Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton

Download 4.74 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90
portal idea?

• These would be virtually synonymous

• The portal is a literal segue to the eschaton

• Would this be subverting too much of the physics?

- I’m not sure Jack could live with this.

- How can we help him out?

• Need to work out the eschatological transition from physics to


- How do we transition through the portal?

• How does the QRP break down?

• It could only do so in a holistic fashion.

Why Physics?

• Level playing field

- Allows for combinatorics of all kinds

• This is as close as God gets to rolling the dice.

• Coherence of nature

- Ontic: TOE

- Epistemic: PSR (Leibniz)

• Symmetries

- Cycles, energetics, etc.

• Anthropics

- Metabolism, ecology & technology

• Disciplining the spirit

• Metanarrative

Why math?

• Logic of coherence

- Link to language

• Godel’s theorem

• Universal grammar

• Link between mind and matter

- Exploits organicity of math

• Universal ‘language’

- Enhances cosmic intercourse

- Language of the gods

• As in Mb

• Symmetries

- Geometry

• Computation

- Combinatorics

- Cosmic computer

Organicity, coherence of math

Unity of math

- Langland’s program, ‘moonshine’,

coincidences, Mandelbrot,

- FLT, Riemann,

- Algebraic geometry, complex analysis,

• Pythagoras vs. Plato

- Music & math

• Math genius: Srinivasa

Mathematical Physics

• ‘Unreasonable’ effectiveness?

- It is the A&O of reason.

• Noether?

• Harmony of the spheres

- Would the spheres sing if no one listened?

• Organicity of math

- Points to relationalism

• And to intelligence and subjectivity

• Could not exist w/o intel.

- Math fills in the gaps when primordial coherence/presence is broken.

• Observational blind spots

• Gaps in Cs are filled w/ background intel.

• Observer principle

- Is math essential here?

• Godel

• Holography helps

• Microcosm

- Need for ouroboros

• Mandelbrot reflects this

- Observer is built into math.

• Language w/o observer?

Origins of physics

• Dream logic

- coherence, lucidity

- Synchronicity

- Breakdown of bicameral mind

• Game of the gods

- Start, conceptually, with virtual, ceremonial, ‘sacrificial’, zodiacal Pokatok

- Coordination of consciousnesses in space and time

Sacred geometry

- Megalithic geodesy

- Archeoastronomy

• Archetypes

- Celestial

• Zodiac - it sets a precessional time scale

- Symmetry broken by Freya/X

- Mathematical

• pi, Mandelbrot, Monster group

- Atomic

• Alchemy - Jung

What to tell Jack

• Math-phys implies a pan-psychism

- So does anthropics

- The language of the cosmos is math.

• Math is abstracted from the physics

• The quantitative, formal intellect just scratches the surface of the qualitative,

informal intellect.

- The Mandelbrot patterns provide an example.

- Math genius cannot be formalized.

- The forms are abstracted

• They work on a statistical basis.

• They do not account for teleology

• Why should the cosmic intellect be restricted to the formalism of mathphys?

- This is the error of Plato in contrast to Pythagoras and Aristotle.

- Platonic forms are mental but they do not account for the organic quality of the


• Plato’s God could only do combinatorics.

• The Anthropic Principle ought to clinch the organic side of the cosmos.

- Jack’s transhumanism pushes anthropics further.

• Does it not imply a teleology?

- Especially in the possibility of creating new universes.

• Why suppose we are not created?

• To what end?

• Are we not slated to become gods?


What to tell Jack (cont.)

• He does not sufficiently appreciate Jacques Vallee’s thesis:

- The ‘high strangeness’ and ‘associative’ nature of the encounter


- The visitors are not operating within our mindset; rather, they appear to

be operating upon it.

- It appears that we are dealing with a collective phenomenon

- The visitors are much more in touch with the panpsychism.

- In short, we are dealing with a metaphysical phenomenon.

- As much as anything, they are intent upon broadening our conception of


- To understand their agenda, we need to take a cosmic perspective.

• Jack is pushing the boundaries of physics well into the realm of

metaphysics, still following a bottom-up approach.

- My role is to pursue a top-down approach.

- We meet at the portal to the here-after.

• In contrast to Jacques, Jack and I see us approaching an historical


- Jack sees this in terms of a scientific and technological breakthrough of

unprecedented proportions.

- I see it in terms of an historical gestalt switch in an eschatological



The Second Coming:

for all us Dummies

For more detailed explanations of what follows see:

Why not Come?

• God belongs in heaven.

- But can’t she go wherever she darn pleases?

• God ought to have better things to do.

- Being a Creator is a big deal for God.

- She has put a lot of eggs in her Creation

basket, and she will attend to it carefully.

• There is no God.

- Ok, hold that thought, and we’ll get back to

you in a jiffy.

Why come?

• If you were the Creator, would you not

want to participate in your Creation to a

maximal degree?

- If Creation were truly important to you, would

your not want to pour yourself into it as fully

as possible?

But why should we seriously consider the

God hypothesis in the first place?

• Modern science and technology are here to


- And so is postmodernism

• Postmodernism provides only an incoherent


• Many of us seek a higher synthesis in order to

bring meaning and coherence to our world.

- The pluralists rightly criticize any such move as being

likely to foster theocratic and totalitarian tendencies.

• There is only one way out of this bind:

- A rational, coherent synthesis of the various


A Rational Synthesis?

• Most everyone scoffs at this possibility.

- Fact is they have never tried.

• The last serious attempt was by GHW Hegel


• But how will we know if we don’t even try?

- This dummy rushes in where angels fear to tread.

• Here is the result of a thirty year synthesis, and

the longer I work on it, the simpler it gets, q.v.

A Logical Synthesis: Step by Step

• First comes a switch from the correspondence theory of truth to the

coherence theory of truth.

- This is the single most important and far reaching step.

- If you can grasp this, everything else will follow rather easily, and it is

actually very simple, even though its ramifications are earthshaking.

• Correspondence theory of truth:

- Reality is simply a collection of facts.

- The facts need not cohere or have any other pattern except by accident.

• Coherence theory of truth:

- There is no such thing as an isolated fact, just as there is no such thing

as an isolated meaning.

- In as much as reality is cognizable, so must it be coherent.

- Epistemology and ontology cannot ultimately be separated.

- There is a reason for everything.

• This is true for physics, as well, with the possible exception of the initial

conditions, e.g. the Big Bang.

• The next step?

- There is no next step.

- Everything else is just an elaboration of this one grand departure.

- And what is the ultimate coherence?

• Can it be anything less than love, truth and beauty?

Putting all our Eggs in one Basket?

• The main point is that we didn’t put them there: they were already


• This is best seen from the perspective of mathematical physics.

- In physics, this coherence is known as the Unreasonable Effectiveness

of Mathematics.

- This is why physicists can cogently speak of a Theory of Everything.

- This fact motivates us to seek a higher coherence.

• The main thing missing from the prospective physical coherence is

the mind.

- Our theory of everything must include the mind.

- The mind/brain problem is universally regarded as the greatest mystery

in the world.

- It was over three hundred years ago that Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

announced the separation of mind and matter.

- This act of great intellectual convenience triggered the Scientific and

Technological revolutions and made Democracy possible by also

separating the Secular from the Sectarian realms.

- We can easily see why the Postmodernists are so reluctant to even

reconsider Descartes’ serendipitous act.

Damned if we do, damned if we


• The postmodernists would like to see the

present state of pluralism continue indefinitely.

• In a world being shrunk by a rapidly expanding

communication technology, all our disparate

ideas and traditions are being thrown together

into a disorienting, alienating cacophony.

• How can we hope to survive together on this

crowded and shrinking planet if we have no

common ground for communication, no common


A Quantum Leap to Synthesis?

• Nothing less than a quantum leap, an

unprecedented gestalt switch, could now

bring coherence out of the present chaos

of ideas.

• Nothing less than a cosmic vision will


• Let us consider the visions of coherence:

Visions of Coherence

Hindu Creator: Vishnu

Yin-yang of Taoism

Buddhist mandala

Kabbalah: Sephiroth

‘Tree of life’

Leonardo’s Virtuvian Man

with sacred geometry

More visions

Michelangelo's Pieta


Before the fall

Pythagorean visions of coherence

Mandelbrot set

One of hundreds of formulas to be found in Ramanujan’s note books

Archetypes of Unity

• Ouroboros (Orb)

- Primal psychic circuit, zodiac, bootstrap

- Later it will be argued that X & Orb are closely identifiable.


- Matrix (primal potentiality), Dialectic, Logos/zodiac

- trinity of :: Mother, Spirit, Son(s)

- e^i*pi = -1

- Mandelbrot


- Alpha, Zodiac, Omega/Logos/Quantum, Reproduction, Pi

- Macrocosm/microcosm connected by the Logos

• Mb:S::An:X

- Mandelbrot set : Srinivasa Ramanujan :: Anthropics : Christos

The role of the archetypes

• In the first instance, the archetypes and the

previous ‘visions’ are meant to guide our

imaginations toward coherence.

• In immaterialism the archetypes replace atoms

as the foundation of reality.

• The first thing to recognize is that coherence

demands an organic unity of the archetypes.

- We aspire to a Pythagorean harmony rather than a

Platonic absolutism.

- This is essential to teleology and restitution.

The ‘emergence’ of the archetypes

• The organic unity of the archetypes is ensured by

keeping in mind their essential relations to each other

and to a common source or ground of being.

• The Matrix is that Source.

- It is potentiality.

- The BPW is the one rational realization of that potentiality.

• The Best Possible World also conforms with the One World

hypothesis (see later).

• The dynamic element is the dialectic.

- It is the source of multiplicity.

- It is the cosmic bootstrap, which we also experience as love.

• The christos/logos is the original thesis and archetype.

- It is necessarily the Alpha and Omega, Creator and Telos.

- In some strong sense, the symmetry breaking of the Creation

event is the antithesis, and the eschatological restitution of

Creation, i.e. apokatastasis, is the cosmic synthesis.


• This is the macro and micro-cosm connected by the


- In other words, it is the cosmic and mundane circuits that are

thus connected.

• The Ouroboros (Orb) is represented in part as the

zodiac. The Alpha and Omega are the head and tail of

the cosmic serpent.

- It is X that breaks the circular symmetry in the act of Creation.

- One could say that X is the primal observer, taking the measure

of itself and the Orb.

• That is one reason to identify pi and the christos.

• QRP is the projection of the broken cosmic circuit into

the linear dimensions of space and time.

- Out of this comes the Monster Group that determines the

Anthropic attribute of physics.


• These archetypes demonstrate a relation between the personal and

impersonal side of God.

• The Mandelbrot is the image of the cosmos/god as imbedded in the

number system.

- All spiritual traditions agree that god/cosmos is reflected everywhere.

- Srinivasa (S) Ramanujan, more than anyone in history, was able to

project the pure mathematical logos out of his mind.

• The other side of this coin is seen in the second pair.

- This is the personal side of god/cosmos.

- The Anthropic (design) Principle is largely contained in the Monster

Group, second only to the Mb in complexity.

- The personal logos/christos, X, is reflected in the organic nature of


- It is further reflected in the organicity of the microcosm.

• Perhaps these are two sides of a larger circuit.

- On the one hand there is math coming out of the mind, and on the other

the mind emerges from the math.

- It is the christos that encompasses the whole dynamic of Creation.

- Thus may the X and the Orb be closely identified.

X & Orb

• This brings us near to the ultimate mystery of


• The primal trinity of MDX/Z are coeternal.

- Taken together they are the Ouroboros: Orb of being.

• In breaking the symmetry of the Orb, X is

effectively sacrificing itself on behalf of Creation.

• Resurrection, restitution and apokatastasis

inevitably follow, as the symmetry is


Ugly Facts?

• "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful

hypothesis by an ugly fact."

- Thomas Huxley (1825-1895)

- Perhaps the theory in question was not sufficiently coherent.

• Yes, we do have to tough it out.

- One needs a mustard seed of faith and confidence.

- Cosmology is not for the faint of heart.

• Scientific materialism has been on a roll for more than

three centuries.

- There are many signs, however, that its grip on our imaginations

is waning.

• We can sit on our hands, or we can start figuring out how

to transcend its increasingly obvious limitations.

• Will it be revisionism or revolution, i.e. a gestalt switch?

The Way Forward?

• No point in rolling back the clock into dualism.

- We’ve been there, done that!

• The only way forward is into a non-material monism.

• This quantum leap forward will necessarily have a

spiritual content and so will impact every religious


- As such, it will come as a revelation of ‘biblical proportions’.

- There will surely be a significant messianic component.

- This vision will not emerge from a committee.

- Once again, the faint of heart need not apply!

- Fools rush in? Yet, according to Google there are not many who

are rushing down this particular path.


• This is a hard pill to swallow, especially for us in the

western tradition.

• We have taken matter more seriously than others.

- Ironically, this is due in no small part to the Incarnation.

- Materialism, in a dualist context, is almost a part of our


• How can we give up that absolutism without devaluing

the world and our lives?

- This is too often the case with pantheism.

- We replace pantheism with coherentism.

- Then we replace atoms with archetypes, taking care to treat the

archetypes as part of a Pythagorean harmony, and not as

Platonic absolutes.

Dinosaurs and Stars

• If we can choose the archetypes to be robust, the rest of

Creation will spin itself off.

- God does not have to place every hair on every head, or every

star in the sky.

- The same is true for the Mandelbrot.

• It operates under its own internal logic and coherence.

• God sets the example.

- The example is to love and to strive for perfect understanding

through time, knowing that perfection is never absent.

• Mainly it is in this sense that time is an illusion.

• It is mainly our understanding of perfection that is to be perfected.

• The Second Coming triggers the final quantum leap in our


- God calls the tune. God is the tune.

- Creator and Creation are mutually essential.

• We cannot understand the part without the whole, nor the whole

without the parts.

• One hair cannot be disturbed without disturbing the rest, as with the



• The critical idea here is apokatastasis.

- This is the restoration/restitution of all things in God.

- This is universal salvation.

- It is now considered heresy.

• Originally it was the orthodoxy of the Orthodox church.

- All dualisms and paradoxes are transcended.

- It is the temporal completion of Creator, Creation and


• It is the reconstitution of the broken symmetry.

• The Omega is the beginning of eternity.

- Eternity is not endless time.

- It is the dimensions beyond space and time.

- It is a timeless ending/beginning.

- It is the ouroboros in its entirety.

The One World Hypothesis

• Rationalism demands a teleology.

• Teleology requires a OWH.

• Teleology is a concomitant of monotheism.

• All four of these concepts should be

treated as virtually synonymous.

• All of these are essential to Coherence.

• Can this One World be anything other than

the Best Possible World?

The Millennium

• The BPWH envisions pre-millennialism.

- The Best Possible World hypothesis envisions the completion of

God’s salvific, sacrificial errand into Creation.

- This enables the establishment of God’s eschatological kingdom,

traditionally to last a thousand years.

- The actual time frame is likely to be substantially shorter rather

than longer.

• And what may we expect of the Millennium?

- It is a period of realignment between our hearts and intellects,

after the long drought of materialism.

- We finish our business here and prepare to transcend the

barriers of space and time.

• This may include the return of unprepared souls.

- There will be a gradual breaking down of barriers between our

individual egos, and between our separate states of


- Codified society gives way to organic community.

Relationalism: into the Millennium

• Relationalism is the foundation of Coherentism

- To be is to relate.

- The most real is the most related.

- Rather than a chain of being, there is a network of being.

• Permit me to anticipate criticism from the conservatives, legalists and


- I say relationalism.

- They hear ‘relativism, contextualism, situationalism’, i.e. ‘everyone does their

own thing’.

• The Millennial Aeon is a ‘gathering of the tribes’..

- The structured, stratified, codified order is replaced by the organic and

communal, if we dare use that word.

- The exemplars here are the early Christian communities.

• These were extended, mostly non-biological, families.

• They were mainly urban.

• Utopianism?

- Legislating or codifying the Millennium is oxymoronic.

- God’s kingdom grows only from the inside out.

• The true kingdom is always within.

- We evolve into the body of Christ.

• That is the eschaton.

Second Coming?

• By all accounts the prophetic tradition remains unfulfilled.

• Even the pantheist traditions envision a nadir of

spirituality followed by a return to a golden age

inaugurated by an avatar.

• The fulfilling of the prophesies is the prerequisite of the


• The christocentric/incarnational hypothesis is essential to

cosmic coherence and to its concomitant of an

eschatological restitution.

- The illogic of a dualistic monotheism had its historical purposes,

but now we are poised to transcend dualism.

Immaterialism & physics

• Materialism and immaterialism are antithetical.

• In contrast, physics and the BPWH have

Pythagoras in common.

- This is the notion of a cosmic harmony based on the

mathematical attribute of cosmic intelligence.

- The only issue is which is God and which is the tail.

In the BPW, the mathematical attribute is the tail.

- The Anthropic Principle demonstrates that it is the

personal side of God that is dominant.

The Just So Story of the Universe

Jack’s & Dan’s Little Book of Wonder

aka: Pomo’s Metanarrative



• Introduction

- What if….?

• How the web got its spider

- Indra the dream weaver

• The gods who played Pokatok

- Earth divers

- Our gnostic sojourn

• How the sky got its stars

- The song of the spheres

• How the numbers were made

- The story of Pi

• How the quantum got its observers

- No math w/o intellect

- Microcosmic atoms

• How the physicists learned to dance

- They’re doing the Monster Mash

• Destiny Matrix’ Child

- Mandelbrot mystery

- Message in a bottle

• How the sky does fall

- Pomo’s metanarrative

- What hit chicken little on her head?

• Starships and wrinkles in time

• All’s well that ends well

- Apokatastasis


• A big ‘what if’

- What if the universe were more like a great idea than a great


• It has been said that the language of the cosmos is


- Human intelligence has nearly mastered that language, but that

is not the end of our intelligence.

• Should mathematics be the end of cosmic intelligence?

- Is not our mathematical intelligence wired into the cosmos?

• What about the other aspects of our ‘natural’


- Might that not also be plugged into the cosmic mind?

• How else are we to make sense of Anthropics?

• What better way to grapple with the profound mystery of the mind?


Introduction (cont.)

• The upshot is that mathematical physics need not mark the end of

our ability to commune with the cosmic intelligence.

- Have we been remiss in not taking better advantage of this opening?

- We have been mesmerized by science for several centuries.

• Only now are we recovering our higher sensibilities after our

scientific/materialist binge.

• It is not surprising that there is a great reluctance to venture down

the path of reason and, yes, ultimately gnosis.

- We are not just being invited to become more fully acquainted with God.

• We are being invited to be one with God.

- Scientists wish not to make any concessions to religion.

- Religionists don’t want any external meddling in what they regard as

solely matters of doctrine and faith.

- Secularists are cautious about anything that could undermine unfettered


- Our natural conservatism holds us back from the leap ahead.

- But in the end, what can possibly restrain our spirits?

How the Web got its Spider

Indra the Dream Weaver

• For us monists, Indra’s web of existence comes for free.

- There is only one source:

• Matrix, mother, cosmic womb,

• Try as we might, we can never completely separate ourselves from

our source.

• It is impossible to sever the umbilical.

• Our problem is Indra herself.

- Creatrix, logos, christos, dream weaver

• Here is my explanation for her:

- Existence is relational

- To be is to relate

- The most related is the most real.

- Coherence is the key to existence.

- Our spider is the source of coherence.


Spider (cont.)

• Can there be too much coherence?

- Are creator and creation not infinite?

- Only qualitatively, not quantitatively

• See Mandelbrot

- This is where theists and pantheists part company.

- We have in mind the concept of Apeiron.

• The Matrix is the Apeiron in its potency

• Plato went too far in his disavowal of it.

- He was not a relationalist

• Coherence demands an external closure

• Coherence is necessarily subjective

- The creators are subjects/persons

- How many creators?

• see Mb.

• An infinity of creators only potentially

• Here, too, there is a social cohesion and closure

• In a relational world there is bound to be an optimal coherence.

- This is the BPW <-> coherence theory of truth

- Given even the possibility of a web there will inevitably be a real spider

The gods who played Pokatok

• Here is a more corporate view of creation

- A recreation of the gods becomes our


• Who was the Tom Sawyer who organized

the game and got the fence painted?

How the sky got its stars

• First in the heavens are the Sun and Moon

- The Sun/Earth is necessary to provide an open

access source of energy

- Plus there is a natural optimum of eco-diversity

• Tidal estuaries add a vital component

• Heliotropism keeps the Sun in its place

- Quasi-archetype

- PSR minimizes deviations

- Phenomenal cycles

• Ritualism

• With stars we appeal to the moon and zodiac

How the numbers were made

• The ontology of numbers and stars are similar.

- Thus can they be mutually supportive in our relational system.

- Thus ultimately astro-physics

• In the Mb we see how numbers reflect the cosmos.

- Another sign of mutuality

• In their organicity they reflect life and language

• See the ‘bpw-phys’ pdf

- Numbers relate phenomena

- They provide ‘matter’ with its coherence and consistency

- As with the Mb, there is an optimal ecology

- They are the tokens of symmetry

- They help to fill in the unobservable gaps.

• Numbers arise out of numerology and astrology

- As chemistry arises from alchemy

- In both cases we refrain from the arbitrary separation of ontology and


- The primal psychic circuit of the zodiac is the origin

• Thus the compartmenting, or literally the constellating, of our psyches

- Thus do numbers fall from the sky.

- Math genius is a recapitulation of these origins

How the quantum got its observers

• The quantum is a little piece of the Matrix

- Part of the bootstrap

- X is to the Matrix as we are to the quantum

• The quantum allows math/mind to connect to matter.

- Unlike classical phys.

- No math w/o intellect

• Atoms are microcosms

- Atoms contain all the math

• They pick up on the logical resonances as did Srinivasa

- We are the mesocosm

- Atoms are always entangled in the functional cycles

• They disentangle only if we need to take their picture

- They are particularly entangled in living systems.

• Where they behave like Mb-atoms

- The DNA, for example, is actually a functional archetype.

• That’s one way that the quantum ensures its observers.

How the physicists learned to dance

• Matter is all form and no substance

- In the first approx. the forms are Platonic

- Finally they are Pythagorean

• Even Aristotelian
The Lone Ranger & Tonto

High Noon at the ET Saloon

Lone Rnager


• Introduction

- Parallel lives

- Then a strange convergence

• Contact!

- A quarter century apart, but it’s still news from nowhere

• Space-Time & Beyond

- Fork in the path

- Physics vs. metaphysics

• Exopolitics

- MJ12 - Aviary

- Birds of a feather

• Dan and Jack mix it up on the Internet

- A fist-fight in heaven?

• Showdown/Showtime

- ET vs. UT

- Jack pushes physics to the brink

- Danny pulls an ace out of his sleeve

- It’s getting ugly at the ET Saloon


• Here we take a biographical approach to

confronting the question of the ages.

- Don’t we all want to know what makes the world go


• Six years apart in age, but we were both Sputnik


- Well, we were born on two sides of the tracks, and we

are now on two sides of the ‘green door’.

• Trust us, it’s all part of the plan.


Where Do We Come From?

Who are We?

Where are We Going?

Paul Gauguin


Introduction (cont.)

• Jack was contacted in1952

- It was a computer onboard a space ship from the future. The voice was


• Danny had to wait 25 years.

- Sophia was warm and fuzzy.

• It was worth the wait.

• This is the story of the lab raised chimps

- One chimp has a cold wired surrogate mother

- The other has a warm and fuzzy surrogate mother

- Guess which one is more exploratory?

• It’s Danny Boy who ventures off the deep end of space-time.

• Jack stays closer to the physics establishment


Introduction (cont.)

• Anthropic Cosmological Principle

- This is a major part of Jack’s first book.

- Danny is deep into this concept when he encounters Sophia in


- This encounter has a decidedly theistic flavor.

• Prior to this Danny was a self-styled transcendental pantheist.

• Next comes the exopolitics…

- Here again Jack has all the seniority.

• Child prodigy - contactee

• Could Uncle Sam ignore such a one?

- But Danny is not going to be left out

• He had another experience in 1991

- Shouldn’t he call 911?

• Thus do we encounter the ‘weird desk’.

• A couple of years later Dan is introduced to Jack by a ufologist

• Dan introduces Jack to Ron

• And so we come to MJ12 and the Aviary.

Space-Time & Beyond

• Jack sticks his neck out, metaphysically

- This is the early Jack, in his hippie mode.

- Jack sobers up

• He returns to work within the system, pushing the envelope of


• Danny Boy, having once given up on physics, also

returns to push the boundaries.

- Finding them unyielding, he strikes out on his own into the

strange world of metaphysics.

• Where will they meet again?

- On opposite sides of the ‘green door’ in Area 51!

• This is the gateway to the stars and beyond

• Will they be able to open the door?

Published 1975

Jack instigates it all.

Danny takes it all in.


• The story of phenomenology

- Uncle Sam keeps his eyes on the skies

• Not only do you track the phenomena, but also the people associated with the


- Jack & Dan?

• Jurisdictional issues

• Aviary & the phenomenology network

- Two intertwining concerns

• Physical & metaphysical

- The radar doesn’t always work

- Remote viewers get into the act: ~1980

» Military vs. scientific

- Going public

• Desert games

• ‘MJ-12’ documents

• TV disclosure

• ‘Pelican’ & the ‘weird desk’

- ‘high strangeness’

- Non-linear phenomena

• MJ-12 & the Visitors

- And the verdict is:

• Biggest hoax?

• Strategic cover?

• Global psy-op?

- Visitation: How? vs. Why?

• It’s about the hardware, stupid.

• It’s about the software, stupid.


Parousia by the Bay

Conclave of The Knights Extemporalis

Café Trieste

May 25, 2005


• Introduction

• Microcosm & Cosmos

- Cells, particles, words, music & numbers

- Plato vs. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, etc.

- Genius - coherence - observer

• S. Ramanujan

• Holism, coherence


- UEM, Anthropics, MG

- Archetypes, teleology

• Lessons of the Mandelbrot

- The phenomenology of numbers

- Organicity of all things

- Mother of the archetypes - AZO/X/QRP


Summary (cont.)

• Network of being

- Coherence theory

- Cosmic intelligence

• Bootstrap dynamics

- Self-excited circuit

• Wheeler, Feynman, etc.

- Ouroboros

- Channeling the Matrix

• Chaos vs. order

• PSR, Rational Theism

• Cloning, microcosmics, combinatorics

• Into the BPW



Summary (cont.)

• Creation/creator

- Morpheus to metamorphosis

- Self-sacrificing Creator

- Earth/cocoon

• Anthropics to anthropo-/geo-centrism.

- Pearl divers

• Grail quest

- Magic formula vs. M-brot

» Jack vs. Dan

• Parousia, Millennium, Eschaton

- Rationalizing the X-event

- Rationale for Y2X

- Visitors/Magi : Majic12 : Aviary : Aquarium : EFG

• Ron, Dan & Jack show

• DNI: Humint, Sigint, Imint & Masint

• ‘Phenomenology’ and high strangeness

- Trinity site to 9/11 to 2005

- Portals to the eschaton

Talking Points 1

• I see three overlapping meta-themes or issues. There will be much

bouncing back and forth.

• Teleology - Jack vs. Dan

- Anthropics -- weak vs. strong

- Eschatology - implicit vs. explicit

- Physicalism vs. immaterialism

- Dan introduces the mysterious Mandelbrot, exemplifying the Telos at


• ET encounters - two scenarios

- Jack: mainly hostile ET version - competitive

- Dan: mainly benign UT version - cooperative

- Both versions will include MJ12 and Aviary developments

- Disclosure & disinformation -- Jack vs. Dan

• Metanarratives

- Transhumanism vs.

- Best possible world

- In both instances we are at an historical juncture

- When and how will these issues be resolved?


Talking Points 2 (cont.)

• Saving the world

- From what?

• For whom?

- What is our responsibility?

• Let the BPW take care of itself?

• No consequences?

- BPW = min necessary consequences

- Were there consequences for Xian vs. Islam?

- Not BPW for Muslims?

• Why should Jack's people care?

- Why should physicists care?

- Responsible for Bomb

• Make amends

• High Strangeness

- Idiosyncratic, dreamlike

- Explains why most physicists ignore ufos

• BPW should be a no brainer

- Problems with Darwinism

• Social Darwinism

- Meaninglessness, alienation

- Scientific deconstruction has not been challenged in a global context.

- responsibility of cosmologists

• Mind over matter

- Ufos permit a rethinking of the world

• Ignore opportunity?

- Go for coherence and synthesis

- tell the most uplifting story possible


Talking Points 3 (cont.)

• Why are Jack and I still talking?

- What is Ron’s involvement?

- What would be the goal of a publication?

• Who has more room for maneuver?

• Paradigm/gestalt switch

- Opportunity for more than just technological change

• How will metaPh inform phys?

- About the eschaton

- About a creator

• This is where the futurists fall down

• They ignore the recursive aspects of their own scenarios, where we become

our own creators.

• Even a modicum of teleology will amplify itself

• Bootstrap applies mainly to intelligence

- About portals

- About archetypes

• Mandelbrot

• I don’t know what Jack will say about archetypes


Talking Points 4 (cont.)

• Past discussions

- Can there be mind w/o an archetypal self?

- Once you let a self in the door, it is hard to shut it

against all sorts of metaphysics.

- Jack is the mad inventor: Back to the Future.

• Strategy

- Not allow metaPh?

• Many will be turned away

• Very few physicists will notice

- If allowed?

• Yes, it will tend to take over. Can’t be helped.

• Scientists are worried about the slippery slope.

• Ufologists have a history of neglecting the weird.

• Ron knows better.

1   ...   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page