Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton

Download 4.74 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   90

Portal phenomena are minimized through systems of taboos. It was the responsibility of shamans and religions to maintain these taboos. The scientific establishment takes upon itself the maintenance of a worldview that is antithetical to these phenomena. In modern times, there is an effective double cover relative to the other worlds. We have to exercise caution in the deconstruction of that worldview. We don't want to let the air out too quickly, lest we all have trouble breathing. The general bourgeois conservatism has become a significant part of the taboo structure. The sometimes not so benign neglect of phenomena can be striking in academic and professional venues. The social fabric and the fabric of reality are ultimately synonymous. The omnipresence of technology reinforces this fabric; however, technology may also provide the leverage for its eventual deconstruction and unraveling.

Here is a follow-up concerning the article posted above:

Thank you very much for this information.
This has become a big issue for me. It may even have a bearing on my worldview. It certainly has a bearing on my seriously deteriorated relationship with my sister, Deborah, aka 'Debra'.
Conceivably this is an issue pertaining to national security. This may seem like a very major stretch, but consider the circumstances.
I beg your patience while I attempt to explain the context.
First of all, I would like to know how you came across my concerns about the Anderson article. I certainly did not expect to get a response from such a knowledgeable source as yourself.
I have posted this article to my website: [see above]
I am assuming, however, that an enterprising person on the Sarfatti email list looked you up and sent you a copy of my correspondence, in an attempt to verify it. You needn't be ad hominem, but do, please, give me the generality of the contact, if you can.
If you peruse the material on may website on the above page, and some of the material on the previous page, you should get a fair idea of the context I am talking about.
Ron Pandolfi is my CIA contact person. He is well aware of the significance that I attach to this article, and he has not yet seen fit to disabuse my interpretation. Is this merely an oversight on his part?
I see no gaps in the chain of events that you present. Do you have any reason to suppose that Deborah might or might not be aware of this sequence? I have to wonder why she failed to apprise me of it. Soon after the article was published she accused me of having been Jack Anderson's source.
Unless I can come up with an alternative interpretation of the events you present, I will need to add a retraction on the website, and then apologize to Deborah. I will need to ask Ron why he did not offer a denial of my original interpretation.
FYI: Deborah had already divorced Charlie by this time. He was also then being sued by one of his daughters on the allegation of abuse. The suit was settled out of court. A very sad story.
I can still wonder why Jack failed to mention the primary significance of this sequence of events: that both the Prime Minister of Japan and the high-level trade negotiations were involved. The article only implies such.
And I remain impressed by the fact that someone took the time to track you down.
Might you 'allow' me to entertain the notion that there could have been just a bit of 'cosmic' intervention in this rather impressive display of swift 'cosmic' justice?
In any event, may I please post your comments to the website? Would you want to edit them for that purpose?
I gather that you have managed to survive you unfortunate encounter with my former brother-in-law. So has my niece.
Thank you and best wishes,


-----Original Message-----

From: Steve DeVore []

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:05 PM


Subject: Jack Anderson/SyberVision/ President Bush
I read with interest your thoughts about the Jack Anderson column about Charlie Leighton, Mr. Toyota, and President Bush.
There was no conspiracy. Here are the facts:
Back in 1989 CML was under a hostile takeover bid by Irwin Jacobs. He wanted Boston Whaler and was going to sell off the other CML companies, including SyberVision, to pay for the stock purchase.
Charlie panicked after Reader’s Digest backed out as a “white knight” to provide funds to fend off Jacobs.
As the founder of SyberVision, I was in negotiations with Toyota to sell them 1 million Bobby Jones tapes. This would have meant a $20 million profit to CML. As you may know, the Japanese work very slowly in business deals. Charlie asked me how we could expedite the order since he needed the money, he claimed, quickly. Jokingly, I told him nothing short of a presidential order could speed up the transaction. This was on a Friday afternoon when we had the discussion. On Monday, Charlie had sent off a packet to Mr. Toyota with the letters promising presidential intervention in the current difficult trade sanction talks going on at the White House concerning Japanese auto imports (Toyota in particular). He also sent along pictures of the Bushes with Charlie and Deborah as proof of his association, as well as the cuff links.
Apparently, Mr. Toyota was greatly impressed. So much so that on the following Friday he gathered with his peers (including the Prime Minister of Japan) for a saki get- together at his country club. Sitting around the table, he showed the presidential cuff links he was wearing to his friends. He took one off and passed it around the table. Each of his guests rubbed the presidential logo on the link until one man rubbed and a decal of the logo came off in his hands. The cuff links were plastic. Mr. Toyota was greatly embarrassed and lost “face” among his peers. Needless to say, the deal was dead.
After our contract with Charlie was over, he didn’t pay what he owed us ($20 million) so we had to resort to a lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal learned of the suit and ran a front page article with Charlie’s caricature. The article detailed how CML had ripped off many of its business partners (entrepreneurs who sold their companies to Charlie and Bob Tod)-SyberVision being the most recent one.
This led to an interest by CBS “60 Minutes” who contacted me to do an expose about CML featuring what happened to us and the other entrepreneurs. I directed the producer, at the direction of my attorney, to the court documents that were public record. From those documents, the producer found a copy of Charlie’s letter to Toyota. They contacted Charlie and he denied even writing the letter. He didn’t know they already had a copy of it. This infuriated the producer and doubled her resolve to expose CML.
Throughout this process, my attorneys told me not to communicate directly with 60 Minutes but to direct all questions from 60 Minutes to them. For some reason, 60 Minutes opted out of the show but the producer sent the letters over to Jack Anderson.
I was contacted by Anderson’s office, refused to talk to them. They spoke to my attorneys who verified the veracity of the letter.
That’s how it happened. As to Anderson’s motive in writing the article I can only think it was for the sake of trivial humor-without thinking about the consequences of how it might hurt innocent people. Unfortunately, Deborah was hurt. I can imagine her embarrassment. I remember her as a nice and honorable person. I really liked her. She had no idea what Charlie did, I am sure of that. Charlie was desperate, didn’t think about potential consequences (who could have known) and tried to use Deborah’s friendship with Barbara Bush to save his hide. At one point Charlie told me he would do “anything” to defend, protect, and save CML.
Hopefully, this has enlightened you.
What has become of Charlie and Deborah. Last time I saw Charlie (1992) he appeared to have early on-set of Parkinsons. [The first I have heard about this] I hope they are well and happy.
Give them my regards.
Steve DeVore

On further thought, I am not convinced that the conspiracy issue has been resolved. I don't know who is Steve's source concerning the crucial meeting. It is curious that I do recall hearing that the Minister of Trade was involved, but no such official was referenced in the column, and I don't think Deborah went into any such detail, with me.

Now I'm beginning to feel badly for Charlie, in this one instance. For once in his life he would have been the victim! He was clearly in a tight spot. How many of us in his position might not have seriously considered doing what he did? Think of all the employees and stockholders he had to protect. That his previous business practices were not above reproach is not relevant to this incident. When the President allows his picture to be taken with you, he wants you to hang it on your wall and brag about it to other people. That is the whole point. This is politics, my friends! Ditto for any other memorabilia. If you get into a jam, should the President be offended if you use his gift to help solve the problem? What are gifts for?
Who are the three people here who should actually be embarrassed? The President, the Prime Minister and Mr. Toyota. Why? The President for giving shoddy gifts to deserving supporters. The Prime Minister and Mr. Toyota should be embarrassed for having embarrassed the President of the United States, a person with whom they were in the midst of a very delicate trade negotiation. Deborah, indeed, reported to me that the President was [alleged to be?] 'furious' about this incident. Would he have been mad at Charlie? I don't thinks so. He would have been mad at the Japanese for turning a trivial incident into an international incident.
The Japanese are reputed to be astute negotiators. Would they be so stupid as to go out of their way to antagonize their negotiating partner?
I'm sorry, there is still something fishy here. If I were the President, the first thing I would do is fire the person responsible for the shoddy cufflinks. Might this person not have gotten a big kick-back? Who wears cuff-links? Wealthy businessmen, people likely to contribute big bucks to the campaign. Do you want to embarrass your biggest supporters? Think of your supporters reading the Jack Anderson column and then throwing their personal mementos into the waste basket!
But wait a minute. Would the Toyota CEO and Prime Minister actually interrupt their party to ogle campaign trinkets? Could they possibly be so naive? Would they then go around advertising their naiveté?
Have I said enough? Too much? Can the fate of the world hang in this balance? I intend to find out.
Cufflinks there, eschatology here.
Might Steve not be in a situation similar to Deborah? It is hard to believe that a major event in your life was simply not at all what it seemed. It might cause one to start questioning the rest of 'reality'. This is not easy to do, but we all have to start somewhere.
Wait another minute. Who at Toyota would send Charlie's letter to Steve, and why? [OK, that might have just been Charlie, before the fact with a cc.] And then who at Toyota would want to tell the world about their boss's subsequent embarrassment, and why? And how did these details (' Each of his guests rubbed the presidential logo on the link until one man rubbed and a decal of the logo came off in his hands.') get back to Steve? Is the devil in the details?
I'm sorry to belabor this, but ultimately it is the 'reality' of the world that is up for grabs.

There has, at my behest, been some preliminary discussion about networking the eschaton. In the next few days I will be meeting with two of the principals in this proposed effort.

In my last meeting with Chris Straub several years ago, which Ron also attended, the conversation was mainly about saving the tigers. As we were about to leave, I said that I had been wanting to also discuss eschatology. Christ turned to me and said, 'Well, Dan, I guess you'll just have to surprise us.' I now hope that we can do better than this. I would like for there to be a serious, non-sectarian, open discussion of eschatology. This is what I will be attempting to arrange for with the help of these other two individuals. One of these is Ron, and the other shall remain nameless, per his request.
The first effort will be directed toward the Sarfatti list. I have attempted to introduce this topic there on several previous occasions in the last few years. The general level of skepticism has prevented that from happening. We'll be making this attempt once again, now in a more concerted fashion. There will a team effort, at least to a limited degree.
The frame for this discussion will be to construct a possible scenario based on a 'what if' proposition. What if the world is a supernatural construct. It was created, say, to serve in the self-discovery of God through the participation of us creatures. Furthermore, this purpose, in the context of this world, is intended to be achievable. That is to say that our task as creatures in this three-dimensional setting is intended to be completed at some point. This is the meaning of our 'physical' existence.
The question that is to be posed is simply, what would be the best way for us then, or now, to move on to whatever is to be the next phase of our existence, beyond the present space-time context, our purpose here having been carried out to its fullest possible extent, or at least to the point where additional costs can be expected to exceed the possible future benefits. In other words, we need an exit strategy, and I need a focus group to hash this over, at least in a preliminary fashion. The intention is to persuade Jack and his discussion group to temporarily take up this challenge. In that process, there may emerge a subset of folks who would be open to a continuing and more in depth study of this issue.
It may be that this is not actually just a hypothetical contingency. This may not just be a test. It could be leading up to an actual eschatological event. We cannot know that now, but, until such time, we want this discussion to remain contained and containable. We don't want or expect it to get out of hand. If, in the future, new information emerges, then we would have to proceed on another track.
What I think we can assume for now is that there is an actual 'phenomenology' problem. There are known to exist phenomena that are sufficiently anomalous so that if they were to be publicly disclosed, our modern worldview might well be subverted or deconstructed.
But the problem goes beyond just the question of epistemology. Ultimately there is an ontological issue. Reality may not be as solid or impermeable as we have come to expect. The universe may be more like a great idea than a great machine. It may be more of mental than a physical or mathematical construct. The world is not a machine, it is rather a dream machine.
Jack, of course, objects to any such characterization. He is a physicalist. Everything can be explained by physics, even anomalous phenomena. You just have to be willing bend your formulas to whatever is the necessary extent. But does he have a model for psychokinesis? Is there any conceivable physical model for PK? Consider spoon bending as an example. Would there not have to be visualization and targeting? Materialization would be another unphysical anomaly, and so would be remote viewing.
I am saying that the ultimate issue is the relative ontic priority of mind vs. matter. Anomalous phenomena are always directly associated with intelligence. They are manifestations of the power that mind ultimately holds over matter. Further, I'm claiming that these phenomena portend the primordial and final ascendancy of mind over matter. There is simply no formula for Creation as there is none for the Omega. Physics may be the means to an end, but it cannot be an end unto itself. We have had materialization, now we need to arrange for our dematerialization. How do we minimize the trauma?
I speak of our participating in the self-realization of God. This has been accomplished using the mirror of Nature. Our related sub-task has been our sojourn into the heart of matter. We have gone as far as we can in that direction. With the quantum and anthropics, we begin to see ourselves reflected in Nature. We now undergo the reversal of that sojourn. The return journey is likely to be very much shorter in duration. We come back home, bearing the pearl of great price: our wisdom and self-knowledge.
Perhaps more accurately I should speak of the de-physicalization of matter. The way to do this is to weaken the contextual relations that ordinarily keep the physical processes on track. Transiting through a portal would be an example of this. PK gets stronger on the other side. It is not clear how it would be possible to reverse this process. It is analogous to the notion of unraveling, with the quantum and mathematics acting as warp and woof. We might wonder if there would be any distinction in this context between natural and artificial systems. Imagine making the transit with a pacemaker and then returning.

Of course, I continue to have trouble explaining matter. Something that might be related is the psychology of eating and drinking, etc. What I need to ascertain are the psychic precursors of metabolism. Is the primal circulation of the zodiacal energies not related to metabolism? What is the metabolism of the mind?

Does food not have psychic properties? There must be a psychic ecology, or an ecology of the psyche. This would have to do with relationalism and functionalism. The same questions apply to numbers and words. Where does the dynamics arise for these abstractions? We're looking for the mainsprings.
But wasn't Freud attempting to grapple with the metabolism of the psyche? Are the appetites of the mind any less than those of the stomach? The dynamics of reproduction come to mind. Where is there a greater overlap of mind and matter? Mate selection must reenact the primal dialectic. I don't yet sufficiently appreciate the dialectic. We have the imperative of symmetry breaking relative to the Matrix. We are looking at the dialectic between heaven and earth, or mind and matter. What aspect of the mind is dual to the atom? What it the dialectic when projected onto matter? Surely the quantum figures in here.
I also wonder about the accounts of ghosts and ETs walking through walls. At what point do they go bump? Saucers are seen going into the water, but not into the ground. The bumping into walls has to do with super-symmetry, which is an aspect of space. Ghosts may bring their own space with them. There is also the repulsion of energy levels and of the Riemannian zeros. There is also the problem of particle identities and their coupling to the various force fields. Identity is a very abstract concept, but it is crucial to physicality of physics.
There may be two logical kinds of solidity: static and dynamic, or volumetric and ballistic. How much do both of these depend on atomic stability? To what extent that stability a brute fact, or is it a manifestation of an eco-logic? As a relationalist, there can be no brute facts. What then is the stability of the ecologic, and how does it relate to physical stability? It must be something about the quantum that brings these together. Is it simply the projection postulate, or something more complex? How does a wall switch from being permeable to impermeable? How do two particles switch from being identical to non-identical? Where do the logics of heaven and earth come into contact, other than at a portal? Should we go back to the pokatok court? Is there a quasi-physics for heaven? What is happening when we see a ghost? How much is internal, and how would the internal overlap with the external? As an idealist, though, I have to be careful about any such distinction. One person may see the ghost, while another does not.

He is another way to approach the portal problem. In transit, one enters into a lucid dreamlike state. This does not present a problem until one attempts to return back to this world. Only then would the state of one's body come into question. If, for instance, a camera or other recording device were taken along, its state upon return would also be questionable. There are various possible answers to these questions, few of which could be excluded a priori. Such questions could only be answered experimentally. The answers need not be the same in every case.

A physicist would want to know whether mass would or could be conserved in this process. The portal could not be treated as a black hole. The mass would disappear from this world. So it would not necessarily or obviously be conserved. The portal would be seen as violating the laws of physics. A gravimeter placed near the entrance would logically record a decrease in the gravitational mass of a transiting object. Too bad. Anomalous phenomena, almost by definition, violate the accepted laws of physics, if they are not simply hallucinatory. The portal process would simply cover a wide class of anomalous phenomena, or many such phenomena could be explained in terms of portal processes.
Psychic survival of death is the most widely acclaimed of all anomalous phenomena. Death then is a one-way, immaterial portal. There is a violation of physics in the posit of the psyche as a non-physical phenomenon. There is thereby suggested a metaphysical dualism between mind an matter. A portal that permits the transit of material bodies would, however, point very strongly toward an immaterialist, idealist metaphysic.
Although theism, is generally conceived in dualistic terms, the concept of Creation, in as much as it deviates from physical cosmogony, implicitly entails idealism. The Alpha and Omega, Eden and resurrection may both be seen as 'physical' portals between the temporal and atemporal realms. Our pokatok scenario, is just an attempt to set up a portal to transit from the outside, to make the transition from the non-physical into a 'physical' realm. Ultimately, both realms must be viewed as dreamlike, but a portal between them allows for a minimally discontinuous connection or transition between them. The BPWH strongly suggests that mini-portals would play a crucial role in minimizing the trauma that might otherwise be associated with an amillennial eschatology, i.e. our imminent confrontation with the Omega portal. A portal may be understood as a review of Creation and a preview of Omega.

There has been some barely perceptible progress. My prime interlocutor will tell select individuals that I may not be crazy after all. This pertains to the prospective Eschaton Focus Group. He will privately tell select participants that he is favorably disposed to the existence of such a body. To everyone else, the previous, long-standing protocol will continue to apply.

I requested that he explain this new protocol as being motivated by the phenomenology problem. He countered that any such admission would leave him open to too many follow-on questions. Instead, he will be telling Jack that this part of a counter-intelligence operation. He tried to explain this rationale to me, but I was unable to see any connections to eschatology. I don't know that Jack will swallow this either. Mr. P. may be best advised to revert to 'no comment' when questioned as to motivation.
I'm not sure how Jack will countenance this new initiative. He is certainly welcome to try his hand at portal physics, but beyond the green door, the physics gives way to metaphysics. It is where heaven begins, it is hyperspace with a vengeance. It is the lucid dream-world. Jack is no fan of heaven, but what about the Matrix and virtual reality. How can we agree to disagree on these matters?
Jack may only countenance a portal as leading to a parallel physical universe, but this does not then count as being eschatological. It could be billed as an evacuation to escape from a vacuum phase shift in this universe. That may be about as close as he would be willing to approach to a full-bore eschaton. There is also the God problem. Is the putative phase shift simply a natural phenomenon, or could it be tied to a cosmic plan? This would need to be sorted out before we try to get more people involved. The others need not be exposed to a pissing match.
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   90

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page