Idealist Cosmology 


Over the years I have come to accept that mine was a lonely struggle against enormous odds, but when a few minutes ago I entered "immaterialist cosmology" into Google and obtained the portentous result of zero hits, even I was taken aback.  Google covers, I believe, at least two billion pages.  Even a monkey on a typewriter would have done better than that, as a simple calculation ought to show.  As of now I am the first person to type that phrase on the web. 

If this is not a cause for 'pronoia' I don't know what else could be.  This seems reminiscent of an 'ovoid' model of revelation.  The truth, like an ovum, has a membrane barrier, and only one sperm is destined to penetrate.  That is how the cosmic communication channel is kept optimally noiseless.  This also had something to do with the Aquarium's peculiar interaction with the CIA.  There is a minimal cosmic conspiracy behind this mini-messianic, second coming, and our friendly spooks at that acronymous agency had to be minimally involved so that history would not repeat that sordid business with Herod and Pilate & Co.  Otherwise lightning would strike from the NSA as soon as I hit the Front Page publish icon.  I'll try it right now just for the heck of it.  Don't switch the dial....

There, see, what'd I tell you.  No lightning.  Obviously Catfish has done his job.  Good work, Ron! 

But back to business.  Let's try "idealist cosmology" -- four big hits, and I know one of them personally, Amit Goswami, that is, nice fellow.  He is or was a physics professor at Oregon (U?) at Eugene, and was visiting family back in DC a few years ago.  

There is just a slight problem.  Like almost all of our immaterialist colleagues, he suffers from the Blavatsky syndrome.  I was a virtual member of theosophy for a few years, but I realized that out of at least subliminal opportunism, Helena P. had compromised the central tenet of coherence, in capitulating to the materialist cosmology.  She would have had to have been a saint not to have done that, and, as they say, she weren't no saint!  If you don't have coherence, what the heck have you got??  Does this make me a saint?  No, just one plucky spermatozoa, looking over his shoulder at the 800 pound gorillas in the wings, and the rest of us six billion beautiful swimmers. 

Then what?  Do I just sit here on this lonely cloud waiting for the Internet to gestate, gastrulate and what ever else it's supposed to do?  Probably not. 

There are a few other folk in here, I think.  The only almost contemporary, just off the top, was Owen Barfield (1898-1997) (a must see site!).  I should do some pages just on him.  And don't they also say, at least in Rome, and probably also at McClean, the only good saint is a dead saint!  There should be ample opportunity to ponder that little question.  Just for now, please note, that before he came over here, Owen was a close friend of Lewis' at Oxford.  There was a CS Lewis 'clone' over here, a stealth one compared to his friend Jack.  The only weak link may have been the eschatology, but do see his 'final participation.'  Also, I guess, he just didn't have that physics chutzpa.  There is something about becoming overly familiar with nuclear physics and cosmology that can cause one to grow impatient with the literati.  That's my excuse, anyway, for the 'buck has to stop somewhere' mentality.  


On the Web: 

<-- Prev      Next -->

Topical Index