Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton



Download 4.74 Mb.
Page28/90
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   ...   90
Aren't the materialists lucky? They have none of these problems to contend with!
It is likely that the Earth will gradually lose its physicality in the process of the hundred year exodus. The last thing to go will be the pokatok court at Xcaret. Just a hint for any of you holdouts. There could still be a remnant Jurassic Parc place. Metabolism could persist there, and perhaps even reproduction, but all this would be rudimentary and provisional. There are plenty of rough edges in all of this transitional metaphysics, and it will take time, and perhaps even experimentation, to smooth them out. Please, bear with us. The transition process will smooth out over time. We will need volunteers to be the early adapters.
Then we return to the problem of jumpstarting metabolism at the beginning. When we did this before, I believe that I invoked variations on the theme of the vital ouroboric/zodiac/psychic cycle. The phenomenology is gradually habituated into biology. As we keep alternating between the alpha and omega, we gradually bring them into alignment.

[10/27]


Yesterday I met with my source guy. We seem to be making progress. I've always wondered about dealing with the presidents. Since Lyndon there have been seven presidents with only Jimmy and Ronald being briefed. In a similar time frame only Richard H. of the DCIs has been briefed.
This is fewer than I would have suspected. According to my take on the Anderson article, big George would have been told something about the eschaton, as would Straub and some other folks on the SSCI. But it might not have been a full briefing.
The point is that you don't brief a president unless there is a darn good reason. Always try to let every sleeping dog be.
My source was at the YB level, but I think he is coming around to accept PE/CL as the next level. People at that level tell you something only once. There is no discussion, and no question about about disclosure. My source never heard from them or his briefers about eschatology. There are three categories of people above his level: sincere, officious and whiners. It was Richard who contacted him to say he took Rick's story seriously. Richard died a couple of years ago. My guy had been hopeful of learning more before that.
We discussed the issue of money. All of his briefings and the ones he heard about pointed to a relatively minor and unsuccessful REP, located at Los Alamos, and maybe a couple of private facilities. This is where he disagrees with CF, who says that the briefings he knows of implicate a rather larger number of facilities and dollars. CF uses this larger dollar amount, upwards of a trillion, do discount all such briefings. I need to get this contradiction ironed out.
We discussed some more of my philosophy and eschatology in very broad strokes. We also discussed about moving forward. We agree that Jack is a major obstacle to my networking on the Internet. We doubt that CF can straighten that out. Otherwise, I need to network with some science types with the help of CF. These would be on the NAS or Jasons. Nothing specific was mentioned. Jacques Vallee was mentioned. It was stated that he among the cognoscenti might be the most sympathetic with my views.
That was about it. I was mainly surprised by the low number of DCIs in the loop. I may want to recalibrate my briefing logistic. I did not ask about foreign folks. They may pick up much of this by osmosis. My guy was talking about detailed information. A lot more people could get just the generalities, about like what you have here.
Next I'll have to get back to CF, and see if the three of us should meet. I can write a brief to him on the meeting with a copy to the source. The election continues to loom. Today I meet with paranormalist, SF.

[10/28]


No word back from CF on a prospective meeting. It may have to wait 'til after the election.
I did not mention that Richard identified himself to my source as being the Raven. Will we now have to revise the history of the Aviary? RH was the DCI from from '66 to '73, hired by Johnson, fired by Nixon. He had worked for the Agency and OSS since '43.
According to 'The Presidents UFO Website':
Todd Zechel, then the Director of Ground Saucer Watch, a group formed to fight classification of UFO documents by the government, was also interested in the U.S. News story of a possible UFO disclosure by the Carter White House. He headed to Washington for a visit with his telephone conversation acquaintance, Arthur Lundahl, a former high ranking official with the CIA, and a person who reportedly had been a UFO briefer to at least three presidents.
Zechel had discussed the U.S. News report on the phone with Lundahl, and Lundahl had promised to check with " the boys." (Zechel assumed the boys to be former CIA Directors William Colby and Richard Helms, both close friends of Lundahl’s).
[10/29 - Don't let me forget that CF has pointed to a Mr. Anderson, the elderly UFO library guy, and friend of Gordon's as being a significant player. I'm not sure what to make of this. He lives in DC.]

[10/29]


Back to Creation. We start with a bare Matrix, pure potentiality. I see only one such. There is no means of separation. The potency is channeled, by a dialectic set of selves. This is the primordial, semi-stable zodiacal group of cosmic observers. All phenomenology must be channeled through this group. Each self exists relative to the others. There is a predominant circular structure. Thus arises the archetype of Pi. With 'e' representing the Matrix and 'i' the vital dialectic, we have the primordial 'trinity' of e^i*pi. Pi is one of the Z.
I then take Pi to represent the Creator figure, X. This is the major step in analyzing and rationalizing Creation. Pi leads to the anthropocentric symmetry breaking that is Creation.
How so? Pi, in its 'trinitarian' context, i.e. mother, spirit and son, points to the quantum atom, and thus to a metabolic homo-faber-erectus: five digits with opposable thumb. Mammalian? Yes, that goes with the neocortex. Teleology is used liberally, but not excessively.
The primordial symmetry breaking is a patricide. This is the Oedipal story with Freya as Jocasta. I equate Freya with the X-factor. This apparent gender switch need not pose a problem. The conspiring Jocasta begat history, and is finally the scapegoat of history, then in the role of Eve. Thus we see the dynamics of AZO/X/QRP. The apple Pi/X is the multidimensional pi-vot. It is also Hamlet's Mill. It is the squaring or rationalizing of the circle that gives rise to the numerical coincidences and the Monster Group of Anthropic fame.
This symbolic nexus is dense, indeed. The Creation plot may be underdetermined. There may be converging paths. X remains the focal point or transformational identity, and we may still hope to use this scheme as an investigative tool.

[10/30]


The previous synopsis of Creation does not include the Pokatok scheme. The sacrifice of the losing team could have stimulated the reproductive cycle. The solar connotation of the game ball may have simulated/stimulated the heavens. The game was played at night. The passing of the ball through the hoop is reminiscent of an eclipse, which may also have entailed sacrifice. Once again there is a suspicious convergence of symbolism.

[10/31]


Now I'm being caught in a shooting match between two sources, the more and less credulous. This is an old story, but now I get to see it up close. I would think it should have been resolved back when. Is it only about the money: using rumors of phenomenology to pull in the bucks? We are back to the problem of due diligence.
The theory is that the briefings and the para-scientific 'shakedown' are all being coordinated. That is a grand conspiracy. What more might it be capable of? How might it tie in with other counterintelligence problems? It seems to argue against my PE/CL level. This racket would muddy those waters. The higher level ought to be able to restrain this exploitation, unless it is a deliberate part of the cover. CF does not act that way. That could mean that he is stuck between the two levels, YB vs. PE, and is not sure which is the real one. It is also the ETH vs. the UTH. CF is also dealing with the null hypothesis, NH. [11/4 - For simplicity, we may refer to this as the terrestrial hypothesis, TH.] What is the symbiosis between these three hypotheses?
Is the shakedown the primary motive, or is it parasitic? Jack and I are being used to probe this issue. Am I being naive to suppose that the monetary incentive is insufficient here? Only Hal might know for sure. Will I be afforded the opportunity to ask, or must I assume the answer and move on? SF describes a similar situation with crop circles. There is human involvement in all of them, but how is it coordinated? Or is it? What do I do in this case? Am I only an observer? We need to break this circle. Does this relate to the primordial cycle? How was that broken? Was it pokatok or the X factor? There is the temple and there are the money changers, etc.

[11/1]
The problem is imagining the scenario for breaking through the ambiguity. How early in the process will that occur? How much can be accomplished without CF being convinced? That would require access to unambiguous evidence. Would it help for the three of us to meet? I doubt that it could have much impact at this late date. Sources are no longer the issue. There may also be the case of deliberate exclusion. There would be a bias against skepticism. Presently we are attempting to track down who attended the NRC meeting last week with the source. If it was mainly just Murad, then we are back to square one. What then? I will need another source or correspondent. The motivation for the reactivation may remain moot. CF is not constituted to be proactive wrt phenomenology. I doubt that any job change would effect that. The next question is why this matter cannot be put to rest. Is the C/I problem worth pursuing?


CF is of the view that the 'soap opera' is not going away in the foreseeable future. It will just continue to transform. It can be reasonably monitored with minimal resources to avoid surprises.

[11/2]
I am inclined to suggest that we undergo a semi-formal debriefing concerning the briefing phenomenon and its impact. I would submit a public report. I could start writing the report now, and then solicit further information in an incremental fashion until some resolution is achieved. It would be important to include Hal in this process.


Joe Firmage has reappeared on the scene. In an email today Joe speaks of the coming socio-economic crises culminating in a singularity of consciousness. He refers us to Integral Naked. At his own website I see no reference to this singularity.
As of yesterday I have obtained free access to the EBSCO database through my public library where Debby works. This enables access to the popular periodical literature, an important complement to web browsing. These archives have been available for free for some time, I was not keeping up to date.
What I presently find most surprising about the 'briefing phenomenon' is the lack of public discussion about it. My source says that most of what he learned has been distributed in a semi-public fashion, but there has been no definitive statement as to the nature or extent of the dissemination (briefing) process. CF may be trying too hard to minimize the significance of this process. What has been the impact of it? Does it speak to the UTH? What do we surmise as to the lack of explanation for the process? Does this not just compound the ufo mystery? Perhaps what we see now is the residue of some earlier process. Is there any visible trend? These briefings should now be in considerable decline if they are only repeating stuff that has been made public, but that is not what the source indicates. What did the source think that CF should do with this info? If the government does not come clean on this, then will it not be culpable?

[11/4]
Off the top, I would think that intelligence types would naturally want to pursue and analyze the briefing phenomenon. It might easily be deemed to represent a systemic vulnerability that would need to be monitored, if not neutralized. Could it not be construed as a potential threat? The fact that none of this has been done, or apparently even seriously considered, is, in itself, worthy of explanation. Any serious ufo briefing would have to address this phenomenon. One would need to estimate the degree to which this phenomenon contributes to the ufo ambience. This would also come under the umbrella of phenomenology collections. At best, it would constitute a benign form of socio-pathology.


The phenomenon itself is not as significant as is the apparent lack of reaction to it. The phenomenon represents an unprecedented potential for the subversion of this country's constituted authority. The EFG, for instance, seems constituted to exploit that potential. The seriousness rests entirely on the validity of the phenomenon. Without that validity it is a soap opera. The lack of reaction may be excused only by a known invalidity. But then we are in a vicious circle: the validity can be known only by taking the phenomenon seriously. How difficult can it be to penetrate the phenomenon? Does CF understand this? I think he is understandably reluctant to admit it. What about in his work group? What would he tell the new boss? It is hard for me to picture the exchanges. Again we encounter the Anderson article, and then the Hughes incident, etc. 9/11 would be very tricky. I don't see how any of this could be avoided. CF becomes the finger in the dike, it would appear. It would require political shielding to an unreasonable degree. There must be a significant logistic beyond my ken. There would have to be more than meets the eye.

[11/5]
Is it possible that the new boss is unaware of phenomenology, eschatology? CF maintains the posture of skepticism. Has no one seen through that? There is still the issue of the Straub briefing. To what did that point? There must be serious discussion of the c/I problem of phenomenology. And what about the eschatology of religious extremism. Religion and phenomenology are two primary targets for c/Intel, and eschatology covers both. I'm not sure if there is any synergy between the hard and soft science tasks of CF. Bi-statics and RE provide only a limited overlap. Don't forget the IG investigation. That would stand out in the file. Then there is all the aviary/bigelow stuff and ufoguy@Masint. There are several red flags waving. Then how do I stay off the screen, or do I? We come back to the visibility to other agencies and the public-key aspect. Therein lies a reflective equilibrium concerning EFG status. There is a fairly large context or a large arena in which the EFG is a small but significant player. The ET v. UT hypothesis still has to be sorted out, but before that we must confront some real data. The changing of the guard at the agency will cover the shifting of phenomenology. If this timeline is correct it does seem to favor the PE/CL view: nukes, C/W, aviary, aquarium, 9/11, new guy. The ETH would be relevant mainly to cold war secrecy, then we start the shift to the aquarium, with EFG coming after 9/11, then the politics. It's all over, but the shouting. I doubt that things could have gone this far without access to sufficient data. Lack of data does not explain the soap opera. That is better explained by c/I (non-mundane).

[11/6]
If there were a major uncertainty as to the validity of the core story, I doubt that CF would expend effort on the peripheral matters. A serious investigator would be working the inside track, unless this were known to have been done already. At some point in the past half century, a definitive investigation would have been commissioned. The results would have to be available to a phenomenology group. The extent of the briefing phenomenon underscores the necessity of such an investigation. A knowledgeable person would not then stir the ufo pot unless there were a continuing c/Intel initiative. However, keeping both the ET and UT stories alive would muddy any mundane c/I/disinfo effort. This latter fact indicates a cover operation rather than pure disinformation. There was a mission. The issue is whether or not it failed. The cover is that it failed.
Only now with the Internet is the extent of the smoke coming into the public domain. The smoke is steady over a period of vastly changing political and military conditions. This constancy argues against any ad hoc screen. The hoax hypothesis also does not hold up in this context.
It is useful to compare ufos and crop circles. Does the juxtaposition increase or decrease their legitimacy? It is easier to see the CCs as mundane. Is it just a copycat phenomenon? It is a fact that no one has been exposed. The phenomenon invites participation, but that does not negate it. Its quantity and quality argue for a supra-mundane explanation.
CF has stated that the briefing phenomenon is not traceable. If so, it would represent a vulnerability that one might not wish to publicize. When queried as to the methodology of the tracing, there is an insubstantial or even casual response. This is part of the primary posture of skepticism, rather than additional information.
In short, the phenomenology remains viable.

[11/7]
When it comes to Creation, I rely heavily on the archetypes to jump-start it. Among these, Z & Pi are primary. Z points to the proto-selves in their dialectical bootstrap. X/Pi emerges out of these.

[11/8]
The adjoining of pi to X is controversial if not controvertible. It is meant as only ad hoc and for the sake of argument. It could be seen as a reductio ad absurdum of Pythagoras, but I intend it in the spirit of relationalism. It is how I bring the observer principle to mathematics. It is how I attempt to tame the Monster Group. I am suggesting that pi is anthropocentric, X being the anthropos/christos.
When it comes to numbers, I am not a (postmodern?) constructivist, but rather a conceivabilist. There are no inconceivable mathematical objects, just as there are no unobservable universes. There is no Creator without a Creation and no Creation without Pi. It would be inconceivable. X is the rationale of the cosmos. Pi is the rationalizer. Creation is the transcendental squaring of the zodiacal circle. The necessary transcendental impulse is simply love. The MG is involved in the dialectical/elliptical polarizing of the circle. The quantum comes out of this, partly in the trinitarian form of e^i*pi, or MDX, i.e. mother, spirit, son. The trinity is the teleologically realizing vision or observation, all bootstrapped on faith. Therein lies the vital stability of the microcosmic atom and all the attendant bio-cycles.
The Alpha and Omega are mutually reflective. We may ascertain the one in the other, and so we have the AZO/X/QRP based on the MDX with Freya/X providing the transcendental impulse that breaks/squares the circle, in a triangle with Chronos and Zeus. X is the pi-vot or sacrificial omphalos.

[11/9]
MDZ/X are the crucial components. I need to determine the connection between Z and X. Both exploit the vital dialectic force. Z relates to ouroboric circularity and X to linearity. X emerges out of Z using Creation as its bootstrap. The dialectic force of creation includes love and faith. I suspect that numbers also emerge mainly out of Z. Z becomes the prototype of physical and biological systems; however, the X factor is involved in the stability of the atom. This is due to the strength of the teleology that is required. The atom is integral to Creation. It must be fine tuned anthropically. The same goes for gravity.


It is still a long way from here to the atom. The thing about the atom is its apparent independent existence, like the tree on the quad, except worse. The atom is a place holder in space and time. It holds the identity of substances. This brings us back to the biological cycles. It may not be sufficiently clear why we need metabolism.
Without metabolism there would be nothing like nature, but I'm not sure what that means. There would be no ecosystem. There would be no materialism, technology or history. No entropy. Could there still be space and time?

[11/10]


The early Greeks sensed that atoms were a concomitant of space. We may not sufficiently appreciate the logic of their 'speculation'. It is very difficult to imagine a robust creation without the entailment of a spatial frame. Our imaginative faculties seem quite adept at producing and manipulating spatial configurations without benefit of same. At the same time, I'm not sure what to make of the relational view of space. At some point the pokatok scheme will be brought into play, as a way to habituate spatial figuration.
Which relations predominate in a relational view of space, and where does the quantum come into play? I would suspect that the quantum is a necessary part of spatial relations. This is what we and the Greeks have failed to grasp. It is difficult to imagine mathematics without a space-time context. The quantum has become the primary point of entry for most of mathematical physics.
We wonder if number theory is spatial? It is certainly sequential. Time and space are not independent concepts. We will then have to worry about the deconstruction of space-time at the Alpha and Omega. We, too, must avoid naked singularities. We then resort to a more digital and combinatorial point of view. Pokatok brings us from digital to analog. We anticipate a final reverse match.
There cannot be space without exclusion. Exclusion relies on exchange anti-symmetry. Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles casts identical particles into space. There could be zodiacal duplicates if they are relationally segregated. I have not considered the problem of multiplicity at the zodiacal level. If there is one Chronos, why not two? Multiplicity may require an external observer. There can only be one proto-self, which then divides dialectically.
A robust combinatorics would require Galilean or translational invariance, and so we bring on the Poincaré space groups. We are hereby broaching the subject of pregeometry (700 hits). Spin networks are one solution to this problem.
We cannot get far into the problem of pregeometry without a theory of relations. My theory of relations is a form or relationalism, which is a species of idealism: relations exist only in the mind. Relations are purely subjective: they entail a perspective. On the other hand, to be is to be related: there is no isolated or atomic existence. There is no acosmic existence. The primordial existence is zodiacal existence relative to the Matrix of potentiality. The Zodiac is our essential pre-geometric frame. All its relations are internal. Those relations are externalized in some scheme of pokatok.
A perversion of relationalism is associationism: complex ideas are formed from simples by association. This theory dates back at least to David Hume (1711-1776). This has been a prime component of the analytic tradition, suffering its same fate. It does, however, presuppose some kind of mental space, and it does point up the fact that the mind is nothing if not a relational engine.
The atom remains a stumbling block in our traverse from mind to matter. It's complexity is daunting. We must wonder as to its source. It does not strike one as fundamental, but nothing simpler could fit the bill, and it is a lengthy bill. Interchangeability is the operative word of atomic alchemy. The Monster Group lurks just beyond the atomic horizon. All of mathematics is realized in the confines of a single atom. Here, certainly, is a microcosm. Have we not been amply warned about microcosms, but who'd a' thunk it? We may look for remnants of the zodiac in the atom. It is a micro pantheon, being somehow projected by X/pi. We see the 'monstrous moonshine', but where is the still? There is a projective function we have not yet grasped.
1   ...   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   ...   90


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page