DIA]
and GN, on opposite sides, not to mention RD who may already be resurfacing
in a new Serpo context. The ultimate concern may be with DI in
connection with the 'KC' treatment. In this latter connection, have I
reported on the breakdown in communication between myself and RS concerning
the BPW version of Y2X? Before that breakdown, RS had told me that DI
had been gotten to, in this connection and wrt GN. I have never heard
back from DI. RS is close with the Roil Family, and one can only
imagine their take on these shenanigans. Laurence R has also been
resurrected in these regards.
So what about the threat assessment? Well, Eduardo is returning to
Ecuador to vote on the 20th. The leftist contender, Rafael Correa,
would place his country squarely on the Chavez/Morales axis. The two
of us later mainly discussed the more etheric connections. There was
mention of the connection between the Mayan and Toltec calendars. He
described their flood story: very similar to that from the Middle East.
In their case, the Serpent is the agent of the Flood. There was
mention of the tribal warriors now returning from the Sun. He and his
brothers will be working on a video that might parallel some features of the
'KC' treatment. We talked about the pyramid symbolism, common with
many cultures, including the Masonic symbol. The eye is the portal of
the travelers, and reminiscent of the tail biting ouroboros. It is
also the cosmic intelligence, which is the grail destination of every quest.
The flood is the outpouring of knowledge and the upwelling of the collective
unconscious. At the same time my spouse dreamt of my being washed over
the railing of a boat by a wave. Who has their finger in the dike?
Is this the Aviary vs. the Aquarium? The seals on the back of the
Dollar: bird, olive branch, mountain, ark, serpent(?), etc., do seem to
point to the aftermath of a flood and the return of the bird tribes.
Eduardo also recalled my showing of the Mandelbrot some time ago.
I'd like to get back to George
blog is most informative, an excellent example of
the raw. Dvorsky's blog links to a useful article in
News: Is There Room for the Soul? New challenges to our most
cherished beliefs about self and the human spirit By Jay Tolson Posted
Sunday, October 15, 2006. Restated, transhumanism attempts to graft an
artificial telos to a materialistic world, which is, of course, blatantly
self-contradictory. But just try to find a transhumanist who has more
than a superficial grasp of ontology. Those few who do are lead into
the labyrinth of a Matrix, never to escape its soul-negating paradoxes.
Tolson, as does the BPWH, blames the mind-body problem on the dualistic
Platonic cosmology, especially as reformulated by Descartes. The
answer is Buddhism. Are we surprised? Which is to say that the
answer to bad cosmology is no cosmology or
acosmism. But that
is not quite right. According to the BPWH it is mainly the
quantitative or scientific/objective aspect of cosmology that is illusory,
while the subjective side is what finally is real, just inverting the
modernist paradigm. Buddhism posits both sides to be illusory.
Buddhism places its absolute Brahmin beyond all subjectivity. This is
similar to the via negativa so prominent in Islam. That
negativity can be overcome only by a positive trinitarian or sephirothic
plurality of some kind. Thus can gnosis transcend mysticism and theism
transcend pantheism. Only thus is communion possible. The
subjectless object is an empty abstraction, a false projection of a
misguided mind, the epitome of all illusions. It is designed to
exercise social control by truncating human inquiry and discourse. If
the BPWH is correct, then x'ianity is the closest approximation thereto.
It is this impulse toward rationality that made science possible.
Science however became, quite logically, too much of a good thing, and in
the process it sowed the the technical and intellectual seeds of its own
transcendence, thus perhaps the BPWH & Internet. Is there a more
Yes, Jay's article provides a very useful summary of the core issues
between Searle and Dennett: what is the meaning of meaning? Is there a
difference between semantics and syntax? Searle posits there is no
objectivity to meaning; it is purely a matter of intersubjectivity.
Syntax is purely objective. Semantics is nothing without a cosmic
Just the opposite tack is taken with
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
by Marc Hauser (2006). It is
reviewed in the NY Times on 10/31. The unstated assumption in the
book is that innate = genetic. It is about nature vs. nurture and
argues only against the view that morality is something that is taught or
acculturated. I am not aware that anyone besides the behaviorists has
held such a simplistic view. It borders on the obtuse, that such a
straw-man argument is even presented, and then allowed to go un criticized.
This has, however, been the nearly unstated assumption of sociobiology since
its inception by Edward O. Wilson in 1975. The problems of
reductionism are patently ignored throughout its history. Originally
it was put forward as an attack on behaviorism, an idea that had been found
logically faulty many years previously. Having very successfully
beaten the dead-horse of behaviorism, it was soon retargeted upon the almost
dead-horse of theology. Only a very ill-defined group of
anti-analytical, anti-reductionist philosophers take exception to its
thesis. Theologians have been eschewing logic for centuries, with
neo-Thomism and process theology as the only even partial exceptions still
extant, both being decidedly acosmic. Theology has long since
abdicated all reason to the scientific enterprise. The only political
obstacle to science is fundamentalism which is notably a-theological.
There simply is no contest from that quarter either. Due to the
absence of any rational competition, science has grown flabby in its
intellect. And now, in its very fragmentary state, it cannot even
conceive of a global or coherent attack.
Back to Marc's Moral Minds. Nicholas Wade points out.....
Dr. Hauser argues that the moral grammar
operates in much the same way as the universal grammar proposed by the
linguist Noam Chomsky as the innate neural machinery for language. The
universal grammar is a system of rules for generating syntax and
vocabulary but does not specify any particular language. That is
supplied by the culture in which a child grows up.
As with language, these rules of 'grammar' have never been codified.
It is fair to say that no one has even attempted to codify them. Moral
behavior: you know it when you see it. You may not always agree with
the particular behavior exhibited, but can there be any real disagreement as
to an underlying intent? You speak French, I speak English, but
neither of us can accuse the other of not being linguistically competent.
Since morality and conversational coherence cannot be codified, they can
only be perceived directly, they cannot be analyzed in any compelling
fashion. Direct perception is the radical thesis underlying any
non-analytic ontology. It is only the supervening illusion space and
time that allows us the occasional illusion of analysis.
The digital processing of images and sounds, does help to maintain the
illusion of sense data, but nary is the philosopher who would defend such
today. There simply do not exist any ontological reductionists
anymore. There are not even any representationalists amongst the
epistemologists. But neither are there any coherentists, simply
because there is no place for them to go, except ultimately to the
confessional, and that is not going to happen in a modern secular
environment. The theologians cannot go there either, because
such a paradigm shift would set them on the path to the Spirit of Truth, and
that should be fodder for analyst's couch and then professional ridicule and
worse. Postmodernism has to maintain rigid political boundaries on
thought, since there are no longer any rational boundaries. Most of
all, the thought police have been well internalized over the centuries of
modernism. It takes a Sophia to free the thought of an individual.
It will likely take the three Magi to free the thought of any collective.
The only perception possible in a non-local, non-localizable world is
direct perception. Then the only perception possible is that with a
cosmic Telos. There is no logical middle ground between pluralism and
believes that the moral grammar may have evolved
through the evolutionary mechanism known as
group selection. A group bound by altruism
toward its members and rigorous discouragement
of cheaters would be more likely to prevail over
a less cohesive society, so genes for moral
grammar would become more common.
biologists frown on the idea of group selection,
noting that genes cannot become more frequent
unless they benefit the individual who carries
them, and a person who contributes
altruistically to people not related to him will
reduce his own fitness and leave fewer
Aye, there's the rub. Notice the leger de main. The
reductio of Darwinian selection is avoided by the invocation of of an
indemonstrable 'group selection'. The molecular geneticists will have
none of it. What is left of reductionism is an empty shell game.
There simply is no pea. Every one passes the buck of coherence.
What is left but a circle jerk, speaking of our beloved ouroboros?
Coherence does come piecemeal. It is all or nothing. Can
mathematical coherence distinguished from linguistic coherence? Not in
the end, and not in the beginning.
But there is a gentleman's agreement between the specialists: you don't
piss in my soup; I don't piss in yours. Thus is the larger Truth held
hostage to a thousand professional compromises. Thus is Gulliver
ensnared by the Lilliputians. How do we break the grid lock of
reductionism? How else but by the minimal intervention of the Telos?
How else but by a second Advent and a new Pentecost? Speaking of
Can we get to the bottom of the problem of
I have spoken much of Quine, but little of Kripke. How do they relate?
One's arguments are the obverse of the other's. Saul Kripke is said to
have made metaphysics respectable again with the
publication of his Naming and Necessity (1980/1970).
Saul is perhaps best known for his 'causal theory of reference', outlined
therein. What does the CTR say about reductionism? A name might
be reducible to a single act of baptism, but to what might that act be
reduced. Baptism is one of the most elaborate acts around. And,
furthermore, it is merely a significant component of the semantic web.
Was he such a genius that he cannot now be criticized/exorcized? The
reduction of that web to one of its strands, was an act of unpardonable
hubris, and I ought to know of such. It was a lifeline tossed to the
drowning analysts. They cling to it for dear life. The illusion
of a physical causality excuses their surrender of descriptivism, the last
bastion of analysis, a sensory data version of epistemology. Notice
that it even seems to bring a kind of communalism to the project of
episteme. Shades of group selection? So much for the idolatry of
the solitary Genius. Idolatry is the end of thought.
Professionalism is just that. The BPW is the death of prophecy and the
beginning of thought. Is that just slightly pretentious? Well,
thought has to begin somewhere, and where else can it begin, other than with
its own end?
Note further that physicists gave up on causality centuries ago.
Causality is partially resurrected only in the context of the quantum
observer paradoxes. We are left with a web of mathematical
It is the CTR which gives rise to the paradoxes of modal realism.
And who am I, adherent to the BPWH, to cast such a stone? I am a
conceptualist concerning modality, not a realist. Free will is only
locally valid. It applies to God only in the 'hood.
Perhaps this is truly the end of analysis (Kripkenstein):
Kripke finds in
Wittgenstein all the difficulties that beset analytic
philosophy, especially those that shake the very
possibility of certain knowledge. He restores certainty
by declaring that common sense is the guide to
philosophy. He ascribes to Wittgenstein this idea,
without denying that G. E. Moore had advocated it too,
but without subscribing to Wittgenstein’s rejection of
all philosophy as nonsense. Kripke adds to Moore’s view
an answer to the most obvious criticism of common-sense
philosophy that Bertrand Russell has so eloquently
expressed in his Skeptical Essays: common sense and
science diverge. Kripke recognizes this, and even gives
an example: common sense asserts and science denies that
the whale is a fish. He says this difference is
marginal. He does not address the more serious
differences between science and common sense, nor the
criticism that there are different kinds of common
sense, and that most extant common sense is imbued with
Has there ever been, need there ever be, a more succinct statement of the
end/telos of formal philosophy? Common sense is communal sense,
neighborhood, neighborly sense. Can this 'hood be logically restricted
to anything less than the cosmos? There can be no common sense without
a direct perception of that commonality. The semantic web is
unavoidable. (See also
There simply exist no rules for
What's in a name? We only know one when we perceive one. See
Externalism is generally thought to be a
necessary consequence of any causal theory of reference; since the
causal history of a term is not internal, the involvement of that
history in determining the term's referent is enough to satisfy the
externalist thesis. However, Putnam and many subsequent externalists
have maintained that not only reference, but sense as well is
determined, at least in part, by external factors.
But then consider B Russell's
There is no logical impossibility in the
hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as
it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past.
There is no logically necessary connection between events at different
times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the
future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes
N.B. that the BPWH embraces a moderate version of the OH.
Some such a version is a logical extension of the semantic web. Did
Adam and Eve have navels? Probably, yes, they being the substantial
representatives of an indefinite reproductive
Another important reference here is Chalmers' 'Sense
and Intension'. Well, sorry, I'm not able to get the sense of this
lengthy paper. The most I can say is that all of these issues remain
muddled. Opinions wax and wane over these fundamental issues.
Fashion rules. There is no discernible foundation for ontology or
epistemology. Rules don't rule. Semantic intuition is the final
judge of the basic issues. If there is an external foundation it will
remain unknowable. Rorty is perhaps the best known of the
anti-foundationalists, pragmatist and story teller that he is. He
views philosophy from the perspective of interwoven narratives.
Metanarrative? Not hardly!
Rorty encapsulates the
essential goal of postanalytic philosophy in that it is
not intrinsically opposed to analytic philosophy or its
methods, but only to its ultimate aspirations.
Postanalytic philosophy may also be known as
postphilosophy, a term used by Rorty to emphasize the
fact that philosophy no longer serves the role it used
to in society and that this role has been replaced by
Rorty suggests that we should see knowledge as a matter of
social practice rather than as an attempt to mirror nature. This
reading, however, fails to do justice to the unreasonable effectiveness of
the mind in its mastery of nature, an effectiveness which may be taken as an
extension of the Anthropic Principle. How could the philosophers be so
dense about this crucial factor? It's simple a matter of professional
myopia as usual. Never underestimate the power of social and
professional solidarity. It is a real force that must be treated with
caution, but cannot be ignored.
Is the BPWH sufficiently cautious? It does the only
thing it can do: follows the coherence to a logical conclusion. Does
it not put too much stock in the appearance of coherence? My only
point is that there are no partial measures that suffice when dealing with
the matter of coherence. Coherence is all or nothing. Show me a
piece of coherence and I'll show you a curiosity, or I will attempt to make
something of it. Coherence is either fortuitous or it is global.
Can there not be a local coherence? Coherence in the
'hood? There can be, but without a context it remains a piece of
flotsam. Without a teleology, there can be no rhyme or reason.
There is a holistic imperative in any bit of reason. There cannot be a
microcosm without a cosmos. Does mathematics provide an example?
Can there be numbers without a number system? This is rather like the
argument between the realists and the constructivists in mathematics.
I will use the Wiki
as a starting point. Or not.
As a possible example of isolated coherence, consider the
game of tic-tac-toe. It is a finite, self-contained (meaningful?)
system of action. A computer could be programmed to engage in an
exhaustive acting-out of the game. There is a rub. One may
easily imagine the implausible but possible circumstance of accidental
tic-tac-toe. One could take most any sufficiently complex natural
process and, with suitable definitions, overlay the functional equivalent of
a tic-tac-toe game upon it. I suggest that this possibility
constitutes a counter-example to the idea of isolated meaning or coherence.
The idea of subjectless coherence is incoherent. In any ideal system,
there is the presumption of a universal subject. A purely natural
proxy of such a system violates that presumption. Unobserved or
unobservable coherence is oxymoronic, and so is accidental or a posteriori
coherence. Coherence is empty without a coheree. And, as with
Wigner's Friend, there is implied thereby a transcendental telos. This
may only be an elaboration of Quine's thesis of linguistic holism. It
does suggest that epistemology and ontology are two sides of the same coin.
Speaking of overlays, consider
this: (Hans Moravec, 1998)
Perhaps the most unsettling
implication of this train of thought is that anything can be interpreted
as possessing any abstract property, including consciousness and
intelligence. Given the right playbook, the thermal jostling of the
atoms in a rock can be seen as the operation of a complex, self-aware
mind. How strange. Common sense screams that people have minds and rocks
don't. [...] Is a ventriloquist's dummy a lump of wood, a human
simulacrum, or a personality sharing some of the ventriloquist's body
and mind? Is a video game a box of silicon bits, an electronic circuit
flipping its own switches, a computer following a long list of
instructions, or a large three-dimensional world inhabited by the Mario
Brothers and their mushroom adversaries? Sometimes we exploit offbeat
interpretations: an encrypted message is meaningless gibberish except
when viewed through a deliberately obscure decoding. Humans have always
used a modest multiplicity of interpretations, but computers widen the
horizons. The first electronic computer was developed by Alan Turing to
find ``interesting'' interpretations of wartime messages radioed by
Germany to its U-boats. As our thoughts become more powerful, our
repertoire of useful interpretations will grow. We can see levers and
springs in animal limbs, and beauty in the aurora: our ``mind children''
may be able to spot fully functioning intelligences in the complex
chemical goings on of plants, the dynamics of interstellar clouds, or
the reverberations of cosmic radiation. No particular interpretation is
ruled out, but the space of all of them is exponentially larger than the
size of individual ones, and we may never encounter more than an
infinitesimal fraction. The rock-minds may be forever lost to us in the
bogglingly vast sea of mindlessly chaotic rock-interpretations. Yet
those rock-minds make complete sense to themselves, and to them it is we
who are lost in meaningless chaos. Our own nature, in fact, is defined
by the tiny fraction of possible interpretations we can make, and the
astronomical number we can't.
Another example of isolated coherence would be an isolated
subject. This seems related to the private language
first posed by Wittgenstein. Kripke relates this problem to Hume's
skepticism concerning unique causation. There can only exist
intersubjective patterns of communally reinforced behavior. In the
final analysis, the sun will rise tomorrow, not by law, but only by
tendency. Rules are only a human rationalization of the generally
cyclical nature of a temporally oriented world suitable for habitation.
Does this then reduce the problem of meaning to mere
convention? It passes the buck of individual intelligence to
collective intelligence. But wait! What is to block the infinite
regress? Nothing, says I. And right there you have the whole
shooting match of the BPWH. At least subconsciously, we suspect there
cannot be a finite end to the chain of being and meaning. Cannot
meaning bite its own tail, like the ouroboros? Can there not be
self-reference? That is the only reference there can be, to an
interminable self. No lesser construct will suffice.
Am I not just cribbing from the Ontological Argument?
This may be the obverse of that. Meaning is either an illusion or not.
Matter is illusory relative to meaning. Meaning is illusory relative
to what? Meaning is illusory relative to felt meaning, i.e. to (some)
Try a google on 'Wigner's friend regress'.
And we interrupt this program to bring you a message from
(to?) our sponsor:
I tried to call you at
your new number, but there was no answer and no answering machine.
I have just spoken
briefly with [RS]. He said that he had already sent you some
additional pricing information this morning relative to your request
questioned the reason for my calling him at all. He stated
that he did not want to talk to me until I had offered a proper
apology for my prior transgressions.
So, allow me take this
opportunity to recap the situation between [RS] and myself, at least
as I understand it.
Last week [RS] and I
had a phone conversation concerning our respective views on the
Second Coming. This was partly in reference to the [DI]/[GN]
The upshot of that
conversation was that [RS] did not wish to discuss with me his views
on that topic, besides his stating that he adhered to a literal,
scriptural view of that prospective eventuality. This was in
response to my attempt to explain to him my own take on the possible
relevance of the Aviary/Aquarium/BPWH to such an eventuality.
This scenario is succinctly captured in the putative equivalence of
the Magi/Eben interventions in human affairs, as described in
numerous communications and blog entries.
As you well know, I
feel a personal obligation to move forward with the Magi/Eben
scenario as best I can. Based on my admittedly sketchy information,
it is not difficult for me to surmise that [RS] is the primary and
proximate proxy for all those who might wish to oppose such a
Magi/Eben gambit relative to a Second Coming scenario.
If there is any
substance to the ‘Core Story’, then there is some level of
historical seriousness to the speculations just outlined. If
that is indeed the case then there is likely to be an historical
linkage between the above proximate duality and the traditional
duality seen between the Christ and the anti-Christ. Which way
this polarity might be projected upon this present company is moot
relative to the conclusion that we here are quite possibly engaged
in a passion play with a moral scope of cosmic dimensions.
This is the
information that I meant to convey to [RS]. If I failed to
properly convey this information, then I surely apologize for that
failure, and I trust that this explanation will make amends for that
Back to the observation/regression
Does this mean that up until
the transferred potential is received that the 2nd twin is collapsing
the combined wave-function of the lst twin and the radioactive atom
instant by instant based on her knowledge of what she has not yet seen
transpire on her own EEG? No physical influence has passed either
inwards or outwards across the walls of the chamber and it has never
been opened. Only a non-classical quantum jump was made between the two
twins in the form of a transferred potential. What meaning can we now
ascribe to the terms observer, observation, measurement, consciousness
and knowledge in a situation such as this?
Good questions, but a faulty premise. I would submit
that the quantum problem is the result rather than the cause of the observer
problem. This reversal should be seen as a corollary of the logical
reversal of the usual mind-brain problem in the context of immaterialism.
Wigner's paradox, especially as specified here, demands that we take a
collective/Jungian view of the mind.
But what I think we should really be interested in is the
epistemic horizon problem, but I am having a problem locating a statement of
this problem. It is generally treated only as a physics problem.
Now I see what my
If one's mental horizons are
allowed to expand too far, there will be serious consequences. If not
contained, this cognitive process can become quite disabling.
Fortunately, modern medicines and other forms of treatment enable
increasing numbers of us to avoid the worst of these consequences. The
mind's tendency to expand its horizon of meaning can be kept in check.
Our sensitivity to semantic and phonological relationships does not have
to become so acute that we can no longer focus on the problems of
On the other hand, there is the problem of existential
alienation when one's horizon of meaning is arbitrarily circumscribed.
Does this not contribute to Sartre's
Thus it seems that we choose between paranoia and nausea. The only
non-arbitrary, natural (sic) horizon of meaning is just the Telos.
Thus do we see that the Telos provides the only vantage point for reflective
equilibrium for creatures burdened with the power of ratiocination. In
that one stroke is the enterprise of Science rendered ultimately Sisyphean.
Which is not at all to say that Science has not had an absolutely essential
role to play in the historical development that carries humanity from its
premodern to its postmodern posture.
The Telos has a role in human thought that is similar to the
point at infinity or vanishing point in drawings. It need not have an
explicit presence, nonetheless is serves to render coherent the entire work
of art. We may choose to ignore it, all the while taking advantage of
its local supervenience in the tangible realms of immediate interest.
This point at infinity comes into consciousness only when we stop to reflect
upon the coherence of the larger picture. The scientific view of the
world compares with the teleological view, rather as a pre-perspectival
drawing compares with a perspectival drawing. A pre-perspectival
drawing and the scientific view present a subjectless perspective. The
perspectival view, however, explicitly acknowledges the presence of the
subject. The scientific response is atoms swerving in the dark:
castles in the sand.
Presently I'm reading
Supernatural: Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind (2005).
Not a bad read.
Any attempt to formalize or in any other way to restrict the
scope of meaning leads to an artificial horizon of thought. The act of
human genius is simply the refusal to accept artificial horizons. The
act of human spirituality is to recognize the necessary natural horizon of
the ouroboric Telos. Without that cosmic object, there can be no
cosmic subject, and vice-versa. Both are captured in the
dialectic/trinitarian/etc scheme of love. Use or lose it, and we'd
sure look funny without it.
A case in point is
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem:
Later, Roger Penrose entered
the fray, providing somewhat novel anti-mechanist arguments in his
books, The Emperor's New Mind (1989) [ENM] and Shadows of the Mind
(1994) [SM]. These books have proved highly controversial. Martin Davis
responded to ENM in his paper "Is Mathematical Insight Algorithmic?",
where he argues that Penrose ignores the issue of consistency. Solomon
Feferman gives a critical examination of SM in his paper "Penrose's
In that paper, Feferman concedes that mathematics requires a
non-algorithmic understanding, while declining to accede to Penrose that
mathematical reasoning cannot even be represented in algorithmic terms.
One may also say that mathematical understanding, which is necessary for
mathematical reasoning, is necessarily informal or supra-formal.
To put this yet another way, there seems no way to strongly
distinguish mathematical sense from common sense. Common sense is
notoriously non-circumscribable. Nor is there any way to circumscribe
one mathematical specialty from any of the others. There is also a
general consensus that proficiency in mathematics requires an aesthetic
sensibility. Is this not true of any mental proficiency? There
is simply no fine distinction between art and any other mental activity.
This brings us right back to tic-tac-toe. This game is
not a game at all if it is not embedded/embodied in a social context.
Seashells by the seashore engage in tic-tac-toe-like behavior on a sporadic
basis, but we are reasonably sure that nothing is thereby signified.
A final question. I have given the answer already, but
it is worth repeating. Can there exist two or more uncorrelated
semantic webs? The answer is that Nature abhors a vacuum. What
is the vacuum that could separate these two webs? It would be a
magical vacuum, indeed! There can only be one Cosmos. So much
for atoms, monads, strict polytheism, the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM,
modal realism, etc., etc.
Leibniz posited his monads as not having windows.
Could he actually have been that stupid, or is he being misinterpreted??
All intelligible roads (and ex hypothesis there can
be none other) lead to the Singular Semantic Web of the Best Possible World
"Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum strong enough,
and single-handed I can move the world." - Archimedes. We have the
fulcrum, but we're not quite sure where the lever is. I'm suggesting
it is the wired Hollywood. Could Archimedes have conceived of Tinsel
Town? Tomorrow is 11/11/06. Do we really want to wait 'til
From someone we know................
Song: Run Lyrics
I'll sing it
one last time for you
Then we really have to go
You've been the only thing that's right
In all I've done
And I can
barely look at you
But every single time I do
I know we'll make it anywhere
Away from here
Light up, light
As if you have a choice
Even if you cannot hear my voice
I'll be right beside you dear
And we'll run for our lives
I can hardly speak I understand
Why you can't raise your voice to say
To think I
might not see those eyes
Makes it so hard not to cry
And as we say our long goodbye
I nearly do
We don't have time for that
All I want is to find an easier way
To get out of our little heads
Have heart my dear
We're bound to be afraid
Even if it's just for a few days
Making up for all this mess
Back to Graham
may be something more than just a good read.
He raises some issues that I have not properly dealt with.
he explores the history of shamanism, particularly as it relates to the
prehistoric cave paintings found around the world. In his other books,
Graham speaks of a lost civilization. This is an idea that I have
considered in the context of
Hamlet's Mill. In a nutshell, the idea of an ancient
civilization is just the flip-side of our
Kingdoms Come, if you will. It is the Alpha reflecting the
Omega in ouroboric fashion. The shamanic mindset is the repository and
the harbinger of the Alpha/Omega teleology.
What then do we say of Jack S and GN? What is the
technology of teleology? I suppose it is a kind of Transhumanism, but
with a human face. Here we need also consider the Mandelbrot
cosmology. Each sub-world is a mindset, and that includes especially
our own Earth. Our world has the thickest walls. Our minds are
the most set in their ways, the most mesmerized by the 'ordinary'. Our
thick skin is technologically reinforced. Technology has helped to get
us into this hole; can it get us out? The Internet is the primary
technical shadow of the Telos. The various EEGs and CAT scans will
surely help us to redirect our consciousnesses in some coordinated fashion.
I have to be more skeptical about the role of conventional physics, or any
logical extension thereof, in our passage between worlds. Nor would I
advocate a global popping of LSD pills as an eschatological aid. The
eschaton will be primarily a culturally and rationally mediated mind shift.
It cannot be short-circuited with other than disastrous results.
The artificial enhancement of natural portals or star-gates
is where the action will be, or may already be. This stratagem I have
already discussed. Or it might be better to think of this as the
stabilization of relatively spontaneous shamanic processes. This was
done traditionally with tribal ceremonies. This would have to be done
in cooperation with groups of helpful entities, which could include the dear
departed. There must be general limits on the unilateral invasion or
interference in other spaces, as an extension of the Prime Directive.
The eschaton has arrived when the entire Earth functions as a portal.
The veil is then lifted. It would be naive to suppose that human
competition will not extend to these endeavors and realms. Precautions
and restraints will be needed.
A basic problem is to explain the seemingly physical
interactions of non-physical beings. Simple materialization presents a
serious problem for physics. The proto-typical trace phenomenon is the
'fairy ring', the precursor of the modern crop-circle phenomenon.
Another such are the radar traces of UFOs. How might these differ from
the phenomenon of stigmata?
The conveyance of information from one 'dimension' to
another also implies a physical interaction between the two. This
could happen on a quantum level without violating the conservation of
In chapter 19 of Supernatural, Hancock attempts to
enlist DNA as the repository for the shamanic mythos. This is an
ill-conceived gesture toward scientism. In just a few pages his thesis
degenerates from the sublime to the ridiculous. Graham has the choice
of following Jung or following Crick. He falls from the supernatural
to the super-technical. Our mythos has been coded into our 'junk DNA'
since time immemorial by interdimensional genetic engineers, just waiting
for us to discover LSD to unlock the code. No, sorry, our DNA was
fedexed via conventional rocket ship. We segue from Lucy in the Sky to
In chapter 23, Hancock finally comes out against a
reductionist view of the shamanist phenomenology, positing rather an
ontology of other dimensions of existence, i.e. the 'supernatural'.
The issue posed by the ufologists is whether our intercourse with these
other dimensions is purely ideational. They would strongly argue
against this. And so, it would seem, does Graham in his describing the
Fatima and other such encounters. In such situations there would have
to be physical portals or even a more robust overlapping or interpenetration
of the dimensions.
I, more or less, equate the supernatural with the Telos.
Not quite. There are the other worlds or dimensions as represented by
the other, off axis, 'bulbs' in the Mandelbrot scheme, but the central
cardioid would then represent an ultra-dimensional Telos. Something
like Serpo would be one of the other, presumably 'lesser'... less 'dense',
less populated, etc., worlds. I have not attempted to describe the
divine Telos, leaving that to the mystical encounters with the God-head.
At some point there must be a collision between the
teleological and the evolutionary accounts of the world. Give
teleology and inch and it will take a mile. Let teleology get its foot
in the door of reality, and it will take over the whole cosmos. There
is no rational compromise between teleology and materialism, short of
But then in the last ten pages, Graham reverts to his
buck-passing scheme. Rather than positing a Telos, he enlists an
earlier evolving, extraterrestrial species with having been our genetic
engineers. He refuses to choose between the genetic engineering and
the ontological hypotheses. Thus does he avoid facing the
immaterialist consequences of the latter worldview. He simply cannot
face it, and so he persists in his waffling up until the end. The
narrative account is strangely discontinued at the beginning of what was
billed to be Hancock's definitive psychedelic trip.
There will be no point in another waffling account of
shamanism. There will be no point in attempting another preamble to
immaterialism, such as this one. This one is definitive. The
next stop on this path can only be at the BPWH.
In Appendix I, Graham details the last fifteen years of
controversy surrounding the 'neuropsychological', i.e. shamanistic, theory
of cave art. He fails to understand the vehemence of the opposition
facing the shamanistic theory. He fails to do so, because he fails to
comprehend the magnitude of the ontological stakes. It is tantamount
to the landing of a UFO on the White House lawn. The slope from cave
art to alien abductions is a slippery one, indeed!
Further related material comes from Rick
Strassman. He too is
compelled to ascribe ontological status to the entities encountered by half
of the volunteers in his, the first and last, legally sanctioned
experimentation with psychedelics in this generation in the US.
Circumstances and politics contributed to its discontinuation. I
chapter from his book.
We do seem to have two types of portals into the other
dimensions: 'physical' and 'mental'. This sounds like a capitulation
to dualism. How can we bridge this gap? This is THE fundamental
issue, certainly in the context of eschatology, which is our primary
One may distinguish two types of psychedelic experience:
dream-like and waking. The usual experience is the former, when one
becomes unconscious of one's normal surroundings. In the latter type,
the psychedelic effects seem to intrude, more or less spontaneously, into
one's normal surroundings. The next step toward 'physicality' is then
the folie a deux. I am not aware of such experiences being
other than purely spontaneous. A relatively rare exception is in the
case of coordinated lucid dreaming, but then we have reverted to a
quasi-dreamscape. Another exception is in the case of a poltergeist
phenomena, even such as at a spoon-bending party. Collective hypnosis
(C/H) is not difficult to achieve, but the results are difficult to verify
The collective hypnotic model is perhaps our most robust
model for understanding the intersection of otherwise independent realities,
given that our normal 'reality' is only one such. Under (collective?)
sensory deprivation or disruption we become open to other domains of
intersubjective phenomena. Waking alien encounters may then be
deliberate intrusions into the communal trance state that we call the Earth.
Space travel is one well-documented means of weakening those
inter-subjective bonds. Just ask BJ, who was responsible for
debriefing the astronauts.
In the C/H model, 'spiritual density' and physical
'regularity' could readily be related to population density taken for the
whole world. I have discussed this model previously, but I have not
yet found the links. Indeed, I find no variation of 'hypnosis' on the
website. I will have to make amends. I am more than a little
surprised by this unexpected omission.
What I do find on the website is 'mesmerized', e.g. see
pokatok model for Creation is another
version of the C/H model. The Hindu concept of
maya is closely related to the C/H model, which exists without all of
the negative connotations of the former.
While we are recapping, I would suggest that the alien
reproduction phenomenon, as reported particularly by many female abductees,
may provide some insights into the phenomenological origins of biological
reproduction cycles, in general.
The CHM is, per force, a corollary of the BPWH.
Breaking that hypnotic hold is the task of the Y2X.
The reproductive cycle is simply the mother of all cycles.
It is inherent in the ouroboric 'cycle', with the proviso that the latter is
actually a singular circuit. We could say that some form of biological
cycle is the conceptual prototype of the ouroboros.
Here we are at Deep Creek Lake with a password protected 4K
dialup jobbie. I won't try to update the blog 'til we get back to
Baltimore. In the meantime I can use this as a scratch pad for emails.
There is an ongoing discussion with TF concerning the
reality of contact. He argues with Dawkins that religions are the
result of viral memes that are self replicating.
We might ask about the context of this discussion. I
labor under the impression that there is a serious phenomenological problem.
This is what I have been told by CF. In contrast, TF claims there is a
serious viral meme phenomenon. The remedy, Rx, is vastly different in
these two cases.
I wonder if TF will be willing to engage in this hopefully
If TF is not willing, then I guess it will be a one sided
If this is not a matter of national security, then I will stand corrected.
This discussion continues without benefit of TF.
Then we have to wonder if CF will contribute.
I maintain that Hancock and Strassman have effectively
demonstrated that the only rational explanation of shamanism and the
prehistoric cave paintings is an actual contact with alien intelligences.
Where do 'we' sit wrt phenomenology in general and contact
in particular? 'We' includes especially the Aviary. There are
now only two skeptics in the Aviary: TF and CF. TF has come to
his skepticism only within the last few years. This only after lending
his imprimatur to the opus that became Collins' EfD book, which endorsement
is still on display there. He continues to be a public supporter of
Rick Doty and all his many tales. This latter continuing support seems
now strangely at odds with his turnabout on the Core Story and on the
premise of contact in general. What is the rationale? What is
the explanation for TF's public pronouncements?
It does seem that TF is severely conflicted. How much
of this conflict is personal, and how much is political? CF tries to
make out that TF is psychologically unstable and veridically challenged.
I kid you not about this. Of course, according to CF, CF is the only
sane and truthful person in the world. Nonetheless, in the case of TF,
CF has been unstinting and especially detailed in his unfavorable diagnosis.
Even so, this position of CF relative to TF is likely to be strongly colored
by political exigencies. This is not to say that CF is anything like
your normal political denizen of the Beltway. If he were even slightly
normal he would long ago have foresworn all avian/aquarium associations.
But this has certainly not happened, nor does it even seem to be in the
What is going on here? Is there not some kind of avian
evolution? The birds have always been players. There has always
been an unofficial sanction for these birdgames. The quasi-official
side of the aviary has tracked increasingly with the career track of CF.
This track has occasionally been reputed to be stellar, but those
imputations remain unverifiable. Nonetheless, the original sanction
has and will only gain in it's quasi-official status, rather like an
increasingly established public right of access into the bowels of MJ-12,
all in the interest of acclimation to Kingdoms Come (NWO?).
In this context, TF becomes the lead trickster. The
prime shape-shifter. That is about as close as I can come to a
rationale for the recent gyrations in this perennial soap opera.
I am still of the opinion that the logical outlet for for
this soap opera is tinseltown. But at this point GN has a death grip
on the A/A access to TT, with the possible exception of J&VA. I had
been assigned to baby-sit for GN, but in a weak moment I fronted a modicum
of cash, which sum spoilt my role as parentis in locus. CF is
now back again holding that bag. Sorry 'bout that.
Meanwhile the ufology crowd remains deathly afraid of the
shamanistic perspective on their bailiwick. They refuse to
accept any mentalistic, paranormal, non-technological, tricksterish
interpretation of their beloved nuts & bolts spaceships. They are wont
to ignore odd and inconvenient socio-political details such as CF
supplementing his meager scholarship funds with vampire performances.
This is exactly how modern society manages to ignore the
postmodernists. There is no rhyme or reason beyond the atoms swerving
in the dark. Well, there are plenty of rhymes in the fundamentalist
scriptures, but precious little reason. The semantic vacuum left by
materialism is easily filled by the bible pounders, the more shrill, the
better. There is no competition.
The A/A microcosm is left with a heavy social burden to
bear. Almost by definition, there can be no competition. The US,
amongst all nations, does retain its manifest (masonic?) destiny amongst the
stars. Poor little Pelican is left holding that bag, as well: the
hopes and fears of all the years, in the hands of a vampire impersonator!
Pelican is the albatross around the necks of the ufologists. All ufo
roads lead to Area 51. DIA/MASINT is the PR office for Area 51, viz.
especially Serpo, which may be about to resurface after a less than stellar
debut. RD/Falcon is probably back in that mix, contra his probationary
NMSHP status, but now on an even shorter leash than before. TF is the
wild card in the A/A deck. Just imagine typhoid Mary with an MD and an
NMRI. Wisely, perhaps, he refuses to debate the merits of mimetics vs.
shamanism. He can easily hide behind his exclusive access to the
NAS/NRC Tiger Committee. CF refuses to level the playing field by even
so much as allowing SF a parking coupon for the NAS. I remain the
demented uncle in the attic. And TF still sees fit to complain about
these paltry and obscure scribblings.
In Oakland yesterday I picked up two books:
Mysteries of the Middle Ages - The rise of feminism, science and art
from the cults of Catholic Europe - by Thomas Cahill (2006), The Left
Hand of God - Taking back our country from the religious right - by
Michael Lerner (2006).
These two books may be seen as cautionary addendas to
Hancock's Supernatural. They outline the very hard historical
lesson that we had to learn in the process of our being weaned from the
cosmic tit. This is the lesson very conveniently forgotten by our New
This very same lesson now needs to be learned by the nuts &
bolts (physicalist/materialist/ufology) crowd. Shamans had us feeding
off the Big Tit for the millennia that it took us to learn our ABCs.
With the alphabet came monotheism and/or pantheism. It was the jealous
paternalistic God who severed our cord to the cosmic/pantheist Mother and
her Zodiacal/Mandelbrot, often fratricidal, brood.
It required the incarnation of the favored Son, to bring the
mariological Mother in the ecclesiastical back door. And so Sophia
tamed the patriarchal excesses of the Hebraic/Islamic/Fundamentalists.
Sophia/Orpheus, in the guise of Scientia, finally left us the cosmic,
existentialist Orphans, having to reckon with the absurdity of life in a
This brings us to the cosmic precipice that we now face.
Modernism has brought us to this existential brink. There is a
tremendous undertow that pulls us back into the premodern
tribalism/shamanism/totemism. It is our Islamic brethren who, never
having experienced the modern, except in the most vicarious, insubstantial
fashion, are most susceptible to this undercurrent. It is they who
most ardently raise the black flag of an eschatological nihilism, followed
not too distantly by their Christian, unwittingly co-conspiring,
This brings us back to the A/A microcosm. The
fundamentalist branch is presently being represented by TF & RS. There
is an older Xian contingent going back to DG, EK and JM, the latter two
coming out of Kirtland AFB, then EK connecting with DG at W/PAFB.
There is rumored to be a larger invisible contingent of Xians in the MJ-12
orbit. This is the Avian axis of resistance to the Aquarium/Y2X/KC
initiative. They rightly see this initiative as being part of, or
susceptible to, an Anti-X/NWO gambit.
It is not too surprising that the Xian axis wishes to remain
anonymous. They are content to blackball the Aquarium from the
shadows, definitely avoiding any dialog. A possible switch hitter here
is RH. He was reported by CF to have come around to an aquarium agenda
some months ago, but then fell of the radar screen. Might he have been
waylaid by TF/RS?
What we do continue to see are the attempts of TF/RS to
undermine any Hollywood/KC/DI/GN gambit. In the microcosmic fishbowl,
the role of CF remains strictly C/I. His job is to keep the thumbs of
any pre-programmed outsiders off of these fish-scales. This is part of
our untouchability. There will be no tilting of this playing field.
Nature takes its course, slowly, inevitably. The opposition is brought
to the end of their tether. There is no stopping the slippery slide to
Here the term 'disclosure' may be used in its most generic
sense. It can simply mean the spontaneous demise of materialism and
dualism. There need be no substance to the 'core story'. That
story may have been a deliberate hoax; it will make no difference in the
larger scheme. This would constitute a strict adherence to the Prime
Directive. Even if there never were any Magi, the pre-eschatological
Millennium, the pre-millennial Y2X may unfold unimpeded.
Humanity cannot escape its rendezvous with its own inherent
divinity. We are closer to that divinity than any angel ever hoped to
be. Not even Satan could know more about evil than do we. Having
committed every possible evil, we have nowhere else to go. The
fundamentalists wish nothing more than to be left to wallow in their own
sinfulness, until the trumpets sound. They will be the very last to
see their own inner light.
Is there any irony to the necessity that nearly every
possible evil must be committed in the best possible world? This is
simply the other side of the 'prime directive' coin. Must the PD be
sacrosanct? We cannot truly see the light without confronting the
heart of darkness. It is that which makes us stronger than the angels.
We are given no choice, but to rise to the ultimate challenge of our own
salvation. That this apokatastasis is logically inevitable does not
detract from its metaphysical import. Our self-salvation is the
logical outcome of the ultimate self-sacrifice of God. That is the
pearl of great price.
When we finally grow tired of being ignorant and doing evil,
we will have nowhere to turn but to salvation. The angels and aliens
will be instrumental in the salvational economy, but we will provide the
salvific brains and brawn. The historical sacrifice of God is a
singular event. The Earth is God's better mouse trap. The cosmos
beats a path to our doorstep. This is Her legacy to us. The
message directed to us from the stars is 'God help us'! That is the one
request we cannot refuse. And who do I think I am to possibly get away
with stating this? Chicken Little!
The historical fact is that the 'official' secrecy, once
enforced by the national intelligence apparatus, has been privatized to a
latter-day Xian cabal who see themselves as holding their collective finger
in the dike against an onrushing tide of satanic forces from beyond what
little is left of the Xian pale here on Earth. We are left with the
nearly anonymous silence of the imperial catacombs. That is all except
for the residual chirpings and gurglings of the A/A.
Has the Visitors' trail grown cold? Were there never
any visitors in the first place? Visitors? Yes. There have
always been such. Did they manage to penetrate the inner sanctum of
the National Security regime? Certainly to some substantial degree.
No security fence has ever held them at bay. One could even say that
they find nothing more enticing than a locked door. But was there ever
a coherent message from our starry messengers? Likely not.
It was the task of the Phenomenology Network to extend
itself into a Civil Phenomenology Patrol, thus the A/A and their many
extensions. We are the latter-day Josephs, wearing our Technicolor
dream-coats, interpreting the alien 'dreams' of Pharaoh. We too were
virtually abducted into this imperial service. The message finally is
in the medium. The last bird chirping gets this worm. Chicken
Little is the energizer chick in the chirping department. The only
competition is JS, GN and RD. Someone of the DI ilk may get to decide
the winner, that is if the Xian Cabal releases its death-grip on the
time-honored A/A conduit to Tinseltown.
The religious soul, of whatever persuasion, has been badly
buffeted by modernity. It has acquired a very thick shell. It
will not be easily coaxed out of its shell of fundamentalism and/or
mysticism. Nonetheless, that will be the job of the Y2X advent.
Postmodernism is helping to soften the shell, in proportion to the weakening
of the pall of materialist orthodoxy. That orthodoxy will probably
never recover from its conflation with the Marxist creed, but it has endured
a long bout of sclerosis. It survives now as the only historical
alternative to fundamentalism. The recent electoral defeat of the
'moral majority' in the US midterm election does provide breathing space for
a liberal religious revival. We speak here of a so-called 'progressive
christianity'. It is a tribute to the Xian spirit that, unlike
virtually any other religious tradition, the term 'progressive' may be
appended to it in a non-oxymoronic fashion.
The soul of this movement for social justice was
resurrected most recently in the abolitionist movement, mainly in the US.
This movement was commandeered by the socialists in the 19th century.
But the collapse of secular liberalism globally in the latter half of the
20th century, leaves its spiritual core as its last remnant. Will this
spark reignite spontaneously? I suggest not.
Why the pessimism? The spark of social justice was
last ignited by the euphoria of the nascent confluence of the movement
toward liberty and scientia coming out of the Renaissance. The
rationale of this movement was utterly destroyed by Social Darwinism.
Fundamentalism was the only possible religious counter to Darwinism.
The political conservatives naturally co-opted that reactionary force to
their own ends. Only now is that co-optation running out of steam in
the US. Read Cahill's Mysteries for a well articulated summary
of the Xian roots of Western progressivism. No such spark animates the
other traditions. But the tinder remains drenched in the leavings of
materialism. I do not foresee an entirely spontaneous combustion.
Thus a minimalist Visitation in the spirit of the Prime
Directive. That Visitation deftly drove a stake into the heart of the
beast of modern materialism and the power structure that has grown up around
it. That Golem now stumbles aimlessly, soullessly. The A/A is a
terrarium where a cosmic seed may be allowed to sprout. Will that
sapling stand up to its inevitable scrutiny? Only one way to find out.
The only issue is the trigger for that scrutiny. Is CF somehow the
delayed political fuse? What trick may be up that sleeve? Does
anyone know or care to speculate?
You can be entertaining at times, but this exercise is not strictly for
I am here primarily at the behest of the US intelligence officer who is
in charge of tracking ‘phenomenology’.
You are here as the ex-officio representative of the (fringe?) physics
community, in its belated effort to provide a physical explanation for a
panoply of previously unexplained phenomena.
By your own admission, you have failed to provide any adequate
explanation for all but possibly a very small subset of such
‘paranormal’ phenomena. It is not even clear that you have been able to
make a case for the conceivability of a ‘physical’ explanation.
It does not appear that you or your fringe physics colleagues are making
any progress in persuading the scientific establishment even to take a
second look at these phenomena. Debunking remains the response of choice
for this establishment.
That does not mean that the Phenomenology Group wants you and your
colleagues to give up your quest. It won’t hurt for you to keep trying,
even against all odds. ‘Damn the torpedoes,’ you like to say. It might
be more realistic to be saying, ‘Damn reality,’ but realism in these
phenomenal domains is not your strong suit.
Let me also remind you, Jack, that if, per chance, God does exist, She
does not do so by your leave. You claim to find the concept of God to be
personally repugnant. By holding such a belief, you represent a
vanishingly small fraction even of the scientific community.
Show me one person, even amongst your fellow travelers, who would claim
that there is no conceivable manner of God/Creator that would be
preferable to taking our pot-luck in the Big-Bang/ Many-World lottery.
This is an absurdist position that we ought to suppose is simply a
gimmick for what you suppose is our entertainment.
But I remind you, Jack, this is not about our personal preferences; this
is alleged to be about national security.
And what might God have to do with national security? A lot of things.
First and foremost, there may be a ‘divine’ plan for the world. It would
not behoove us to disregard any such plan. Even if the powers-that-be
did not like the plan laid out for us, they would be well-advised to be
cognizant of what the possibly higher powers might already have in mind.
Only thus might the PtB attempt a work-around.
Failing a viable work-around, the PtB would do their level best to keep
their thumb in that pie. I submit that I am that thumb, or am some sort
of proxy or decoy for said ‘thumb’. To some approximation it would also
be my job to represent those Fat Kats, but I don’t suppose that would be
the end of it.
This is where I am. If this is not what I’m supposed to be doing ‘here’,
then I have been frequently encouraged to labor under a false flag over
a rather large number of years.
The Revelation of the Kingdoms Come will come as a shock, even to the
most spiritual amongst us. No community will be more shocked than the
scientific community. I am placed here to hold that hand and practice my
best bedside manner. If you have a problem with that, then you ought to
consult with CF.
They’re right; the squeaky wheel does get the oil, or is it the one
sheep in ninety-nine that strays.
Evidently, David, you hate the very concept of God. I don’t know of
anyone who has made it past Theology 101, who does not take it as a
truism that we are nothing other than a temporary and illusory extension
of the trinity, or, more crudely, that we are one with God.
It is logically impossible for the atheist to hate God. Otherwise, to
hate God is tantamount to hating oneself. I say this out of no sense of
pity, but simply as the baldest expression of theo-logic.
What does it mean to hate oneself? I have been with you on several
occasions. I generally see a hale fellow, well met. It may well be that
you feel that you have failed to live up to certain of your
expectations, or having managed to meet your own expectations, you feel
that you have failed to meet others’ expectations, and so on.
In short, you may feel that God has not done right by you. But doesn’t
everybody entertain such doubts on a daily basis, and yet 99/100 go
right on loving God, also on a more or less daily basis.
Perhaps the problem lies closer to home. I doubt that you go around with
a sign in public, proclaiming your hate for God. It does seem then that
I have a peculiar knack for triggering that feeling and expression in
This could indicate several things. First it indicates that, although
you may not take me seriously, at least you credit me for doing so. But,
no, you must partake of some of my seriousness, because clearly you are
seriously perturbed by my elocutions. You do not see fit just to laugh
me and my posturings off the stage. Come to think of it, that is the one
thing that has not transpired in this little sojourn. T’is a minor
It does seem rather like you have a score to settle with God, and, lo’
and behold, guess who shows up on your doorstep?!
But wait, what is the point of these slings and arrows? The vast bulk of
humanity, directly or vicariously, knows deep down that we have already
performed the crucifixion thingy. I also credit you with knowing that,
on some level of your historical/Jungian being.
I don’t suppose that you are so obtuse as to want to bring more coal to
I am trying to see things from your perspective. You may be trying to
see things from mine, and not quite getting it. You may realize, deep
down, that there is a phenomenon here that calls for an explanation, and
you are frustrated in your failure to find one.
If you could understand what makes Dan tick, that would settle it.
Let me see if I can help. What you and others may find to difficult to
believe is that somewhere behind these posturings there is not at least
a modicum of willfulness. That is probably the reason for the slings and
arrows: scratch the surface and see what emerges. I hate to appoint or
disappoint you, but it is just turtles all the way down. Yes, it is
WYSIWYG. After this sojourn, that acronym will probably have to be
What I think I come by honestly is the truth. Being the Spirit of the
Truth is not terribly far fetched, if I am right about the immaterialism
and the eschatology, and that is not nearly as big an if as many would
like to think. That was practically a no-brainer. It is the Messianic
thingy that may induce sweaty palms and a dry throat. From day one, I
knew there would likely be some confusion about the latter-day roles of
the third and second persons. That is until c. 1995 when CF & SF were
named in an, oh so, casual remark. Three persons in one substance is
supposed to be the formula. But it could as well be 10^10 persons in one
substance. It’s all just one big multiple-personality disorder. More
precisely it is a personality reordering or ‘recycling’. The quotes are
to indicate that this is not a quantitative cycle; it is rather a
singular, qualitative, ouroboric loop of ‘time’. The First shall be Last
and the Last shall be First. Alpha = Omega.
Whatever may be the problem, David, between you and God, it will get
worked out in the end, or my name isn’t Dan.
One (2?) last point(s) before we turn to the below:
The power of God and the Spirit is real; it is more real than TNT. Like
TNT, it must be handled with care, and all too often, out of sheer
ignorance and occasional malice, it is not. When it is mishandled, many
suffer, seemingly unnecessarily. Does that mean, however, that we can or
should renounce the Spirit? Science has been one very long exercise in
spiritual renunciation, and look where that has gotten us: bigger and
Given that there is to be something, at least, vaguely recognizable as a
messianic second coming, to whom would we entrust such an advent?
Why not the proverbial saucer landing on the White House lawn? That
would meet most of our expectations. Come to think of it, that is almost
exactly what did happen. What you see unfolding here is just a
considerably delayed reaction to that event.
The next stop may be Hollywood; at least that is my present inclination.
[Dan] "I do believe that the very worst characteristics ascribed to God
were simply lifted straight out of the 'old testament'."
Oh, really?! You reveal your bias with that
remark Chum. It just so
happens that your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance. Listen
Who was it who said that the child should not suffer for the sins of
the father and vice versa? Jesus? NO! That was Ezra the Lawgiver. It
is he who contradicted the nearly global belief that punishment for
sins should be applied to one's family and descendants.
How long have the Christians continued to apply this barbaric idea to
the Jews for supposedly killing Christ? The title 'old testament' is
a Christian invention. The Jews do not call it old as if it had been
superceded by something new, which is an egotistical way of taking
center stage. The Moslems have done the same thing and it's bunk.
David. This, too, should be a no-brainer. Well, maybe not quite! It is
actually a brainer.
This is simply the difference between theism and pantheism, to wit:
The pantheist/materialist/transhumanist would prefer to fly in an
airplane that is on automatic pilot. This would be certainly one way to
solve the problem of hijackings.
When the pantheist meets God on the path, he is under strict orders to
kill Her. So it would be better to think of me as a hijacker, in
connivance with the CIA, all in the interest of ‘national security’,
Wait, where were we?
<< …..which is an egotistical way of taking
center stage. >>
Egotistical? Yes, the CIA has aided and abetted my attempt to purloin
the messianic persona from the Jews. Shame on me! The question I put to
you, David, is, if you were God, how would You rather handle the all too
evident global messianic fever and expectations that were caused, in no
small part, by Your alleged historical machinations? Do you dare to
second guess the CIA?
True story: The day before his assassination, I confronted RFK
concerning the ‘Population Bomb’, you may recall his eleven offspring.
His rather annoyed response was, “You handle it!!”
And how do you know what the God of Jesus
was? The God of Jesus was
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of Christianity, or let
me put it this way, the Three headed polytheistic faith called
Christianity is posing as a monotheist faith, it is more like
Hinduism, with innumerable demigods. Basically, a pagan faith, perfect
for the degraded Greeks of the Roman era. Pericles and the rest were
"Are you claiming, David, that such a being is not conceivable?"
Sure, it's conceivable, many people conceive
of just such a God, but
it's fiction. Just like the Greek romances that form the subtext of
"I would go further and state that any other such Creator would be
Only to those of limited imagination. I can
certainly conceive of
other creators. Read Olaf Stapledon's 'Starmaker'.
You are nit-picking here. Do you really suppose that God would have
created so many people, if, deep down, She were not a people person?
Yes, on occasion, She has man-handled us, but has that not been, at the
very least, a collective form of ‘tough love’? And did she even spare
Her own Son, for God’s sake??
Sam et alia,
<< We would be naive indeed if we too easily dismissed the concept of a
technological god thing at this juncture when we haven't even figured
out what the hell Dark Matter/Energy are, and we have no idea how far a
living being can evolve technologically in this universe yet. >>
What most of you physicalists/technologists fail to appreciate is the
actuality of mind over matter, as in the simplest of PK phenomena.
There is only one mystery that really counts, and that is the mystery of
Sam implicitly espouses here transhumanism. That implies a teleology
that is focused on the power of the mind to transcend nature. This, in
turn, implies that the mind is an essential aspect of reality. It is not
an accidental or epiphenomenal aspect nature.
If you accept that reality is essentially a mind oriented, teleological
system, then it is natural to posit the fact of mind over matter. That
is no longer a mystery. It is simply the basis for any conscious system.
This is simply to say that VALIS (Vast Active Living Intelligence
System) is not an accidental byproduct of the world, but is at the heart
There is no way to avoid this logical deduction. If you see a way, then
please spell it out.
This simple deduction is the basis of the BPW hypothesis. QED.
Subject: Re: The measurement and signature of the
You are fixated with the idea of dismissing the phenomenological carrot
on the stick that drives us forward, in favor of direct consultation
with the master(s) that placed it there.
I have already been there, done that.
The stick, nevertheless, continues to serve a vital purpose. Without the
stick we would cease chasing after the dream(times) and give up our
That would appear to defeat the entire purpose of a 'virtual' reality,
or am I wrong here?
The non-local mind and many worlds suggest that any shift away from
following the reality stick will only bring about passage into a
different world, no more and no less. If we already inhabit the BPW,
then any shift into 'elsewhere' or 'elsewhen' would be a step for the
worse, don't you agree?
Are you suggesting a rebellion against the powers of the heavens, the
same that sought fit to place us in the BPW ?
You are raising a valid issue, as best as I am able to decipher your
What I am saying to you and to others trying to push the scientific
envelope to encompass the teleological dimension is that you will not be
able to get there from here; that is, not without a better understanding
of the carrot, to use your analogy.
I can best explain this epistemological problem with an analogy from the
Your donkey and carrot analogy dismisses the fundamental idea of theism,
which is that we are created in the image of the Creator(VALIS?). This
fact tells us that we must always be trying to think and act like God.
Keep this in mind as we examine our present predicament or challenge.
We appear to have reached a very critical and unprecedented point in our
history. This is true from many perspectives, be they scientific,
political, existential, spiritual, etc., etc.
It is as if we have come to a precipice, the brink of our existence.
There is no clear way forward.
Can we stop dead in our tracks? That hardly seems possible. Human
history is the story of our Long March. None of us has the power to halt
this parade. We can only attempt to bridge the chasm before us. The fog
is thick. We cannot see the other side; we cannot see the bottom.
(NASA was an attempt at an escape plan. It seems rather too little, too
late, and probably ill-conceived, too 'linear' in its vision.)
Like the shaman of a 'threatened' jungle village, we consult the
oracles. The spirits bring mixed messages. The most consistent message
is that we must consult our own innermost spirit, i.e. God is within.
The upshot of these machinations is quite simple, What would God (have
The BPWH is just my attempt to answer that question. I construct the
simplest coherent cosmology that can be obtained from the sum-total of
our historical wisdom, to-date.
Back to the engineering analogy: the bridge across the chasm.
Theism tells us that there will come a 'judgment' day. The vast majority
of humanity believes this, in one form or another. I, for one, do not
place my own intuitions above those of 90% of humanity. Rest assured
that some sort of cosmic intervention this way is headed.
The least apocalyptic intervention scenario would be the 'bridge'
design. That is what I am attempting to replicate/anticipate with the
There must be an advanced team that can establish a foothold on the far
side. That is what the Aquarium is about. Going to the other side to
establish the beachhead from which a lifeline can be suspended and then
a bridge constructed over the chasm from our space-time world to beyond
space time on the far side of the chasm.
That bridge is our only alternative to a physical apocalypse on the near
side, in the near term. The way to avoid a physical apocalypse is to be
open to a mental/spiritual apocalypse/revolution. The Visitation was to
prepare us for this revolution.
(to be continued...)
Gary and Caryn,
So we have arrived here at our historical watershed, with its combined
spiritual, material and scientific crises, an existential abyss, a
global clash of cultures, etc. Pure science appears to have run out of
answers for our multiple predicaments. Politicians fare no better.
Those of us on the intellectual/spiritual margins look to something like
VALIS (non-local mind) for a clue. We readily detect strong intimations
of extra-mundane agendas.
It is most natural to take a Jungian slant on VALIS. It has impacted our
cultural traditions up to the advent of our scientific, analytical,
reductionist enterprise. VALIS is the veridical source of what is
We can only suppose that our own minds must, to some degree, reflect
VALIS. If there is a deeper, nearly subconscious coherence in the human
mind, it represents our most likely point of access into VALIS. That
slender thread of coherence is our one known lifeline to the far shore
of the existential abyss that we confront.
Within the human spiritual tradition there is the one great divide
between theism and pantheism. If our Jungian thesis about VALIS is
correct, there must be a coherent synthesis of these two traditions.
That historically neglected synthesis must contain the long sought
philosophers' stone that is the singular, unified foundation for the
wisdom of the ages.
I submit that VALIS is simply Pantheos, i.e. the God that is everywhere.
Our job now is just to look for the footprints of Pantheos.
The most likely place to look for these footprints will be in the
universal aspects of the human mind. These should include the universal
aspects of language, aesthetics, morality, and, of course, mathematics.
Furthermore, the positing of Pantheos provides a solution for the
unsolved problems on the frontiers of science, all of which appear to be
pointing in a pan-Theist direction. I'm referring to the Anthropic
principle, to the unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics, to the
organic nature of mathematics, to the unreasonable power of mathematical
genius, to the mind-body problem, to the shamanic origins of our
historical cultures, to the origins of life, to mention the most
VALIS/Pantheos provides a coherent, unifying answer to these looming
scientific anomalies. Pantheos is nothing more nor less than the
ultimate unifying field theory.
Correlating VALIS with the anomalies of science cannot fail to give us
an insight into its nature. Clearly it must be embedded in the fabric of
reality, i.e. in the mental, physical and biological components of
reality. Should we not posit that VALIS is simply the foundation of the
world? It is the creative principle behind all existence.
Then we must ask, from 'whence' came this non-localizable VALIS? The
answer is not difficult to discern. VALIS/Pantheos is the ultimate,
cosmic bootstrap principle. It is the logical precursor of all
localizable existence. Space and time, for instance, must be counted
amongst its byproducts. VALIS 'exists' beyond space and time. It has no
origin. Like the Ouroboros/bootstrap it is logically self-originating.
This sounds terribly abstract. What does this have to do with the here
and now? It has almost everything to do with the crises presently facing
our civilization. It is what lies on the far side of the existential
precipice we now face. It is the cosmic mind upon which we must focus
our own minds in order to bridge the chasm before us.
Our visitors are another manifestation of this cosmic lifeline, that and
nothing more. They are not our rescuers bringing lifeboats to take us to
planet X. They are only here to facilitate our awakening to our cosmic
situation. They can contribute to our gnosis of Pantheos, but only to
the extent that we realize that our primary access to Pantheos is within
ourselves, both individually and collectively. Our ultimate destination
is 'dimension x', if you will.
There you have the most basic elements of our present situation. We have
'merely' to connect these dots. To play the 'game' that confronts us, we
will have to have a full deck of cards. There are many players in this
arena who cherish and hoard their own pieces of the cosmic pie. But to
eat their pie they will have to find their places at the table. That
requires a unifying vision.
Per Jack's suggestion, I am presently reading
Both of these papers deal with the problem of non-locality:
the first in QM, the second in GR. The issue before us is whether
these two problems are somehow related. The further issue would then
be whether both of these problems point to the larger holographic problems
pointed to by M. Talbot and K. Pribram independently. All of these
problems leave a rather large opening for a VALIS version of a 'hidden
variables' interpretation of physics. All of this is to say that
physics is a phenomenological theory rather than ontological. There is
a deeper, non-local, 'informational' layer.
The above, fairly standard speculation is a just bare step
away from the BPWH. The BPWH is the only way to avoid the logical
absurdities of of infinite modal worlds. I do not have a problem with
infinity, per se, as along as it is essential to a qualitative semantic web.
There can be no separate realities, because there can be no real separation,
without an infinite regress. A cognizable semantic web is the
unavoidable universal glue and solvent.
Then Jack calls to complain about Eric Julien and Gordon.
We agree that the technology is premature, at best, and that the 'physics'
is ill-founded, at best.
The we get onto Bousso and Hepburn. We agree that
these lead to VALIS, and I enquire as to the difference between VALIS and
God. Jack insists that I watch his
video, produced by Sam Arnold, which I transcribe below, reproduced with
- Sarfatti-Causation (c) (R)
- No joke about 1953 either
- Consciousness, Cosmology and Gravity
- Think of <A,B|x,x'> as an advanced wave from the future
- and <x,x'|A,B> as a retarded wave coming from the past.
- VALIS = Einstein, Podolski, Rosen tensor product of
- the Mindscapes of all transient, conscious minds
- The facts are: signal nonlocality exists in living matter.
- Is consciousness some kind of physical field
- that can couple strongly to the fabric of space-time itself?
- You cannot reach the stars without dark energy powered vehicles
- [or] dark energy stabilized star gates.
- The boundary between fact and fiction is not as sharp as it once
- Because of signal nonlocality violating micro-quantum mechanics,
- the parts of the whole can be aware of each other.
- I suspect there are discarnate cosmic scale intelligences like
- Vast Active Living Intelligence Systems.
- I get attacked by both sides: the debunkers [and] true
- I am even skeptical about my own crazy ideas.
- The question is: are they crazy enough to be true?
- If you have a will to survive, there is no choice but metric
- warp and wormhole to achieve Timothy Leary's SMI2LE:
- Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Life Extension.
- Do not seek, VALIS will find you.
- ODLRO [off-diagonal long range order]:
- Space-time fabric is spun out of the super-conscious mind of God
- VALIS not God [!?]
I have no problem up that last point, the one that I raised with Jack
on the phone.
We agree that VALIS is very likely to have the capacity to
restrain Susskind's Landscape of possible worlds associated with the 10^500
mathematically possible versions of string theory.
But given that VALIS is able to constrain the ontological
profligacy of the mathematical possibilities of physics, and given the
Cosmological Anthropic Principle, then how far are we away from something
looking a lot like the BPWH??
The basic bootstrap principle of the BPWH requires that all
sentience participates in the cosmic mind:
<<VALIS = Einstein, Podolski,
Rosen tensor product of the Mindscapes of all transient, conscious minds
Perhaps the most basic notion of the BPWH is that the
space-time manifold is a projection of the cosmic consciousness:
<< According to
ODLRO[/VALIS]: the Space-time fabric is spun out of the super-conscious mind
Given all of this, then I am failing to find any logical
distinction between Jack's version of VALIS and the cosmic
intelligence/Telos of the BPWH. The only real distinction between the
latter being and the God of traditional theism is the degree to which we are
perceived to be separate from each other and from that being. I
suggest that the separation between ourselves and between us and God is
mainly a matter of perspective.
Thus do we see a convergence between the wisdom of the
s/ages and the deepest insights of modern science. This should be a
cause for celebration. It should indicate that we are close to the
completion of our intellectual sojourn. All in all, it should be no
great surprise. We are finally drawing nigh to our Destiny
Jack mentioned on the phone another cute idea that he
derives from Bousso (p. 45). The IQ (informational entropy) of
God/Cosmos varies as the inverse of the cosmological constant. Our
cosmic 1/Lambda = 10^120, which is rather far above the genius level of
1.4x10^2. Presumably, however, we can make up for our individual
deficiencies tuning into the clear signal God channel, to whatever extent
possible. Practice makes perfect. We could easily settle for a
few crumbs off that plate. Will this compensate for my
Where Jack and I may still differ is on the technological
front. I am rather more skeptical there than is he. The issue at
hand is that of the design of portals or 'star-gates'. Jack
hypothesizes that dark matter must be used to construct such portals,
whereas the BPWH posits that cosmic intercourse is mediated by mind over
matter, as is everything else, ultimately. Creation, such as it is, is
a mental construct, after all. This is simply in accord with the
definition of immaterialism.