Subject: Fwd: Jack meets Olga & Marina from Moldova & Kiev at Jake's & Dan
Just in case I disappear fyi - but what a way to go! Three Muses and everyone a virgin! :-)
Dan, you coming on 25th or 26th? Remind me. Your original message is on my other laptop back in SF. I am in La Jolla. You are coming on Wed May
25 and leaving on Sat right?
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jack Sarfatti
> Date: May 9, 2005 4:53:58 PM PDT
> To: d14947
> Cc: CLSF4@cs.com
> Subject: Re: Jack meets Olga & Marina from Moldova & Kiev at Jake's
> Olga and Marina and third Russian girl Nadia are coming tonite to me,
> Jagdish & Shawn at Csaba's.
> On May 9, 2005, at 2:44 PM, d14947 wrote:
>> The disinfo machine is in full cry.
>> On 5/9/05, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>>> Cool, but who the hell are you? Did you send the two 20's-something
>>> beauties Olga and Marina last night at Jakes On The Beach in Del Mar?
>>> More curious linguistic coincidences. Gavorita pa Ruski? Nimnoga?
Gee, it does sound kinda like an end game. It's gonna be show time with Jack. And what do I have to show besides the Mandelbrot, Ron and the three kings? For Jack that might be enough, but what about for the other folks? All I need is for Jack to facilitate a chain reaction cum skull session, 'Listen up folks, we need to know this.' When the heavies weigh-in, I'll need some backstopping from Ron.
It's just about postmodernism vs. coherence. The message is that simple.
I am thinking about taking this back to Sam's 'oil group' again. It is time to get down to business and to practice what I preach, and preach what I practice. I finally have to place my bets. Will there be a better time to save the world? Do we really want to wait and see? What else are we waiting for?
Gosh, it has been a while, and what have we to show for it? Are we any nearer to the end?
First I'll have to collect my thoughts. The main news yesterday was that Gordon is to meet Jack in S.F. in about a week. It's not quite clear whether or not I have an invite to this gala event. Jack may have just wanted some hand holding. Before that I was informed by Bill that Gordon's material may have derived the the channeling of a Yogi in London in the early 1920's relative to the Hindu vimanas. Gordon may now be regrouping his forces. If Jack and Gordon gang up on my metaphysics, I'll need more input from Ron and/or Kit. Ron suggested he might help Kit out with Julian Nall, formerly the NIO for Science and Technology, with whom Kit once had an 'interesting' interaction. His name is listed in my old notes without any context. Need I hold my breath? Jack met with the glitterati in NYC, but no HK. The mailbox now languishes.
I've been catching up on the 4400 with some prodding from my son. It has definite possibilities. In yesterday's NYTimes is a review of Robert Laughlin's new (first) book: A Different Universe. It is a rather good treatise on anti-reductionism from the perspective of the quantum theory of solids. There are no fundamentals is his world, rather there is the omni-presence and universality of various phases of quantum criticality. Are our egos made of such stuff, analogically speaking? With the Riemann Hypothesis, we might imagine that the integers are a critical phenomenon with the long range order of the Mandelbrot.
My latest argument with Jack and Gordon took up the premise that any breakthrough in propulsion would, from a physical perspective, be concomitant to a comparable breakthrough in military technology, and so would necessitate a meta-universal hegemonic control system (MUHCS) so as to avoid a mutually assured destruction (MAD). Such a cosmic power would hardly be distinguishable from that of a God, and that would presumably include the power of Creation. Thus it might behoove us to consider our options from a more creaturely perspective.
Gordon is trying to recruit Jack into his 'Kismet' meeting plan. I am urging a more broad based approach, i.e. one that would include metaphysics.
Let us reflect back upon the zodiac and its role in Creation. In accord with the Mandelbrot model, each member of the pantheon produces a 'sub-creation', in accord with polytheism. There is, however, a singular creation associated with the primary bulb. This circular bulb and its attendant cardioid and straight line are the only perfect figures in the set. This is what I refer to as the BPW, as taken in the context of the Mb.
Yesterday I was failing to recall the latest PDF file: On Being Focused. Evidently I have not properly integrated it with my core operating vision. Here is the coda of that piece:
* It is just thus that the creative energy of the Matrix and pantheon is focused through love into the BPW.
* This is my hypothesis and the governing principle of whatever coherence I possess.
Well, I think that was a bit of a stretch. I have some more explaining to do here, but this is the core problem, after all.
One missing connection is that between geometric perfection in the Mb and this notion of love. Both notions allude to the transcendental or infinite. Love and perfection are our connections to eternity. The BPW is what mediates between the finite and infinite. The transcendental is uniquely inherent in this one locus of Creation. This perfection is the eternal soul of the creation and is the essence of our imago dei. This also is suggestive of the apokatastasis. The creative focus is also seen on the positive axis or 'elephant ravine'. The ouroboric connection between the positive and negative axis is strongly suggested.
However, every part of the Mb is holographic, but this is a given. It is the symmetry of the Mb that also suggests its creative focus onto the 'BPW'. It was a big step in our alleged evolution to go from radial to lateral symmetry. That was for locomotion which then produced a fore and aft asymmetry, as with the Mb. The ouroboric form is a restoration of symmetry.
This focus should be viewed relationally. There cannot be coherence without a focus. Without coherence, the world is incomprehensible and so is unobservable. The self is about focus. This is what distinguishes theism from pantheism. This logic can be further explicated.
There can be no reality without the cyclic aspect, and all of the above is implicated therein. Pantheism cannot contain cycles? Their use is strictly illicit.
I then need to add this to the PDF. This could also be the title of the next page.
Pantheism stresses the role of illusion, but there can be no illusion without selves. The Buddha is the fundamental self. The eternal cycle of illusion is centered on the Buddha. There is nothing else that is comprehensible. In some sense the Buddha must create or maintain the Cycle, but strictly they would be inseparable. Pantheism has always been a source of inspiration for idealism.
A pure zodiacal cycle cannot exist without an observational asymmetry, which may be identified with Creation. There is no such thing as a pure cycle, other than as an abstraction. It is like perpetual motion. Atoms are not observable unless they are disturbed by photons.
Numbers exist only through the act of counting, which is also cyclic in nature, but it cannot be a pure cycle because it would be perpetual. There must be something like an escapement on a pendulum clock.
The NY Times today has a feature article on the paradoxes of time and time-travel. Implicitly it is pointing to the meta-physicality of time? Why should time be more metaphysical than space?
The intensity of the focus must be proportional to the complexity of the network it supports. Creation must have a meta-focus. Otherwise it loses coherence. It becomes epiphenomenal. What is the limit on the intensity?
Coherence is to be found in functional and aesthetic diversity. Creation will be optimized when the cosmic intelligence is focused upon it, not when there is random conflict. Vulnerability would lead to coalition formation. The stable/eternal state would be a single coalition. This is what we see with the Mb. There is a diverse coherence.
Based on the primordial tradition of ultra-terrestrials, there is communication between distinct creations and realms. There is separation mainly at the phenomenal level. It follows that cosmic intelligence and coherence transcends these realms. Out of this coherence comes a personal focus of creative love, and this results in the BPW, of which we are the nexus. This is based in part on the notion that we are the only planet of choice, i.e. focused on free will. This is the densest planet and the great attractor. The other creatures will arrive here to share in the universal salvation or apokatastasis entrusted to us. They may arrive by incarnation and other means. This is one reason why we need not be overly exercised about the population problem. We don't want to be a bottleneck in the salvation economy.
The notion of a singular Matrix need hardly be speculative. Potentiality is one of the least differentiable ideas. This is just where the identity of indiscernibles should be most applicable.
The Newtonian-Cartesian absolutist view of space-time is abstract and deist in the extreme, but once planted in our brains it is very hard to extricate. It implies an omniscient Creator, with the creatures being epiphenomenal. It works great for aiming artillery, but what else is it really good for? Machines are dumb. They must have rules. The cosmos obliges our mechanical penchant with its Platonic seeming physics. But physics can only be epiphenomenal to the relational system of things. Modern physics is an endless revision of the Newtonian hubris. There is no way to sneak vitalism in the back door, try though we do.
Signed an NDA for Gordon's RAM, and saw War of the Worlds with son and nephew. I was told another new RAMer is also an eschatologist. I guess we'll see about that.
And here is an email composed this morning in response to an inquiry from Sam concerning Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe: Remaking Physics from the Bottom Down, noted on 6/20: [a]
Yes, I did notice this book, and then explored Laughlin’s website.
A phrase that springs to mind about Robert’s treatment of emergence is ‘damning with faint praise’.
The other message is: OK folks, you needn’t worry your pretty little heads about emergence, because we scientists have it under control. We’ll tell you what you need to know about it, when you need to know it.
As Robert admits, scientists despise philosophy and philosophers, with a passion. The outstanding divisive issue between science and philosophy since the inception of science has been precisely the issue of reductionism. Now, Robert assures us, scientists are finally getting religion!
Pardon us, if we are more than a little skeptical.
Much too little, much too late! The hand of holism has been writing on science’s reductionist wall for the last three centuries. Scientists of much greater stature than Laughlin have deliberately been ignoring this Ghost at their mechanical Banquet, because they had the wisdom of Louis XIV, ‘après nous, la deluge!’
If Robert really believes that science has its thumb in the flood gates of emergence and teleology, well, he should have a little chat with the person who is in charge of phenomenology at the Dept. of National Intelligence. He would then be directed to their consulting eschatologist. He would then realize that his key phrase, Bottom Down, makes no sense whatsoever, unless you have already stood the world on its head. Voila la Deluge!
I’m afraid that all of this will make the Oil Peak look rather like a molehill.
What's a Creator to do after Creation, I mean way after? Do you eventually just leave it go?
An obvious option would be to recycle it, but this would be counter to the BPW hypothesis.
The last option is redemption. That's apokatastasis. That's the eschaton.
The only question is when. The only answer is, at the best possible time. Which is?
Which is when we have done just about everything we can possibly do down here. When we are physically prepared to leave the planet. When we are able to destroy the world, but before we actually do. When the secret of Creation can no longer be kept. In other words, right about now, folks.
The next question is whether it is possible for there to be a creator. This would seem difficult to deny, especially if we take mind seriously. Instead of a primordial material stuff, why could there not be a primordial mental stuff, i.e. Matrix, with at least as much self-organizing potential as this alleged material stuff?
The next question is how many creations. In an immaterial, monist, relational world, there is no rational alternative to the BPW hypothesis. Any network of being would be self-centered. There would be an organic functionality. Chaos, to exist, would be parasitic upon that organic network. At most, there would be a functional network of realms, much as we see with the Mandelbrot, with everything in its place. There is every indication that our world is spiritually the densest world, i.e. the center of spiritual gravity.
(The above material has been appended to Being Focused.)
The final chore is the reconstruction of the scientific cosmology. Given immaterialism, we rationalize the manifest material image in terms of its contribution to our spiritual gravity. The depth of creation is measured by the compelling depth of the image. We are mesmerized by an image, to which we have unwittingly contributed to a very substantial degree. In the depth of physics we see our own logic reflected back to us in mathematical structures that we can more or less intuit.
Even starting from a materialist premise, the various futurist scenarios point toward an ultimate hegemony of mind over matter, as if to defeat the original premise. Why should we suppose that we invented the mind? What else could reside beyond the bounds of space and time, nature being the natural buffer between Creator and creatures?
Yesterday, Sam asked how I would deal with the sectarianism of the second coming. My suggestion is that we see it as the completion of the first coming, which would simply be its universalization.
Christianity has long prided itself on its exclusivity, and deemed universalism to be a heresy. That is one reason why it hews so closely to mystagoguery. By rationalizing the X-event along with its content, we will have universalized it. Will this is anyway detract from the notion of a personal Savior. Hardly! It turns out that the Savior is also our personal Creator.
Will non-Christians be offended? Probably no less than traditional Christians. Sectarianism, even what we think of as organized religion, will be no longer. The spirit is eternal, it is just the politics that changes. We can get through the politics. We never get through with the spirit. Once reason has been liberated from its analytic/materialist cage, it will all be over but the shouting.
What next? I have been instructed to stand down for the next few weeks, pending Kit's meeting w/ Julian. I'm not holding my breath for BJ to be born again. BJ and Hal have circled their wagons against any metaphysical interpretation of our Visitation, and in particular against the biblical redaction of it as being the previously apocryphal Three Wise Men.
Mainly I still need an interlocutor/debriefer. I admit that would not be as easy to arrange as it might seem.
From: Dan Smith [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 4:19 PM
To: 'Jack Sarfatti'
Subject: RE: Quantum mechanics and the time travel paradox
Jack: << The religious implications are profound of course.>>
Well, then, you and I, at least, should be doing a podcast with RU Sirius to announce the imminent messianic event.
The BPW version of the Y2C ought to be sufficiently anti-authoritarian even for the likes of Goffman.
All we need is a little script. I can still hop on a plane, although I do believe that the phone company has facilities to patch through hi-fi.
Yes, no, maybe?
It might, however, take a few days to iron out the script, and who would get top billing, etc.
Just a thought.....
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 2:08 PM
To: Dan Smith
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics and the time travel paradox
Dan, I already said that in 1973. Saul-Paul has it on tape with Hal Puthoff & Russell Targ near SRI. Saul-Paul Sirag wrote an opera based on it produced in Berkeley I think in 1974. The religious implications are profound of course. R. Gott has the idea in his Time Travel book ~30 years after I first suggested it.
On Jul 2, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
> According to the Best Possible World hypothesis, our whole world is just such a self-consistent, i.e. coherent, ‘quantum’ loop. This is just the least action principle extended to the cosmos.
> And, gee whiz, who was it who said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega”? Have we not all done our homework on the cosmic Ouroboros?
> If not, feel free to consult, for example, page 13 of
> From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics and the time travel paradox
> Thanks, I suggested this years ago. Not new. I think Deutsch has this, also Novikov, Thorne et-al.
> On Jul 2, 2005, at 4:37 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
> Quantum mechanics and the time travel paradox
> Authors: David T. Pegg
> Comments: 18 pages, 3 figures
> Journal-ref: D. T. Pegg, Times' arrows, quantum measurement and superluminal behavior (eds. D. Mugnai, A. Ranfagni and L. S. Schulman) (Consiglio Nazionale Delle Richerche, Roma, 2001) p. 113
> The closed causal chains arising from backward time travel do not lead to paradoxes if they are self consistent. This raises the question as to how physics ensures that only self-consistent loops are possible. We show that, for one particular case at least, the condition of self consistency is ensured by the interference of quantum mechanical amplitudes associated with the loop. If this can be applied to all loops then we have a mechanism by which inconsistent loops eliminate themselves.
Last night I listened to Robert Merry on BookTalk: Sands of Empire (2005). Bob contrasts the optimistic and pessimistic views of history. On the one side are Hegel, Fukuyama and Freidman, on the other are Spengler, Huntington and now Merry. The one is the linear, globalist view, the other is the cyclical, cultural view.
From the POV of the BPW, they are both right and wrong. What they miss is the gnostic/prophetic/salvational view of history, the concealing and revealing Creator. Material 'progress' finally gives way to an eschatological spiritual rebirth or rapture.
On Saturday I met with a person contracting to review some related documents. In describing the BPWH, I was reminded that immaterialism is a particular sticking point. This affords an opportunity to review that subject.
There is still the jaw dropping reaction when I confess to a skepticism concerning stars. I have not learned how to soften that shock. How has the modern mind been so completely possessed by the idolatry of matter? That is a tough nut to crack. How came to western mind to be so contrary to the eastern mind on the matter of illusion? Ne'er the twain shall meet?
There must be a connection here with the dichotomy between theism and pantheism. How easily we forget that the nature of reality is a perennial metaphysical issue, but only, it seems, in the mind of the philosopher. There must also be a connection with egoism. Egoism demands a solid platform for the ego. Thus do share the dismay of the mariner stranded on the desert island, who wakes up one day to discover that his island is swimming away. There is the sense of disorientation bordering on the quality of a mental breakdown. The eastern mind, being more relational, is less susceptible to this manner of disorientation.
That egoism finds its justification in theism, should be perfectly logical. That theism is associated with absolutes and dichotomies of many varieties, is also perfectly natural. That we then, in modernism, proceed to manipulate these absolutes, while neglecting their origin, should be no surprise. The residual psychology of the absolute is our blind spot.
Mathematical Platonism is one of the last repositories of the modern absolute. The Mb and the MG have opposing implications in this regard, but perhaps less so when we include anthropics with the MG. It is hard for us to explain the teleology of either object, or how the two might relate. Then we need to find the logical connection to stars and dinosaurs. This is if the eyes of our interlocutors have not already become terminally glazed! Obviously we need an anti-glazing strategy.
We seem to be terminally committed to the mechanical manipulation of matter, as the basis of our reality, as well as to the great depth of time and space. The relativity and quantum theories, have only been like minor fender benders, in this larger context. Mounting a frontal assault on Newtonian absolutism, seems not to be effective. The self-coherence of science is impressive, superficially, at least. And we don't want to become ensnared in a 'god of the gaps' argument.
The mind-body problem is not something that troubles people outside of the philosophical arena. Anthropics is too readily countered with many-worlds. These anomalies resist concatenation in the imaginations of even the most thoughtful people. The problem of the Ptolemaic style complexification of modern cosmology does not weigh heavily on the modern mind. It does not count much against the more subjective sense of scientific coherence. Postmodernism has done very little to shake these foundations.
The problem of emergence and the non-reducibility of scientific knowledge counts for little against our collective commitment to the individual reality of atoms. Somehow, we must be equating atomic reality with egoic reality. The atoms are our bastion against all metaphysical assaults.
The interdependence of ontology and psychology is something we choose not to dwell upon.
The antipathy between theology and phenomenology, leaves the phenomenologists with nowhere to turn but to pantheism and paganism.
The ontological infrastructure of materialism has been most resilient to normal wear and tear. It is hard to imagine that it would be vulnerable to anything short of a major phenomenological shock. One might hope for a straw that would break its back, but there is very little evidence to support such a scenario. This observation counts against the possibility of a minimalist version of a messianic event.
The last option is to keep the R&D show on a steady advance. Perhaps this is the favored option. Gradually we get more folks on board, up until either the fundies and/or a reporter latch onto the game. Anything wrong with this picture? Might the ufologists catch the drift of it first? What about Jack and Gordon? That would depend on BJ and Owl. That sequence might turn this scenario into a domino scenario, which could be more dramatic.
I'm once again asking Jack to give his rationale for the cover-up of the alien presence, and his own role in the matter. This should be a major problem for him, despite his ability to deflect discussions.