|There has been continuing correspondence with Sarfatti list, and new correspondence with the exopolitical list. I was introduced to this latter list by Ed Komarek, the same person who originally introduced me to Jack's list. It may have been Don Allen, a ufo BBS operator in Florida, who linked me with Ed in the early '90s.
The issue presently being pursued with four correspondents on these two lists is nature of our destiny. The fact of a destiny is undeniable to quite a range of folks, especially with those who are future oriented, of course.
With respect to the visitors the issue becomes how many destinies are there and how are they interlinked. Are they mutually supportive or mutually antagonistic? And how so? Would we not, at the least, expect there to be a cosmic ecosystem in this regard, i.e. a salvational economy on the cosmic scale?
There was on Monday a dinner meeting with BJ in DC. Here is an excerpt from a follow-up message I sent to him. There has been no reply:
Something I meant to ask you was whether anything was said to you concerning the alien agenda for coming here, and more specifically whether any non-technical information was delivered.
For instance, it is hard to imagine that they would give us advanced technology without any suggestion as to how we should use it. Or, perhaps, why it would be given to us and not to the Chinese, if that were the case.
It is also very hard to believe that the topic of God or life after death would not have been broached over the years of contact. If it had not been covered in the briefings, then, given you other interests, would it not have been your top priority question.
This is why I remain skeptical about a categorical statement portraying a purely ‘nuts and bolts’ exchange.
Rick Doty was adamant in speaking to me that the reason for the non-disclosure primarily had to do with the disturbing message that was conveyed to us in the contact. He refused to further characterize this message. You have held Rick’s information in high regard, but now there is this singular discrepancy?
If no cogent answer is forthcoming, I will have to get back to Ron about it. Allegedly, this person has had conversations with several Presidents and DCIs on the topic of the visitation. It is hard to believe that the metaphysical issues never came up. His categorical statements concerning the purely 'nuts and bolts' aspect of the visitation just don't compute. Then he goes on to claim that everything to do with UFOs, other than this core story is simply delusional. Are we dealing with a deeply irrational individual, or is this story merely a construct, intentionally disinformational, or both? This will have to be straightened out before I can move forward. Or is this simply meant to be an obstacle to progress? I have sent a strongly worded note to Ron threatening to go outside with my questions and concerns about this particular matter. He is the one who 'owns' the clearances for the individual in question.
I'm supposed to meet with Ron tomorrow about BJ and his problem. BJ is alleged to be deeply disturbed about something to do with the visitation. It must have something to do with information that was conveyed to us in some convincing fashion.
It is fair to say that an eschatological warning fits into the visitation scenario and its cover-up better than any other type of warning.
If this were the case, this would have been the primary purpose of the visit. There would have had to have been a reasonably imminent time-line, along with action items for us, including a suggested disclosure process. There would necessarily be a tie-in with the prophetic tradition, and so some messianic event would have been indicated for facilitation.
I would suggest that this scenario be the subject of the next Aquarium meeting. The meeting would be early in September. Who should be invited? Who not invited?
How many are aware of the eschatological version of the visit? Are there factions within this number? What is the politics?
What are the action items? Where are we on the time-line? What does the President know? How many Senators know? Chris Straub? How many other countries are involved? Where does this tie-in to 9/11?
It seems that there is more than one version of the bj/jn meeting. Naturally, one is a bit more provocative than the other. jb is probably not happy about being excluded from something. He may not realize that he is being diverted to something else having to do with cl. We might wonder about his being held in reserve up to this point. Did the meeting go as planned? Or was there a misstep by our guy? Is there a breakdown, as suggested. Perhaps there is a third version, even more provocative, that was disturbing. Early recovery may be optimistic, and then what? How critical is he? Why so anti-communicative? He is a major test subject. Difficult to replace. What is my input supposed to be? Something had been going on with s for a year prior. What about mp and dd?
Where is the action item in all of this? Who do I go after next? How many more prelims? Where is the chase? Who has the plan? I'd settle for a visible green light. Visible to whom? Message to jb? And to Jack. Then wait.
We have come to another impasse. BJ still refuses to cooperate, even after a direct request from P. This is a carryover from last summer. It is hard to see how this obstacle can be ignored going forward. It has become an major issue between us. One might wonder if this was the intention. The additional information about the meeting with JN that was indirectly relayed, was to the effect that he was in the loop. Still no clue as to what may come next, if anything. I don't see any advantage to pushing any more than I have already. This is nothing about individual control.
The bi-static radar or software defined radio, SDR, may provide an analogy as to how we receive cosmic signals. It is a collective effort with multiple inputs. The emphasis is on the coordination method. There must be various forms of triangulation. This is what we would do for the eschaton. There would be various checkpoints such as 9/11.
After talking to Joe, the plan is to go back to Bill and then to P with the second version of the meeting. If they deny it, then I would be inclined to go to Jack for dissemination. That would be the most I could do. There would be as much detail as possible. Would this burn the bridge? That is possible. I can do this right here and now, just leaving out the names. All I need is A-F.
A is a high level intelligence officer. B is a former mid-level officer, who used to work for C. B asks A to arrange a meeting with C. A tells me that he will do so and expects that this favor will persuade B to be more forthcoming with me. B is chagrined when I pass this back to him.
The meeting takes place in July. Included are B, C and D who is a friend of A. In an email to A and me, B briefly describes the meeting. B does most of the talking, providing C with a recap of the information he has gathered, mainly over the last two decades, particularly in various briefings, with an emphasis on what he learned just in the last year. B also tells C that he has had face-to-face conversations on this topic with 5 DCI's, 3 Presidents and many General Officers. C then tells B to be more circumspect in the future. In a subsequent dinner with me, B reiterates his determination to provide me with no further information on this topic.
A then calls E and provides him with an additional piece of information about this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was for B to petition C that he be given greater access to inside information. C refused the request on the basis that his particular expertise was not presently needed. E passed this information to F, who, in turn, passed it to me. I then asked E if he had recently spoken with A, and he denied having done so. A did volunteer to me that B did not make a very good case to C about the visitation. B provided C only with his direct experience, without attempting to paint a broader picture. This approach would make sense, however, in the context of the subsequently revealed purpose of the meeting.
The above content has been sent privately to Jack and Bill. Wherein I state that, In my estimation, this is the most provocative, specific and possibly actionable piece of information that we presently possess concerning ‘official’ knowledge and involvement with UFOs.
In response, Jack evinces a conceptual grasp of the situation that may not be adequate to sustain his participation here. The bigger picture of the visitation continues to elude him, in part due to its failure to support his own scenario.
Jack was a bit more amenable on the phone last night. Now I need to check with Bill. People still want a meeting, but that depends on BJ, it would seem. He is holding out for a promotion, but what will he bring to that table? It is not the science or biology that is lacking. Why need he be such an ingrate? It is possible that he was partly read into the R&D show, and now is stalling for more time or info.
The core story is now being recirculated through Jack. We may have to strike while that iron is still warm. Ed is then a problem with good celestial humans and his bad grays. The CHs are the absentees. They left no infrastructure.
Ed K. has been keeping me posted on Bill Hamilton & Co. It claims, in effect, to be a second aviary. Their posting rate has ramped up considerably just in the last few weeks. The hypothesis is that there has been a split over disclosure on the inside. The story goes that there is a Committee of the Majority composed of some 32 international Masonic/illuminati types, of unknown ethnic persuasions. This is an umbrella group with some sway over various specialized subgroups, the first of these being MJ12 with scientific and technical expertise. Presumably there would be other subgroups in the political, economic and religious areas. Where the Aviary might fit in is anyone's guess. Dan Burisch is supposed to be a conduit from the disclosure faction.
The story, allegedly from Dan, is that there are splitting timelines due to future trauma on Earth c. 2012. Denizens of the various timelines use time portals to come back and manipulate us according to a variety of agendas, including intervention in the genetic and prophetic areas. I still prefer the BPW, Mandelbrot parallel-worlds, Powers & Principalities cosmology with overlapping and non-linear timelines.
There are natural and artificial portals here. The artificial ones can be problematic. They could contribute to the 2012 debacle in which they suddenly expand to Earth dimension and there is the primary time split between the few lines leading to the Celestial Humans and the many lines leading to the 'underground' Deros/ETs that are dead ends. We have a potpourri of UFO legends, but this is much closer to the BPW scenario of geocentricity among parallel worlds, along with an eschatology, rather than to the original astronaut version of the ETs.
Jack states that by adding a non-linear term to QM, he will account for most paranormal phenomena. Those that cannot be so explained will be taken to be mental projections. That this can pass for physicalism ought to be an embarrassment.
The typical paranormal phenomenon exhibits intelligent control, i.e. mind over matter. That this single non-linear term can first account for mind and then for its control over matter is simply incredible.
In another area, the split remains between the old and new aviaries. Collins and Hamilton remain at each others throats. This does not bode well for progress on the disclosure front. Then BJ remains uncooperative. This lack or progress may spell the end of this year's initiative that began at the beginning of this page, back in April. The question then is what it might take to resume the process at a later date, and whether I should attempt a unilateral effort. Both Jack and BJ would need a concerted external push to produce any movement.
On the research front, I have not given much thought to reestablishing priorities. The marginal returns will be lower for the time being.
<-- Prev Next -->
Immaterialism on the Web
On several occasions here I have stated that the Internet could be decisive in facilitating public interest in a coherent world view, i.e. the one being presented here. It is high time to attempt an assessment of this possibility. I'll be doing this in the form of a continuing, informal guided tour of the Internet.
As the most likely starting point on this tour, I would suggest the topic of immaterialism. The intellectual leap from materialism to immaterialism represents the single biggest obstacle on the path to coherence.
Let's see what we have. Google provides 1,500 hits for 'immaterialism'. Not too bad for a start! But now we have to cull through them.
The very first hit is a diatribe against immaterialism posted on a Mormon website and written by an LDS official. Curious, but not sufficient to warrant further notice now. The second hit is a brief summary of Bishop Berkley's account of this topic, he being the originator of the doctrine in its 'modern' guise. Next there is a 'Neoist'(?) text on 'Dialectical Immaterialism' which goes right over my head, and which should not be confused with a former rock band of the same name.
Further on down is a book listed on Amazon concerning the 'Physical Basis for Immaterialism.' This is the only book listed on this topic on Amazon, other than those on the good Bishop, or out of print, or both. It receives favorable mention from a Vedic scholar, and the charge of 'incoherence' from a reader. Clearly the publishing industry is not presently bent on overturning materialism.
Following are numerous items focused mainly on the history of immaterialism and idealism. Coinciding with our fin de siecle resurgence of interest in the mind is an increased interest in non-materialist philosophies. The new metaphysical material confines itself cautiously to the mind-body problem, per se, and the more expansive historical worldviews serve only as proxies at best. This speculative caution is well advised in professional circles whose secularism is being jealously guarded against any possible sectarian encroachment or subversion.
Next (web assessment) -->
Mind -- on the Web
In contrast to the 15 hundred hits on 'immaterialism', 'mind' yields 26 million. Not surprising, really. But consider the uphill battle for those philosophers and scientists who wish to eliminate all reference to the mind as being scientifically illegitimate. They face a gargantuan job of censorship! Take the very first item: CIA Analyzes Mind of Iraqi Leader. What would be the scientifically correct rendition of this news item, I wonder? How about 'CIA Analyzes Cognitive Content of Saddam's Brain'? But does that not directly imply that Saddam's brain is in a vat in Langley? OK, so one could 'speculate about' the cognitive content of his brain, but there is still the implication that an analysis of the physical brain might, at some point, be relevant. How would we then make a distinction between Saddam as biological specimen and Saddam as political agent? Would that not be a necessary distinction for our government to make? If the brain scientists expect us to forego all thought (sic!) of agenthood, the ramifications multiply endlessly.
Conveniently there are on-line repositories for scholarly discussions of the nature of mind. Online papers on consciousness maintained by David Chalmers is the principle one of these. Numerous other relevant web resources have been compiled on the same site.
It is not difficult to get the impression that this topic has been picked over rather thoroughly in the last decade or so, and that after some initial progress the discussion has bogged down. One is hard put to find significant changes in the positions of the participants. If one side or the other were to win the debate at this point it would be the result of sudden professional attrition. There is no neutral party that is keeping score. Each side is adept at spinning the results in its own favor.
What seems to be the case is that the 'mentalists' have all the mental evidence while the materialists have all the material evidence. Each side imagines that its own evidence is conclusive. I do not see a prospect for the breaking of this intellectual logjam, other than by an external influence.
On the Web:
<-- Prev Next -->
Postmodernism on the Web
Postmodernism is well represented on the Internet. Yahoo and Google provide excellent starting points: Postmodernism and Postmodernism, resp.
'Pomo' mainly bills itself as a deconstructive method of criticizing art and literature. I have yet to see its deconstructive tools applied to modern cosmology. There have been occasions where it has critiqued individual scientific disciplines from the perspective of their alleged cultural relativism. The notorious Sokal hoax (q.v.) was supposed to have been a cultural critique of quantum gravity theory.
To put it succinctly, postmodernism provides only a retail method of cultural criticism. To mount a wholesale critique it would need to venture its own worldview, something which is constitutionally proscribed to it. The last such was mounted by Karl Marx.
Of some relevance to our purposes is the sectarian response to postmodernism. A Google search on 'christian & postmodern' yields a mixed bag. On the superficial side are various responses to the latest in pop culture. On the more serious side is a nostalgia for the simple bipolarity of religion and science that marked modernity. The fear is that the postmodern anti-foundational fragmentation of truth is already facilitating the further fragmentation of the Christian evangel. There is the awareness that postmodernism is a game being played by a staunchly secular intelligentsia, whose take on religion vs. science is a curse on both establishments.
A thoughtful assessment of the sectarian dilemma may be found in Beyond Foundationalism.... In this article Grenz claims that the history of philosophy and theology rationally entails an eschatological coherentism, a view with which I can hardly argue. I notice that his writing is featured by the mainstream evangelical InterVarsity Press. The immaterialist metaphysic behind such a view remains implicit. He simply does not foresee the earth shaking paradigm shift that I do.
But on the note of this positive finding, let us move along to the next web topic, leaving a more detailed examination of postmodernism for later.
On the Web:
<-- Prev Next -->
Eschatology on the Web
There is no shortage of material here. Google and Yahoo have directory pages devoted to eschatology and end times, respectively. The sites covered are all in regard to Christian fundamentalist interpretations of biblical end time prophecies.
It is fair to say that its eschatology is the feature that most clearly distinguishes fundamentalism from the rest of Christianity. It is a belief that fundamentalists happen to share with the earliest Christian communities, according to the historical record, but there remains some controversy as to whether Jesus was a direct source of that concern. Eschatological beliefs permeate the entire prophetic tradition, almost by definition, but it does appear that Christians are not to be outdone in the degree to which they have elaborated upon this one theme.
Otherwise the subject of eschatology is virtually taboo. My criticism of the traditional prophetic eschatology is for its unnaturalness. Armageddon, apocalypse and Judgment feature prominently in the teachings. The eschaton is the mark of a wrathful God. Only a faithful remnant may be spared the full brunt of this wrath.
Such views hardly conform to the philosophy of the Best Possible World . What is at work here are the remnants of dualistic thought going back at least to the good and evil ones, Ahura and Ahriman, of Zoroastrianism. The Gnostics attributed evil to matter and even to nature, setting aside any rationale for creation. It was God's duty to destroy evil in the end, which He would do with relish.
On the immaterialist view, the coherence of the temporal world implies the finitude of its temporality. Obsolescence is a natural and logical part of our world. The realm of eternity is another matter, of course. The only question for theodicy is the optimal duration. We will be partly responsible for this determination as part of our Millennial preparations for the Omega, in close consultation with God.
On the Web:
<-- Prev Next -->
A Hard Core of Truth Seekers?
I would like to think of myself as one of these. I was a Sputnik 'baby' to the world of physics. My father had been impressed by Donald Menzel's involvement in the Manhattan Project, and his astronomy books were read to me at an early age. Sputnik and Manhattan Project sound more like power than truth, but power and truth are more than tangentially related. Recall the coda of the Lord's prayer, for instance. Truth may be more a matter of what you know, and power of who you know, but these lines are often conflated. A nuclear weapon may convey the notion of 'fear of God' even to a materialist. And what of God do we fear more, the power or the truth?
I would naturally look to my former colleagues in physics, and particularly among those who have evinced an interest in the mind, as potential comrades in the seeking of truth. An interest in the mind has come late to the physics community, and it remains muted. It has never been able to get a handle on the mind, slippery beast that it is. The closest thing to a handle is the quantum, yet the possible quantum-mind connection shows no sign of fruition.
In David Chalmers' list of online papers I recognize the names of several physicists in the Consciousness and physics and Metaphysics of consciousness sections. I have had just a few communications with Henry Stapp over the years, and that is about it. These are professionals interested in a decidedly fringe and speculative area. Frankly they have to be careful to maintain their professional status. The sorts of speculations in which I engage would be several orders beyond what might be tolerated by their colleagues. Public association with the likes of me or my ideas would be problematic at the least.
About the only way I can envision engaging such folks would be by the creation of a sufficiently public discussion that they could comment upon it from a professional distance, rather than appearing to be personally involved.
A point to be taken here is that professionalism is, at best, conducive only to those truths that might fall within its historically defined purview. Thomas Kuhn recognized this as a potential inhibition on truth seeking some time ago. In science, as in most endeavors, revolutions come from out of the blue. They are never the result of 'normal' scientific research.
Kuhn's followers viewing this history from a postmodern perspective suggest that any number of intellectual revolutions need not add up to the truth. It could be an endless circling, or there could be no objective reality to begin with.
As I have stated before, the scholarly mind-matter debate has made waves and rocked a few boats, but seems now to be bogged down. The physicists are in a better position than most to recognize the cosmic implications of a foundational approach to the mind. But even the most astute of them have difficulty seeing it as being much more than an intellectual puzzle. They don't see any need to dial 911. That's our job. I hope I have dialed correctly.