Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton

Download 4.74 Mb.
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   90


Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 20 , Column 1
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF WORDS - When a Central Intelligence Agency scientist visited the Hughes Electronics Corporation in Los Angeles in 1995 to learn more about China's missile capabilities, he became concerned that the satellite manufacturer might have helped improve Chinese military ... The worries of the scientist, Ronald Pandolfi, were not warmly received back at... [the CIA.....] [I have to pay for the rest]
Hmmm.............. Ron had warned on the weekend that he would be in the papers. It does seem that there are some politics going down with Ron. But what are they? Is this just hawks vs. doves, Republicans vs. Democrats? Through an 'acquaintance' of Ron's I learn that he is to attend a meeting later that week, a meeting that would seem to contradict the hawkish posture given above. I query Ron about this meeting on my analog cell phone, heading back to Baltimore. Ron is apoplectic. The meeting is cancelled. I get a digital phone, at his insistence.
How might one connect these additional dots? And let us not forget the 9/11 dot. We have two news articles. One involving trade with Japan, another involving a transfer to China. Oh, yes, a Senator had called the above acquaintance to say that she should not be concerned about Ron's being outed, there was more to the story than could be published, the abortive meeting being a part of that, we might suspect. Was it just by accident that I am being told these things. Ron did remonstrate about this second 'leak' within a leak, as if to underscore its importance for me.
Was Ron being deliberately outed to the Times by hostile colleagues? I don't think that holds water. Since when does the CIA spontaneously air its dirty linen in public. There is here a major breach of protocol. Is that an accident or is it possibly semiotic? Does this not connect back to my outing of him on CompuServe? The international signal is that another level of activation has been achieved. The loop now is much bigger than the phenomenology network. Every intelligence organization in the world could simply run his name against the Internet and immediately come up with the Aviary and Aquarium. Might they not easily conclude that this otherwise inexplicable breach in protocol would likely be a signal relative to these other strange links? Every intelligence agency in the world has now been put on notice.
And then comes 9/11. Ouch! This is a tough one. Or is it? By now, should it not be a no-brainer? On 9/1/01 Ron calls for an urgent meeting of the Aquarium to be held at the zoo on 9/16. And it comes off, right on schedule. And then there is Deborah on the tarmac at Logan at 8am on the day in question. It does seem that someone is dabbling in more than just politics. At what point does mere conspiracy morph into choreography? How may they overlap? And who is the Choreographer?
Last month we are back again at the zoo, this time with a bodyguard, and I'm being told that my remarks on the previous occasion had been recorded via the security cameras and underground mikes. It does give one pause.
Does this feel like a run-up to the Millennium? These bits of choreography do not seem to jibe with mere millenarianism. It would seem that something more dramatic is afoot. Was 9/11 just the whiff of grapeshot meant to sober us up? Should we not be getting cold feet? Where is Chicken Little when we need her? Where is Sophia, for that matter? Where are Ocelot and Ferret, and 'Charlene'? Where is the next data point?
How many Deborahs are out there, and how can they manage to maintain a state of total denial, even at the eye of the gathering storm? What will become of them? Where are the Unitarians when we need them?
Is there any point in my trying to speed things up, or slow them down? Is there any call for me to do more than what I'm doing right now? Is my networking not deliberately dependent on the participation my interlocutor? Or has it been left up to me to break the glass ceiling? If so, could I not just create a disturbance as suggested elsewhere? I am not presently motivated in that direction. Will 'nature' not take its own sweet time?
But what about all those other folks out there, who, as I speculate, have been put on notice? Would not some of them be tempted to manipulate or disrupt these proceedings? The apparent lack of such activity may constitute the strongest evidence against my speculation. But what could they do? Any disturbance would most likely just call attention to these speculations. It is Ron's job to be keeping the pulse of the insiders, while I watch the outside.
But it would also be easy for an insider to masquerade as an outsider, and act to prime the networking pump. Does anything prevent this? There could be thousands of people with just a smattering of inside information who could independently connect these same dots. Who is to run herd on them?
And what about the religious activists? I know that Ron has connections in those circles, certainly on the Catholic side. Would not some of them smell a rat, to put it mildly? Would there not be more than a few raised eyebrows? What about our Muslim brothers? Do they not have vested interests in these matters? What are they to make of these carryings on? How anxious am I to find out?
If you had asked me how to run the R&D show, I would not have come up with this strategy, not in a million years. If it is working, I could not say how. On the other hand, I see no other way to extend the run-up for this many years, i.e. thirteen and counting. I can only see the tip of what must be an iceberg, if it is anything at all. This is why I remain comfortable in this mainly spectator role, still the ingénue.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, or so say the skeptics. Let us consider this statement.

This seemingly simple aphorism glosses over many deep issues of epistemology, issues which I have never seen addressed by those who are won't to employ it. In defense of the skeptics, it should be noted that the targeted claimants very seldom challenge the premise of the statement. And generally speaking, the claimants are in no position to do so.
Almost by default, science has been accepted as the arbiter of reality. Those people wishing to proclaim the reality of anomalous phenomena seldom question the arbiter status of science, and so they lay their claims at its doorstep. They come as supplicants to the alter. The fact that their entreaties are invariably rejected, never seems to deter the next supplicant in this endless parade. One might suppose that after centuries of repeating the ritual beating of the head against the wall, the head beaters would, just for once, step back to examine the wall that confronts them.
It has been a simple but profoundly effective game that science has played against nature and against its rivals: divide and conquer. That is the game of reductionism, of deconstruction. Once that strategy is fully engaged, there will be no stopping it, not until it has played itself out. There is little to be gained by throwing your body in front of that Juggernaught. The non-reductionists can only bide their time.
Well, we can do a bit more than that. We can begin to lay the groundwork for our eventual, inevitable return engagement. That is what you see me doing here.
What I believe that I can see more clearly than anyone else on the Google radar screen, is that when this table finally turns, it will be a 180 degree turn. Yes, there are ample signs that science is slowly loosing its grip on reality, but this game is not science's to loose. If we have to wait for science to completely loose its grip, we could be waiting for another century or two. Long before that eventuality, there will be an end game. The new arbiter of reality will arise in direct contention with science. The end game will be decided, not on the preponderance of the evidence but on the nature of the evidence. At some point, the reality rug will be pulled out from under science. Science will continue to toil in its own garden, but then it will become evident that the garden was just a floating garden all along. It is not atoms that are the bedrock of reality. The ground of being is being, itself. As the strategy of reductionism begins to falter, it can only be replaced by coherence.
Just as there was an inexorable logic to reduction and analysis, there is also an inexorability with regard to coherence. Once the table has been turned, coherence will quickly be pressed to its cosmic limit. Yes, that limit may turn out to be illusory, but it will be tested with full determination.
All that I have been asking on these pages is, if there is a cosmic coherence, what will be its nature. Leibniz answered this question centuries ago. This logical limit of cosmic coherence is simply defined by the concept of the Best Possible World. There can be no other limit for coherence. This will automatically be the prime contender for all possible schemes of coherence. I have here a uniquely modern, postmodern grip on this simple truth.
This is my one thesis that I nail to the door of science. It presents us with a whole new ballgame concerning ontology, epistemology and the relation between them. It will be the turn of science to twist in the wind.
In the scheme of the BPW, eschatology is nothing extraordinary. It is simply what comes 'naturally' as a logical component of the bigger picture. It is only in this metaphysical context that the issue of choreography arises. Any direct overlap between the generation of these metaphysical insights and the governmental monitoring of phenomenology could easily hold extraordinary implications for the future. If there is any eschatological fire, it is certainly being entertained here in an unprecedented fashion. Should we then be surprised by the strong indications given above, that a diverse collection of such folk has been made aware of this activity? Would not these individuals simply be doing what we should expect of them: keeping an eye on the contingencies, without being unduly influenced by contemporary metaphysical fashions? As for el Presidentes? Well, you never know what they might think they have a need to know.

The points we need to keep in mind were addressed on 7/5 and 7/6, as we consider the shift from a premillennial to an amillennial footing. With the greater overall time pressure, there will be more emphasis on the team work and coordination between the parallel tracks: inside and outside, organized and spontaneous. There is some proprietary information on the inside. There is the more spontaneous effort on the outside. At some crucial point in the run-up the tracks may need to intersect so that we can be playing off the same sheet of music. Then the orchestration begins in earnest. The crucial question for me is, if this is going to happen, will it be in my lifetime, and will I be there? However, for the purposes here, I have to continue assuming so.

For an amillennial scenario, a real-time cosmic input must come early and strong. How much more priming must there be for that to occur? Where do I need to be for that to happen? There is some suggestion to continue working on the Sarfatti list. I was thinking that I had about done what I could there, with minimal results. Those physicists can be tough nuts. In order to move ahead I would at least need to resume the conversation with the other interlocutor.
Speaking of Jack, we may need to reconsider the deus ex machina problem. It doesn't hurt to keep our eyes on the skies, but there are other places to look as well. Thinking of Donald Menzel, astronomer in the Navy, we might consider Davy Jones' locker. Thinking of the Pied Piper and the wee folk, we might also want to look underground. In other words, Jack's propulsion problem may turn out to be a portal problem. Our docking maneuver may already have begun, as per Rick and the EBE's. If there is a sustained dock, it may be ensconced. If I recall the whereabouts of Hal's 'UFO', was it not under Frog Mountain? A strange place for a hangar.
This is pure speculation, but it might provide a useful thought experiment. We face a major logistical headache, given our tentative amillennial scenario. We have an exodus problem. In one sense, there is no exodus problem if we just continue to rely on natural attrition, all we have is a population problem. But that is no insignificant problem. We need to prime the exodus pump in a non-traumatic fashion. We send people packing to Frog Mountain. The rumors of disappearing folk begin to get around. There are more volunteers. My understanding of the EBE story is that this has already occurred in a very limited and usually temporary fashion. We would just need to step up the pace and rumor mill. Then what? What happens when '60 Minutes' or Larry King picks up the scent? That's when the rubber meets the road. That is when the two tracks intersect.
Would there not be a concurrent breakdown of the social order? Would there not be a significant panic? There would have to have been a very considerable and rapid run-up in our networking effort prior to this Disclosure Day. It would take a virtually miraculous networking effort to mitigate the effects of D-day. I would be skeptical about the success. If we could possibly get over that hump, then the birthrate might begin to fall, and, by duplicating portals, we could begin to make a dent in the logistics.
Of course there would have to be considerable two-way traffic at first. There would need to be considerable tourism and day-tripping. What might we expect to see in the brochures? Will the eventual migration operate more by benefit of carrot or stick? Right now, your guesses are as good as mine.

For the most part, and once we overcome our initial trepidations, we will want to move on to complete our extended journey through time, and reintegrate ourselves into the cosmic infrastructure. I doubt that many of us could presently imagine how this reintegration will come about. We will just be going with the flow.

There will be stragglers. They will not be able to return to the JPc/Eden. A timeless Eden is one of the many mansions. It is not meant for stragglers. They will likely end up in a refugee camp of some kind, not something to look forward to. Just the scene that is becoming so familiar. Will those who are now in in the camps be staying there? I would hope that the bulk of them can make the transition on their own. The camps will be expanded, however, to include those who balk at the end.
At some point the present infrastructure will be breaking down. This will provide a major impetus to move on. This infrastructure will be supplanted, but only for those who do not try to hang on to the fading present. The infrastructure of the camps will just be temporary and makeshift.
None of this will be particularly easy. Heaven is not going to be wine and virgins.
The next issue will be the manner of our bodily existence. At best, what we now consider our bodies will become optional. They will become decreasingly significant. Bodily concerns are for those in the camps. Moving beyond the physical is a major part of the transition.
This is a very rough outline. We will come know these things as the need arises. Our main task is to be focused on the Presence, i.e. that which is beyond the mere present.

We have all heard of Doomsday and Judgment Day. Do we wonder where these ideas came from? Logically they derive from our attempt to model cosmology with biology. The world is born and then it dies, presumably to be reborn.

In nature, we see few signs of an aging world. However, in social systems a biological model is more relevant. Personal regimes tend to follow the biology of the leader. Dynasties would follow the life cycle of the ruling clan, usually starting in a state of vigor, but then declining as the power of the clan gradually becomes corrupted and dissipated, until there would be a violent regime change. The old regime may be held accountable for its failings. Election cycles follow a similar pattern.
Virtually all mythic world systems are cyclic. None are static or evolving. With a static system there is no story. With an evolving system there is the problem of an ending.
We might wonder at the concept of eternity. The cyclic systems have endless time, but that is not eternity. With the Hindu system one can escape the wheel of time to nirvana and Brahman. In Einstein's general relativity, time is local to a given universe. There is the implication of a timeless background manifold, an implication which is partially realized in the inflation scheme.
Then comes the notion of a Creator. The Creator must break the cycle, or she becomes absorbed into it. The Creator is the author of history. She must exist outside of history. An unnatural element supervenes nature.
Once again I have the opportunity to correct myself. Norse mythology is not cyclic. Time begins spontaneously, as with Einstein, but then ends in a paradisiacal eternity, as in the theistic systems, but only after most of the gods succumb in Ragnarok, a free-for-all or Doomsday version of Armageddon. Odin is neither the first nor the last of the genealogical pantheon. With Einstein, the Big Crunch is optional.
If the world is to have meaning, it must be the locus of a project, a project that is realizable. In the theistic systems, there is no project. There is a fall and then a further decline, with a final battle against the forces of evil producing a small saved remnant. There is in Judaism and Christianity an earthly messianic kingdom and Millennium, respectively. These act as mere appendages to history. They do not ascribe any meaning to it.
There is finally the notion of progress, an idea that emerges surprisingly late in history, and only in a secular context. This idea goes back only to the European Renaissance, contradicting the cyclic name of its origin. Only when science was brought on board, did the idea of progress become robust. We still struggle to find a logical connection between evolution and progress. It is the postmodern view that there is no such connection. Only the transhumanists and ufologists look to a universal progress. Very few people are able to see a connection between technological and moral progress.
It is a central thesis of the BPWH that progress, to be part of a meaningful world, must be a realizable project. It is a project that must end in an apokatastatic eschatology . This means, however, a decisive and final transformation from a material to a spiritual understanding of the overall project. There is a final change in the gestalt of progress, from the technical conquest of nature, to the mental or spiritual conquest over matter. This eschatology outstrips the the mythic and traditional worldviews. Such an outcome would have been incomprehensible, and is prefigured only in the pantheistic system of Hegel.
History is witness to our sojourn into the heart of the matter. Only at the end of that journey, as presaged in the discovery of the quantum and anthropics, do we begin to realize that it is just our own footprints, along with the thumbprint of God, that we see in those metaphysical innards. Thus do technology and science become our springboard to apokatastasis.
Our errand into the wilderness has been accomplished. We return with the pearl of great price. We come to know ourselves, and God through us, in the mirror of Creation. This is an eternal knowledge. It need not be repeated. There is no judgment, only gnosis. More accurately, judgment is subsumed in gnosis.
Can we ask for anything more? Should we expect anything less? Is God's kingdom not in heaven? When our mission has been accomplished, what need have we to tarry down here? If there is a further mission, it would be for a clean-up crew: rather anti-climactic. For you and me, it is onward through the looking-glass.
The idea of a portal may seem intimidating. There will be the opportunity for day trips, but I suspect there will be remarkably few of those. The lines will quickly become too long for that logistic. The way back will seem increasingly onerous. We waiting upon our designated Pied Piper. A few single men go first, soon to be followed by single women, then first come first serve. Meanwhile the portals proliferate and expand. Finally, the mothers with young children and the most elderly would bring up the rear, except for the closeout crew. If you want to leave in a flying saucer, that would require a special arrangement, like an ambulance service.
Gosh, I nearly forgot about our furry and feathered friends. Somehow, I just don't see any real problem there. Won't they be able to look out for themselves? Will we need a latter-day Noah? That will be more just a matter of quality. Only with us humans, and our pets, of course, do the quantities really matter. There will be 'ecosystems' on the other side, but not the metabolism. Our bodies, such as they may be, will be morphing into those of avatars. The 'economy' will not be based on production. Time will quickly become passé.
We might want to consider how our entrance into the other world will differ from our initial entrance here.
First though is a minor technical difficulty. How are our Stargaters going to breathe on the other side?
The answer is fairly simple. If angels can pretend to have bodies, then we can pretend to breathe. It is the same idea, but working backwards. It is the same way that anthropics works. On the other side of the portal, reality is more fluid, the way things used to be here, back in the mythic dream-time, in the JPc/Eden.
Our reality is a collective state of mind, or a very stable and compelling lucid dream. The emphasis is on the collectivity of it. On the other side of the portal is a collectivity of hyper-dimensional intelligences or angels concentrating hard on making their reality compatible with ours. The portal may have existed since the beginning of time, and remained in more or less continuous use. There is a resultant cross-socialization of the reality on each side, so that there is as little discontinuity as possible. Everytime we go to sleep we get to practice with alternate realities. Dream connections could become as important as the portals. They allow for more practice, and could serve as an emergency escape hatch if necessary. We will have to socialize our dream state into a more effective conduit of communication. The portals may just act as primers to that larger reality pump. BYOB, bringing your own body, is optional at this party. And we can hookup with our dear departed, at least temporarily, in an Earthly form.
As we increasingly frequent other realities and states of mind, this reality will gradually revert to its original, more fluid state. As our dreams become more lucid, our waking becomes less so. Perhaps that is why the EBEs made solitary visits, so that they would not de-socialize our reality prematurely. The interrogators would have to be frequently rotated, so as not to be entrained to the other side. Next up is the Pied Piper.
Don't get me wrong. This is not going to be an easy or casual transition. There will be foul-ups, and some people will get seriously discombobulated in the process. We will have to act with deliberate speed, once the situation begins to get fluid.

What should be surprising to us is that there are not more holes in our world. There would have been a deliberate effort to keep these to a minimum so as not to destabilize our world. Instead there are angels, ghosts, flying saucers, etc., which act as mobile portals. Since the dimensions on the other side are more fluid, one may use these portals as devices for, in effect, warping space and time. You can walk into one portal and then walk out in another time or place. Portals may also be accessed by various forms of psychic projection. They may tend to be located in the vicinity of 'energy vortex' sites. Associated with every type of portal are mutual, collective psycho-social protocols that are established over long periods of time. These archetypes are tapped into when the portal is in use. In as much as our psyches all tap into the cosmic psyche, every being is a virtual portal. In some sense, all anomalous phenomena manifest a thinning or permeability of our normal reality boundaries. Physics operates undisturbed away from the soft spots. Keep in mind, however, that the starry sky serves as both a portal and a filter of cosmic phenomena. It is the semi-permeable membrane of our reality.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   90

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page