I aim ultimately for coherence. Not, in the first instance, for a coherence of exposition, but rather for a coherence of the subject matter. My cosmology is organic. The phenomenological cosmos is a living organism, albeit an immaterial one, which I attempt to understand, not from an analytical or biological perspective, but from a biographical perspective. The coherence toward which I aim is that of the 'metanarrative'. But we live in the postmodern era. It is the sworn duty of every postmodernist to disallow and deconstruct any such construct. The BPW hypothesis, if it were ever to come to their attention, would be regarded as just an atavistic piece of intellectual hegemony -- something quite distasteful or even boorish. Political correctness is to be found only in an absolute pluralism, oxymoronic though that may be.
This is a powerful current to be swimming against. It is a lonely struggle, even as measured on the scale of Google's global purview. How can such an off-the-charts effort not be dismissed as that of a crank? A good question, that one.
My only defense against the putative label of 'crank' is my purported coherence. Purported, I say, because, quite admittedly, the existing website is nothing short of disjointed. The BPW hypothesis is and will remain for the indefinite future a work, hopefully, in progress. I can hardly imagine that there will not be written more than one book on this topic, but don't be looking for my name on any of them. I have my little thing going here with Sophia, and the last thing I need are the distractions of publication. Every morning I can wake up to a clean slate in my blog, and that is how it must be.
Dear Diary, I have submitted an informal request for a review of the BPWH. I await a response. Without prejudging the outcome of the immediate request, it might be beneficial, nonetheless, for me to use this space to draft some follow-up material.
My request addresses the problem of 'phenomenology'. The putative reviewer is likely to have some background in that area of collection. This approach does raise anew the issue of Aquarium protocol. The subject of uncorrelated phenomena is controversial. More than half of our citizens believe that the government has been less than forthcoming concerning this type of information. My correspondent is the only official who has admitted responsibility for its collection.
My understanding is that you have responsibility for tracking 'uncorrelated' phenomena. I gather that you do this on a very ad hoc basis. For the last quarter century I have been struggling with the theoretical side of this coin. The Aquarium has functioned as a kind of think-tank. I attempt to correlate the previously uncorrelated aspects of the world.
Before the Aquarium there was science, and before science there was religion. Each has in its own manner attempted to correlate human experience. Each of the previous attempts has failed in more or less obvious ways. Those failures, however, should not excuse us from continuing our effort to grasp what is the widest possible context for human experience.
The Aquarium effort is obviously on a very modest scale, and certainly on a modest budget. Yet, the very widespread post-modern mind-set has strongly favored philosophical pluralism and deconstruction. This 'zeitgeist' transforms even this modest constructive effort into something practically world-class, just by default.
Even this modest effort then deserves to be reviewed by someone cognizant of the phenomenology 'problem', if that is how it may be labeled. There is an issue here of global security. If the nature of reality is something significantly other than what is being assumed within science and/or religion, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to being blind-sided by possible cosmic developments. The problem of eschatology certainly ought to fall into this category of possibilities. Eschatology has become something of a specialty of the Aquarium, and it is an essential feature of the BPW hypothesis.
If I had any direct responsibility for phenomenology, I would want to keep myself apprised of the state-of-the-art for any correlational effort. In the public realm there can be little argument that the Aquarium's BPW hypothesis is on the cutting edge of all such efforts. So, at the very least, perusing the BPWH would be a useful exercise in mind-stretching for anyone burdened with second guessing the phenomenology scene.
So, just what is the BPWH?
Besides science, there have only ever been two truly distinct flavors of cosmology: theism and pantheism. The BPWH purports to be the one possible coherent synthesis of these two predecessors, which also takes full account of the scientific enterprise.
Metaphysical monism is the key to the BPWH. This has also been the basis of pantheism. Theism, on the other hand, has too easily fallen into the logical dead-end of dualism. This dualism, as later developed by Descartes into a mind-body dualism, turned out to be very convenient and probably even necessary for the development of the scientific, materialist worldview. Convenience, however, is not a concomitant of truth. Nor can the convenience of science ultimately deter us from our age-old quest for truth and gnosis.
Creation then was never meant to be a spectator sport for us creatures. We are the full participants in this 'participatory universe'. We are its co-creators. The pantheists have known this all along. But, and this is a very big BUT, they disavowed assigning any rationale or intrinsic value to the world. The world could have intrinsic value only if it were the result of a moral act. That Moral Actor can only be the theistic Creator. We can participate in that act only if we may ultimately be identified with that Actor.
This excruciatingly obvious synthesis of theism and pantheism is the single most neglected truth in the world. The Aquarium has staked its existence on the exploration and promulgation of this singular, coherent truth.
The BPW website is a daily chronicle of my struggle to understand and explain the literally earthshaking ramifications of this one simple truth. This is a burden that I am all too willing to share. I hope that you will facilitate my sharing of this crucial task. It is not at all clear to me that your facilitation will not be necessary to reach this goal.
Unless there is some blatant inaccuracy in the preceding, this ought to be a sufficient justification for you and me to take the next step: agree on a designated individual to undertake a preliminary critique of the BPWH.
Up to this point the Aquarium, with respect to the glass ceiling, has been functioning more as a terrarium. Any positive action upon my request could be construed as abrogating that ceiling. I would interpret it in that fashion, and I would probably not hesitate to inform others. Without such action, however, it appears that the BPWH will continue to languish in obscurity. Google alone is not able to stir up interest.
The BPWH is radical to the point of being earthshaking. It deals with issues that could impinge upon global security. This fact would tend to overwhelm any individual interest or action in the absence of external sanction. The Aquarium is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The effort required to dislodge it would be like a swift kick to the sleeping dog that is phenomenology. This rudely awakened critter might bite almost anything in sight.
It is mainly a matter of timing, given any substance to the BPWH. The timing of all this is outside of my bailiwick. I'm just here to tell what I know. When and if anyone else takes notice is another matter, but I will render an opinion, given the opportunity. My opinion is always likely to be 'sooner rather than later'. Can you blame me?
Can any putative review of the BPWH not be strongly prejudiced by all of the above? I doubt it. This does vastly complicate the process. Any content of the review is going to be overshadowed by the mere fact of it. The provenance of the review has to be more significant than its outcome. Should I be surprised that my request seems to have gotten lost in the mail? Unfortunately, no. Will I be able to damn the putative torpedo?
Yes, it does look as though the Aquarium will be remaining in this terrarium mode. We'll have to continue to generate our own oxygen, with just about enough for one fish. On the cover is the little sign, 'Break glass in case of emergency.' Any day now, folks. That leaves us outstanding in our new found agora.
Permit me to elaborate on a previous thought. My being given access to a limited number of people down stream in the phenomenology network would be unlikely to change outside opinion. To achieve that end the review process would have to be networked into mainstream academia. That could happen only with continuing input on the part of my correspondent. It would then be a continuing struggle to keep attention focused on the BPWH, and not be distracted by the phenomenological questions implied by the apparent outside interest and influence. Such practical considerations do complicate any possible compliance with the request that I have put forward.
Whether the Aquarium pump could ever be primed without this kind of external input is problematic. On the other hand, if the Aquarium cannot pull this off, who could, and under what circumstances that would not turn this whole affair into a circus? Is there some larger scenario that is already in the works, or are we really expected to be flying by the seat of our pants? These questions remain unanswered at my pay grade.
But hold on a minute. Previously I had spoken about networking away from my source. Could that not be done effectively through an outfit like the 'Jasons'? There could be provided access to a person with sufficient public authority to adequately buffer the link back to phenomenology. Does this put us back on track? It is still a long shot. My specific request would be for a practice session preceding access to a Jason-type interlocutor. This, in turn, would precede access to someone who could network to a more public venue.
There is still the problem of handling the X-file aficionados. Early on, they will want to get in on the act, and will be crying foul if they are rebuffed. Who can read them the riot act? Perhaps it has been the intention all along that they would be the canaries in this scenario. Someone would have to do some hand-holding. I'm not sure that my services in that department would be adequate. Presumably there would be a concomitant increase in dissemination, spontaneous and otherwise.
The agora remains a problem here. However, it does appear to be the best encapsulation of the whole BPWH problem that I have come across to-date. That is no small feat. The emergence of the primordial agora is a set-piece puzzle. Progress on this 'toy' problem could give us a handle on many of the larger issues. Yet, it may turn out that further progress will have to be made on some of the more peripheral issues before this central one may be effectively addressed.
The agora is our beachhead into the 'physical' realm. Once secured, we can make further inroads. All relevant tools will be brought to bear in establishing and maintaining the beachhead. From what quarry will we obtain the megaliths? My kingdom for a stone. Where is Ben Johnson when we need him? Sacred geometry must play a role. How will it bootstrap itself? At some point the zodiac is projected outward. Rotational symmetry is established and broken in the same time frame. Obviously this is a crucial step. One might then wonder where the planetary wanderers fit into this scheme. Mach's principle and the centripetal force warrant consideration. The vertical dimension will have to be distinguished by gravity. It is notable that several of these features could be tied together with a gravity pendulum; however, none such survives from antiquity, besides the bipedal figure itself.
Let me not forget that a primary tool of creation will be the telos. In retrodicting the time-line for Creation, we need mainly to determine the path of least resistance between the already given Alpha and Omega. NASA might have as much to do with the creation of space as do the players of Pokatok. Materialism is a path of particularly low resistance. That is why we have such difficulty extricating ourselves from this path. There will come a turning point. Coherence will not be denied indefinitely.
It could have been that Mesoamerica was the cradle of civilization. The strict timeline of modern archeology may only be a retrospective projection based on materialist presuppositions. That timeline is superimposed upon the mythic dreamtime. None of this precludes the possibility that origins of the different cultures were geographically separate at first. Mesoamerica may simply have been the prototype. Arising in a more compact region, the remnants may represent something more pristine. Also I find the flat jungle setting to be more primitive and perhaps more conducive to a zodiacal interpretation. The materialist interpretation can hardly do justice to the logical commonalities of the allegedly disparate origins.
The megaliths were not just involved in the delineation of the local space, but more crucially were involved with a primordial geodesy. The curious coincidence of the British and French measures is possibly a residue of an earlier global construct. And keep in mind the light speed. It will not be easy, and perhaps not even necessary to disentangle all these competing influences. We may just appreciate the apparent overdetermination of both the Alpha and Omega. The archeological attention to detail, the counting of every potsherd, impressive though it is, may be distracting us from a much more significant larger picture. In a teleological world it may not behoove us to too readily succumb to a tyranny of the past.
A jungle bound Pokatok court seems almost like a message in a bottle, indeed, a starry messenger washed up on these timeless shores. Is it not something semantically irreducible? The ball in question could only have been the Sun, being entertained and entrained in its nocturnal retreat. Naturally there would be issues of death and resurrection, not to mention recreation.
Next to consider is the origin of the megaliths. I don't contest the existence of quarries. Resorting to quarries will still require a non-materialist explanation of geology. In the BPW scheme it remains an open question as to which came first, mega-Earth or megaliths. Recall that the megaliths figured in the geodesy, i.e. geo-geny. I'm just suggesting that the ceremonial rocks and the Pokatok players may have had a related and more teleological origin. Every primordial ceremony is a cosmogonic reenactment. And on this telic view, each enactment is a vital piece of the cosmic process. Ritual failure has always been taken seriously, and often over someone's dead body.
Speaking of which, body that is, there is a prevalent thesis, e.g. Schwaller de Lubicz, that body and temple are interrelated on various levels. That their origins might be logically distinct would be contrary to the spirit of the Matrix. Recall also that cosmogonic myths frequently involve dismemberment. Is this a naive anthropocentrism, or is science a naive atomo-centrism? Yes, we do have atomic bombs rather than mythic bombs, or is that how we need to redesignate the eschaton? The peculiar choreography of Pokatok does seem to emphasize the individual body parts. How better to embody and sanctify the temple than with a ritual, sacrificial ballgame? What a sacrilege that would seem today. Like everything else, our rituals have been compartmentalized. The triune relation of temple, body and celestial zodiac ought to be instructive. The maintenance of these ritual resonances is crucial to our ontogeny. The ritual continuity between Alpha and Omega is maintained throughout history in a very eclectic, even promiscuous manner. The network of being has its spatial and temporal projections. In this connection recall also the concept of the 'chakras' and the sensory-motor body-map of the cortex. Thus the primordial temple and constellations might be viewed as an exercise in phrenology. Furthermore, the comparable schema for atom and solar system need not be coincidental, and may pertain to these other relations. We are just attempting to locate the nexus for the network of being.
The Pokatok ball-court was our cosmic beachhead. This was our participatory, cosmogonic scheme. Beyond the court was beyond the pale. It was a jungle out there, psychological and otherwise. Inside the court was a mythopoeic order, transpiring under the constellated heavens. Hunting, gathering and planting emerged in due course.
On second thought, we have established no metabolic course. One can only imagine the relevant Corona beer commercial. We'll have to do better than that. At what point do our erstwhile ball-players break out into a sweat? Where will be the nearest taproom? Perhaps we'll first have to find out what is going on in that jungle out there. At what point do we revert to Jurassic Parc? Have will simply added a ball-court to the JPc scheme? This might not be such a bad idea. It's beginning to look more like Xcaret. We may have to charge admission. Somewhere the metabolic and spatial forms will have to meet. That's what physics is about. The Garden of Eden was pretty sketchy on metabolics and reproduction. Our Cafe de la Paix is turning into a Rainforest Restaurant. We are definitely on the slippery slope between upward and downward causation.
It looks like we're not quite finished with Pokatok. Here's why. Up to this point I have managed to avoid the topic of sex, but now may be the time to talk about the birds and the bees. But I won't. Sex is too important to leave to the birds. I'm also thinking about the slippery slope. More than that, I'm thinking about the dialectic. If the dia-logos does not have a gender specific dimension, we are missing a good bet. I am suggesting that sex has a lot more going for it than mere biology. It has a cosmic dimension. What else is new, you might ask. The Matrix is too clearly gender specific to ignore that aspect of it. Everything else must define itself relative to that.
Biological sex is very useful when it comes to populating the BPW. Genetic diversity would be impossible to rationalize without the double helix and the idea of assortment and recessivity. The extended family is the basis of social structure.
What do these considerations tell us about JPc/Xcaret? They tell us that our Garden of Eden will necessarily be co-ed. Our problem now is to make the necessary arrangements, while carefully balancing on the slippery slope. For instance, does teleology give precedence to viviparity over oviparity, or do they represent parallel ontogenies?
Meanwhile, back at the Pokatok court, we were looking for a way to jump-start metabolism. Rather than invoke the 19th hole, I would invoke Rene. The losers get checkmated and the winners get mated. Nothing complicated here, and no one has to pay taxes. It's death and resurrection right there on the center ball-court, by dawn's early light. Of course, de rigueur, there will be a fifteen second spot for viagra. Would this not also be a case of instant reincarnation? After all, the show must go on.
Would this be difficult to stage manage? It might be easier than the ball-game. The gestation process does not require the constant attention that must be devoted to Pokatok. Its programming could be mostly object-oriented. While the men-folk are watching reruns on sports central, their sisters, no doubt, are out planting the maize and malt, using the appropriate planting sticks: that oviparity logically paralleling their viviparity.
Where does this leave us with JPc? I trust we have made a little progress, but much work remains. We may not be ready for prime time, but we are ready for the 6am Aquarium show. Recall that Jurassic Parc was originally invoked just to deal with the dinosaur problem. The rest of Creation was placed under the aegis of the archetypes, AZO/X/QRP along with M & D. Now I am attempting to penetrate the fog surrounding Alpha, as a major part of constructing the metanarrative. We are effectively adding an anthropic component to JPc. This would now become the BPW's rendition of the Garden of Eden. We might refer to it as Mayan Parc or MPc. JPc would then be a logical derivative of MPc, as we gradually expand the envelope of floral and faunal diversity. At this point, time is still purely cyclical. Once the MPc phenomenology is firmly established, it would be comparatively straight forward to clone it into other climes and cultures, perhaps on an 'experimental' basis at first. All of this is just the prelude to history proper.
Given Alpha, we may wonder whether history proper starts with a bang or a whimper. Clearly the is a major break in the cyclical symmetry of time. Giorgio De Santillana, in Hamlet's Mill, points to an episode that is, at least, psychologically traumatic. Prior to this episode there is a geodesic alignment of the various versions of MPc. This is an archeoastronomical feat of the first magnitude. The result was a prototype of our present terrestrial globe. This much is fixed in stone. Now forgive me my speculation. There may have been a jockeying for 'pole position' among the candidate cultures. If this competition got out of hand, there could have been a resulting 'pole shift', of popular vintage. The losers would have been checkmated, e.g. Atlantis, etc. The further result, nevertheless, is the ideal 23 deg. shift of the ecliptic, and a similar shift in the galactic plane. The precession of the equinoxes is thereby set up to mark the historical Aeons. I am merely demonstrating a good-faith openness to some populist dramaturgy. Creation should not have to be boring. There you have it, from Pokatok to Pole Shift. The rest, as they say, is mere history. It will require but a few more barleycorn syzygys to move us beyond history and into our Millennial alignment, hopefully without trauma this time.
Is a dream world possible? It is if we can arrange for there to be dreams. Dreams may or may not require a dreamer. A dream world implies coherence which entails a cognitive subject. A world also implies an intersubjective objectivity. This then raises the issue of whether there must be a primary dreamer. Is the cosmos a figment of the cosmic mind primarily, or is God just the foremost of the dreamers? I somewhat dodge this question by positing a fundamental identity between dreamer and dreamee.
Hold that thought. Here is something else.
What is the most important question in the world? It is the God question. What is the second most important question? I have no idea, nor, I submit, does anyone else. In other words, there is no contest about which is number one.
If there exists evidence that might have a bearing on our question, what would be the most likely repository for it? Let me rephrase that. If there were to exist evidence that favored the God hypothesis, where would it be? The Vatican? Well, if they had it, why would they not make it public? What would be the next most likely place? The CIA? Yes, correct. What would the third most likely place? Again, I doubt that there could be any other consensus.
If you were God and you wanted to arrange for limited gnosis, which venue would you prefer? The answer should be pretty obvious. What have we just demonstrated? Not that a certain agency has any such evidence, but, rather, that it would be the most likely known venue. We have reasonably established two significant facts. First, what is the most important question; and, second, if there were an answer, where would it most likely be found? But this is not the end of it. Who then is the one known person who would be most likely to be able to corroborate any of the above. I submit that there can be little doubt that it is Catfish, i.e. Mr. P. Again, I am not saying he does know, but, rather, of all the known people in the world he would be the mostly likely to be able to shed any light on the subject. Period.