More of the Same
My poor neglected diary, but the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The meeting with Gordon N. did not go well, in my estimation. This guy is a great actor or entirely clueless in Las Vegas. This is the Forrest Gump of assassinations and tape erasures. He could stumble into MJ12 and stumble right out again.
I demanded a meeting with CF on Friday. He says I am too impatient with Gordon. Be that as it may. I'm not working for Central Casting.
I did have three questions for CF. With regard to the Woolsey briefing of GHWB, he tells me not to waste my time. The presidents cannot be players. You tell them what you have to tell them, and then hope you don't have to put them down. Democracy and capitalism are not the be all and end all of human existence. Was JFK dumb enough to get himself and his brothers sidelined? Did they mean well, or were they trying to upstage Charlie and Sophia? Headstrong, I think they call it. They never knew what they were going up against until it was too late. Now there are better safeguards in place.
As for BJ's briefing in the desert, it had to do with reverse engineering. There is some truth to that idea, but it ain't about saucers, Hon, it's about Creation, if you get my drift. BJ is still POed at me and still on his code of silence. Each to their own. CF is bringing BJ back to the company in three weeks, but evidently he forgot to tell him, so I had to.
Finally I asked him about the Anderson article. What article, he asks? Well, then, you've answered my question, says I. Long pause...... Oh, that article, says he! Typical.
It does turn out that CF is buddies with Porter. That could be interesting. He may get a Bigelow on his floor, instead of the usual newspapers. He did wonder about Bill doing a write-up on Gordon. Bill has been thinking more about a reprise of the AAE article done with REG, but placing it with Tina Brown in a few months. Do you think that we or she are ready for that? That would really be humping the ol' timeline. I'll have to ask 'Dr. Felini' about that. Hey, that's a good one, Bill!
Dr. F did manage to throw a curve, he always does. This was an old curve, but with new spit. It's about the missing source. Seems like we did really have a 'five martini' source back in the 70s with Grillflame. But it weren't Pat Price, and maybe not even Charlie. Might it have been Sophia/Graff, without the Graff? My response is that the source probably never went away, but just shape-shifted, as usual. Witness TX11.
I'll have to ask him next time about the missing money that Dick D'amato went chasing out in the desert. How much is missing? Is it just billions, or could it be trillions? There aren't that many grains of sand out there. How much would it cost to buy a doormat for the Green door?
What next? Who knows?
There is still the question of how Gordon got hooked up with Hal. This appears to have happened under the aegis of the LA Scientology chapter referenced on the previous page in connection with Parsons. Dr. F. is not innocent of such a connection, either. It is a small world.
It may well be that the timing of the activation of the EFG was partially geared to the election cycle, simply to remove that additional variable. Related to this timing is the change of DCI. That would indicate that the agency would be the focus of governmental shifting, rather than the administration proper.
The Iraq business is just an extension of the cold war: a focusing distraction that also provides some cover, particularly on the intelligence side. This would be adequate justification for a minimal loss of life. The heightened clash of cultures and religions does provide a suitable backdrop for the EFG/Y2C.
There is a second meeting today with BJ. He has been the most vocal opponent of the EFG. I would like to see some movement, but past experience argues against rising expectations. How can he stand up to the JackA91 and John16? Is the handwriting not on the wall? Is it not a fait accompli?
CF has pointed to the missing Source as being of greater intelligence significance than the visitation, per se. Is this simply another pointer to the EFG, and its linkage to 9/11? There were also the exchanges with BobbyK, NancyE and ChrisS that point to the 'take charge' phrase used on CompUServe, and underscored by JackA.
BJ must understand that the sequestration had a sunset provision from the beginning. It makes no sense and could not have worked otherwise. It was an acclimation project from the beginning. The EFG is the logical denouement of that project. It was never just an addendum.
Also there is the likelihood that Osama is at the PE/CL level. Iraq leaves him undercover. He would have a role to play in the EFG. This would also relate to the 9/16 Zoo meeting. Everything happens at the Zoo. Does this mean there might be ~10K folks at this level? Is that a stretch? What can we expect, leading up to the election? Any more 'surprises'?
My next step might be to get cranked into the Arlington Institute. I'll have to ask about that.
OK, so the meeting turned into a phone call. It went perfectly well. He remains open to most ideas, and as long as we can communicate, that is the main thing. Whatever reservations he has, can probably be worked around, and may be useful as points of discussion.
CF had stated that the reverse engineering program is a fiction, useful or official though it may be. I stated that I had never supposed that visitation and engineering had to be connected, but BJ stated that in his briefings they always were connected. If CF had wanted to deny the visitation, which is my thing, he would have done so, but, no, he singled out just the engineering component for his skepticism.
Also BJ had heard about the prospective promotion several months ago from someone he considered nutty. This is in accord with my conclusion that this has been in the works for some time. It is part of the main timeline.
At this point I should switch back to email mode, but don't go away.
Permit me please to burden you with some additional speculation. You are encouraged to play the Devil's advocate here, if that role continues to suit you.
The major item on my plate is the putative promotion. As you know, I have been waiting for the breaking of the 'glass ceiling' vis a vis the EFG. This would be tantamount to that. If CF becomes more visible, then so surely will the eschaton, and I'll wager that is the whole point of it, with all due respect to CF himself.
The fact that you may have heard about this several months ago does tend to confirm this view: that it is part of the main timeline and not just something fortuitous and ad hominem. That would have been about the same time that Ron moved to reactivate the EFG, strong correlation. All this goes back at least to the Anderson 1992 article, and probably much further.
This then raises the main issue between the two of us concerning my proactive stance relative to the alleged eschaton. You are not discounting my eschatological speculations. BTW, what are your independent sources on the eschaton?
My views of it are heterodox in the extreme, by way of anticipating your questions. I see us as the co-creators of this world, and, in fact, our participation in cosmogenesis, reaches a crescendo in the frame of the eschaton. It will be a very deliberate and extended participation on our part, very different from the usual Rapture scenario.
It will largely be orchestrated by us and for us, speaking as a Universalist. The whole visitation process has just been a run-up to this eventuality. The eschaton baton was being passed to us from on-high. The ball is now almost completely in our court.
[For the sake of argument, and to distinguish this from the Rapture, I like the Green Door hypothesis. Charlie and Charlene came here by way of the GD/portal/stargate underground in area 51, say. That is also meant to be our 'evacuation' route. You may take it from here.]
The EFG has been groomed, rather carefully, to put a public face on this previously sequestered preparation. That is just a continuation of what I have been doing from day one in 1991. The Anderson article was a very significant early endorsement of this process. But now it will have to become more visible. I don't see the possibility of many more baby steps here. At some point it will have to be like jumping into the cold shower, but it will be more like a hot stove.
If the CF and Dan show was ever going anywhere, then this is it. He is riding shotgun, almost literally. I get the fun part. If I were God, this is how I would have planned it. This is the best possible rapture in the best possible world. I would be happy to argue this point with you and anyone else. That's my job!
Let us converse about this. But you do understand that this conversation will have to be expandable, sooner rather than later. The conversation starts with you and me, but it cannot end here, certainly not in my estimation. We will have to establish an expansion protocol ASAP. No?
I will be meeting with Steve Bassett this evening. My advice will be to caution about fighting against city hall. Among ufologists there is the presumption of connivance between the establishment and the bad aliens. There is the further presumption that the good guys will prevail.
This implies a very considerable myopia on the part of the bad guys. It implies that they are deliberately picking a fight with cosmic intelligence. Would this not be a very dumb move? How many people in the world, if given a clear choice, would side with the devil? This would be tantamount to nihilism. If there are nihilists in the world, you would not find them ensconced in the establishment. True, the establishment might attempt to resist an NWO, but not if it was a fait accompli. More likely, the smart money would out in front on any NWO. Capitalists are not genetically disposed to going down with the ship. They would not be where they are if they were. The visitors have the contrary problem of keeping their potential suitors at bay for as long as possible.
How do the visitors manage to remain incognito for an indefinite period? They can manage this only with an excellent rationale. It would be hard to imagine a more adequate rationale than that of preparation for an eschaton.
Permit me to use this space to compose a message to Jack.
I have to wonder, then, whether there are any limits that can be placed on the power of the mind.
Is there anything that could prevent intelligent beings (IBs) from manipulating the laws of physics. For instance, are there any reasons why an IB could not create a universe with an arbitrary set of physical principles and parameters?
Are there any limits on the robustness of a simulated world that an IB could create?
Is there any good reason to suppose that our world is not one of these created or simulated worlds?
Is there any a priori reason to suppose that Platonic worlds would be favored over Aristotelian worlds, using Max Tegmark's terminology. Physicists like to assume that we inhabit a Platonic world with Aristotelian appearances, but we do not know that it is not actually just the reverse.
One problem here is that we do not know what is the ground or source of existence.
On Tegmark's view, all of the above are possible and, therefore, probable, and equally so.
We would have then complete ontological neutrality: there is no distinction between possibility and actuality.
If there is no distinction between possibility and actuality, then there is no source of being. If there is only actuality, there is no possibility or potency, and so no source. This is not in accord with the inflationary model of cosmogenesis. It is in accord, though, if we take an trans-temporal perspective.
If there is, however, an actual source of being, that totipotency is susceptible to being co-opted by a principle of vitality. I suspect that is the case. It would be like the thermophiles living as close to the vent as possible, and thus potentially regulating that source.
Another avenue to the same conclusion is to adopt an observer principle: no unobservable worlds. There is then a vital selection principle attendant upon the Source.
Clearly your powers of imagination exceed those of Scott.
But the situation of Alien contact is a challenge that ought to truly stretch our powers of imagination to the utmost, assuming there are even any limits in that regard.
If there is ever going to be a motivation for us to think outside the box, then Alien contact ought surely to provide it.
This will certainly be the case if we are dealing with UTs rather than mere ETs. And we surely do not know yet which situation pertains. Are our visitors from Planet X or from Dimension X, or both or none of the above?
How do we know that they do not bring their own reality with them? How do we know that they are subject to our laws of physics, or to any laws at all?
Why is it that this situation, after all these years, is still being handled by intelligence officers and not by scientists?
Do you really suppose that the best minds in the world have not already been recruited to examining these data, probably being given more data than you or I have access to?
Do you suppose that Ron has not had to give briefings at the highest levels? Do you suppose that the possibility of a scientific explanation is not frequently raised?
I submit that the real data have a degree of strangeness that places them outside the physics box. As a physicalist, you may have difficulty countenancing that possibility. Can you not imagine a phenomenon sufficiently strange or anomalous to place it outside the physics box? It would only take one such event to blow your reality out of the water. Do really you want us to bet the future of our civilization on the possibility that not such event has or will occur?
MJ12 cannot afford to bring their biases and prejudices to their work. They cannot afford to be constrained by metaphysical prejudices such as your notion of physicalism. We pay them to consider all the possibilities, do we not? You are singularly unwilling to do that.
Is there no scientist in the world to whom you would be willing to submit your ideas and formulas? Is there no physicist in the world who could peer review your work?
If not, then what are the rest of us supposed to do? Are we supposed to turn over the control of MJ12 to you, just on your word. Imagine how much faith in you that would require of us. And I thought you said there was no place for faith!
What is left for us to do?
I am currently reading The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath (2004). It is given only 17 mostly unenthusiastic reviews (sales rank 9,255). You may compare this with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris ('04). This has 123 mostly enthusiastic reviews (sales rank 33). The reviewer for Salon, Laura Miller, writes:
There's something inadvertently eloquent about the fact that Alister McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism" and Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" have been published within a month of each other, as they so perfectly illustrate the triumph of heat over light in this debate. The first book is a semi-disguised crowing session about the subsiding of godlessness in the Western world, the second is a 336-page fulmination on the evils of religion and the urgent need to crush it before it kills us all. [...] It's enough to make you suspect that it's no longer possible to have a real conversation about religion.
From the reader response one may gather that Atheism is not riding quietly into the sunset. There is a tone of stridency in the latter reviews, quite lacking in the former.
My quarrel with McGrath is in his disavowal of any evidentiary basis for either view. It then is a matter of taste. The problem is that the scientific understanding of facts is incommensurate with that of a metaphysical understanding. There are two types of evidence. Is the choice between these two paths also a matter of taste. I think not, simply because the metaphysical view can embrace the physical in a way that is not and cannot be reciprocated. The metaphysical or spiritual view is capable of much greater comprehension and coherence, than is the scientific. Science may be universal, but metaphysics is cosmic. Science works within a state of denial of anything metaphysical. That denial is the basis of its methodology. Spirit is all encompassing. Science presumes only efficient causes. Metaphysics accepts all causes. Immaterialism can comprehend materialism to a degree that cannot be reciprocated or even countenanced by materialism.
It is true, however, that I do still struggle to find a comfortable repose for efficient causes in the scheme of final causes. Jaegwon Kim suggests that final and efficient causes are incompatible in dealing with mental phenomena. I have yet to formulate an adequate response. I continue to nibble around the problem. I am not entirely confident that the elevation or reification of cyclical phenomena can measure up to the task.
Physics does not recognize causes, nor even the directionality of time except in the phenomenology of thermodynamics. In, general, science does not pinpoint causes except when dynamic equilibria are disturbed as in the phenomenology of disease, or in other catastrophic incidents. Storms are not given specific causes, but are seen as components of a complex dynamic system. In ecology, predators and prey are two components of a system and of an extended food chain.
Previously I have equated materialism with reductionism and so with atomism. Presumably atoms do not countenance final causes. Neither do the laws of physics. You may only ask if a sequence of events is lawful or not.
Atoms don't strictly exist for physics. They are hardly even theoretical entities. What exists practically are the mathematical methods for making predictions. The methodology only speaks directly to observables or measurements. Particles and fields are labels that, at best, may be attached to some symbols. The predictions are only probabilistic.
Where atoms figure more directly is in the phenomenon of evaporation. How is an immaterialist meant to cope with this? Do we merely need to point to the hydro cycle? Elsewhere I have fallen back on the archetypes in the scheme of AZO/X/QRP. Given the hydro cycle and this scheme, something resembling water molecules ought to fall out or emerge without too much difficulty. Does this credibly spell the end of materialism? Optimistically, sure. Without a backup team, this ought to pass first muster. It should be suggestive of further research. Presently I feel no pressure to extend this scheme by myself.
It is one thing to have atoms emerge archetypically, it may be another thing to have them behave properly in all their multiplicity. Do we need to confer upon them a substantial individuality? Particles in physics actually have no individual identity. They are perfectly exchangeable. Identity, then, is something metaphysical. It is this (and only this?) something extra that seems to cause the conceptual difficulty with immaterialism.
From whence comes identity? Does it not come from introspection? Can that, or must that introspection be applied to pebbles and grains of sand? Do they have any self-identity, or is it only conferred by sentience and memory? When does a rock become a 'pet rock'? A point to keep in mind here is that all identity is only ever probable, it is never absolute. No identity is immune from loss or theft. As something purely relational, actual identity cannot underwrite the necessarily absolute and metaphysical claims of materialism.
My further claim is that physicalism, without the metaphysics of materialism, has no metaphysical basis of its own. It is just a useful methodology as noted above. Without its assumed objective materiality or physicality it is merely a mental construct that would be appropriately susceptible to a teleological override. Need we argue this? The least action premise of physicalism is well situated within our best possible world.
The Creator, X, conspires to break the symmetry of Z. Alpha becomes the primordial game of Pokatok, and the Omega goes back to X again in an ouroboric manner. The A to O is spanned by the QRP archetypes, the metabolic cycles, R, being the principal of these. The ball court is part of a Jurassic Parc. The primordial physical object is the ball itself. I'm not sure what would be the most effective way to introduce the reproductive cycle, but it could be patterned after the ouroboros. The Zodiacal cycle is the seed that grows into the A/O ouroboric cosmic circuit, as part of the dialectic bootstrap. Seed production is a key step that remains obscure to me. The archetype of Pi may come into play here in the form of e^i*pi. Here we have a logic circuit, of sorts.
Is there any way to rationalize the origin of the DNA code? Science does not accept such a challenge. It can show us a sequence of steps and say this is how it happened. We are left to wonder about other possibilities.
To introduce teleology is easier said than done. Can a DNA code be worked out after the fact of reproduction, or must it be plugged into the process at the start? How can we relieve the creator of the burden of complexity? In some sense I am attempting to naturalize Creation with a reasonable use of teleology. The Telos is in the details.
We may wonder as to the limits of complexity. Perhaps these limits are to be realized only in the Eschaton. That seems to be the way we are headed. This complexity will be tantamount to organicity. Speaking of which, we me wonder how biological complexity relates to social complexity. The biological is likely a reflection of the social.
Is there an optimal complexity? Is complexity good? Is it a case that everything that can go wrong will go wrong? The greater the complexity the more we must rely upon the invisible hand to maintain the organic functionality.
We might also wonder if the Monster Group will define the limits of mathematical complexity. The Riemann Hypothesis may go beyond that limit. But the RH also speaks to mathematical organicity, whose source still eludes us.
We have also noted the physical complexity to be found in the static limit of the infrared catastrophe. Every particle in every galaxy must contribute to the local fields. Does this not place too great a burden on the ontology of physicalism, pointing us back toward teleology? May we anticipate the complexity of a GUT?
We might also wonder about the role of computers in augmenting or alleviating social complexity. Could computers ever contribute to our organicity, to our Gemeinschaft? Consider also the role of capitalism in that regard. The two problems may be closely related. Whither economics in these end times?
Will there have to be any phase changes in the above systems in order to clear the way to the Eschaton? Would we be able to view such phase changes as other than catastrophic, except in retrospect? For instance, it might require a breakdown in the external infrastructure in order to jump-start its internal analog, such as from telephony to telepathy. Any such sudden transition would likely entail enormous loss of life, and so be unlikely in my estimation, as not compatible with the BPWH. We may anticipate the terrorist threat to remain mainly a threat, where it may well contribute to cohesion. The nihilists contribute to social cohesion, the way a vaccine contributes to the immune system.
Let me refer you to Andy Denis' 'The Invisible Hand of God in Adam Smith' (2005):
Adam Smith is revered as the father of modern economics. Analysis of his writings, however, reveals a profoundly medieval outlook. Smith is preoccupied with the need to preserve order in society. His scientific methodology emphasises reconciliation with the world we live in rather than investigation of it. He invokes a version of natural law in which the universe is a harmonious machine administered by a providential deity. Nobody is uncared for and, in real happiness, we are all substantially equal. No action is without its appropriate reward – in this life or the next. The social desirability of individual self-seeking activity is ensured by the ‘invisible hand’, that is, the hand of a god who has moulded us so to behave, that the quantity of happiness in the world is always maximised.
Shades of the BPWH! Also note Andy's thesis wherein he treats holism vs. reductionism in economics, Collective and Individual Rationality.
There are a number of remarkable passages and quotations in these works.
At the level of appearances, Smith says, the world throws up phenomena which appear incoherent and therefore inflame the imagination. This inflammation is to be regarded as a disagreeable sensation. ‘When we first encounter anything that is nor familiar or expected, Smith argues, we are struck by the feelings we call Surprise and Wonder. These are not welcome feelings.’ (Heilbroner, 1986: 15) The job of a science is to soothe the imagination by suggesting connections between things, and by tracing the unknown back to the familiar, so that the observer may regain his tranquillity.....
[...]Or, more pithily, ‘it is the end of Philosophy, to allay that wonder, which either the unusual or seemingly disjointed appearances of nature excite’ (Astronomy IV.34). We do not understand what we seek to explain by science, ‘but by categorizing things we come to be at peace with them … We draw the venom of Wonder by applying the poultice of familiarity’ (Heilbroner, 1986: 16).
For Smith, therefore, it is just irrelevant to talk about the truth or otherwise of the findings of a science – what matters is its success or otherwise in ‘smoothing the passage of the imagination betwixt ... seemingly disjointed objects’ (ibid), it is this criterion alone which we should bear in mind when considering the sequence of schools of thought in a science such as astronomy:
Modernists would deny all such allegations. Postmodernists would likely nod in agreement.
(As an aside: it may be that my cycles and Descartes vortices are not unrelated.)
A challenge is pointed to here: finding a way to reconcile Panglossian or Stoic conservatism with interventionist liberalism. I suppose they may only be reconciled in the eschatological context. Our participatory eschaton will be an enlightened intervention based on holism. Wanting to take charge is ingrained in human nature. That is a necessary ingredient of our apokatastasis. Of course, it is the conservative entrepreneurs who are the most interventionist of all.
I would like to get back to dealing with the origin of complexity per se. Certainly diversity has intrinsic value, and there is a strong correlation between diversity and complexity. The principles of relationalism and coherence render the complexity organic.
But there are limits to diversity, particularly within species. Evidently there is also a value to group identity. This is particularly true for self-propagation and mutual protection. This is the case for both organisms and cells.
One explanation for the invisible hand that can operate on multiple levels is 'morphic resonance' as introduced by Rupert Sheldrake in A New Science of Life (1981). It is similar to Waddington's notion of the chreode, a canalized pathway in epigenetic space. His morphic fields entail only a cosmic memory and limited teleology or downward causation, but not intelligence. They would operate in conjunction with evolutionary forces in the biological and psychological realms. It is a frankly dualistic model on the biological level, the morphic fields being non-physical.
To the extent possible, I wish to off-load the details of Creation onto the creatures. The complexity uncovered by science may be attributable in part to the scientific enterprise itself, using a robust form of teleology. I attempt to provide a plausible narrative for this process. Molecular biology presents a major challenge. The evolutionary appearances must be saved by all means available. Evolution is the rationale for biological coherence. Lamarckian processes could certainly be employed under the aegis of teleology. I'm skeptical about using Lamarck on the cellular scale. This would require a robust cellular intentionality, but this may ultimately be what the doctor orders. The fact that I cannot imagine such a consciousness, should not be a real obstacle. Are there suitable metaphors for molecular systems? Could there not be molecular elementals? We would end up with a molecular version of pokatok. The elementals would represent the collective intentionality of the scientists as projected onto each component. We are lacking a relational matrix. Elementals may be a version of Leibniz' monads or Descartes vortices. With or without windows?
I would like to be able to ascribe an elemental intentionality to the biological proto-cycles, as a way to jump start the biological details. Anything to avoid material atoms and aeons of evolutionary time.
With molecular biology, we have a problem similar to that posed by Berkeley's 'tree on the quad'. What prevents the tree from walking away in the middle of the night? The problem is exacerbated in the case of a person attempting to return from a sojourn through a portal.
With immaterialism, is there not the constant threat of dematerialization? I am disposed to employ the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Once the tree has been conjured, there is no good reason for it not to stay conjured. If the tree is imaginary, then why would it not bee fleeting like our imaginal images usually are? Or are they. We can commit images to a long term memory, where they may always be recalled in context, and it is not even possible to remove them from a given context. There is an inherent stability.
I would like to push the PSR into a more proactive role, as in the filling of our blind spots. In case in question, our blind spot is microbiology. The blind spot is filled in gradually and logically or reasonably in the course of our researches. The logical process of this particular filling in is context dependent to an elaborate degree, in particular it carries us back to the logic of Greek atomism and the necessities of metabolism.
A counter case might be drawn with regard to Mars, and the observations of Percival Lowell. Where did his canals come from and where did they go? Certainly the Moon played a mediating role here. Were there not similar episodes in the case of our microscopic 'discoveries'? There may have been, but they cannot ultimately withstand the pervasive logic of naturalism. The alchemists certainly had a fun time with alchemy, until the logic of chemistry gradually prevailed. Eventually all of the dots have to connect. But, with the Green Door, we are invited to step into another, presumably less natural, scheme of logic. My question entails the problem of stepping back through the door. How does the inter-logic function? Those two dots are not easy to connect. There must, however, be a path of minimal disturbance of the two logics. Separation between realms is unnatural, it requires artifice.
Another meeting is in the offing. My concern now is with the reticence. Do we understand the reason for it? Is it permanent or is there a sunset provision? Where did Jimmy Carter sit with this? What about Dick D'Amato? Is there no money trail? Yellow book? Eschaton? Appointment? Help or hinder? Are we waiting for additional information or confirmation? And my correspondent, where does he sit? Who is responsible for reticence, or is it universal consent? Can we dismiss BJ info, unless we have a better source? That's what RD thinks. Why are we concerned with Davenport? Anything about which we are not skeptical? I can only see two justifications for reticence. The common one and mine, and they are not completely unrelated. Am I missing a possibility? Is it just embarrassment? We think that is why the AF covered for RD? Covering misdeeds and/or incompetence. That would not explain universality. Bill thinks that AID was involved. Funny stuff in Brazil. Even if it was all disinfo, there still have to be reasons. Is there no problem with materialism? Could it not become a crisis? Might it not relate to other crises? Has everyone done due diligence on all these matters? Why did we change our mind about RD & GN? How can I help? What about Israel & Iran? Oil reserves? Any trend in popular sentiment? Popular desire to let this dog sleep? Just the occasional titillation? Will this remain a political issue? Do we decide it?
With all the reticence, one might suppose that we are waiting for something. Do we know what for? Is our crystal ball sufficiently clear that we can afford to play a waiting game? Are we waiting for something good or bad? Are we simply putting off 'til tomorrow? What came between Jimmy (1977-81) and his promise of disclosure? It must have been something specific. No? Should we not have a handle on this? It does seem bizarre that Peter has not made an attempt to report. Should we not know who is posing as having an official interest? I don't see a rationale for our level of apparent inaction. Any trend in inquiries from either in or outside the government?
What did Jimmy do wrong? Whom should he have asked? BJ? If not, would he not delegate someone to investigate? Would he not pursue the phenomenology angle. Where would Graff have fit into that picture? Is the privatization an issue here? Have we ever said that it was? Perhaps in reference to Hughes and the Yellow Book. We also have to consider the Anderson and Straub business, not forgetting Woolsey, D'Amato, Goss, or Billy Graham. We also have the Rockefeller & Clinton initiative. Even Bill L. got into that act. And 9/11? Have we not been able to connect these dots? Over the years, has there been developed no methodology for dealing with these high level inquiries? But we have already tacitly admitted to knowledge of these issues. But that only brings the issue of reticence to the fore. We are not denying that we have done due diligence w.r.t. the counterintelligence problem, which would cover most of the above, anyway. We must assume that the presidents have some reasonable overview w.r.t. reticence. We would have to know if this were a big or small issue. Are we trying to make a big distinction between what is official and what is not? That is just a continuing nuisance. The public will not buy into that.
What we have here mainly is the sleeping dog scenario. Nobody wants to kick the dog. Whoever does is sure to get bitten. Even the presidents have seen this dog, and are quite willing to give it a wide berth. Who are we to second judge or second guess? Or is it also partly a sleeping beauty story, and we are waiting for prince charming? We are waiting for the kicker/kisser, depending on your point of view. The compromise in the sleeping frog. Who is going to kiss the frog and into what will it turn? Will it be a junkyard dog or a princess? Who really wants to find out? How may this issue be pressed? Would an appointment not push this over the top? Can Goss not have been informed?
We are dealing with a sleeper issue. The timeline is critical and it must have something to do with the nuclear and cultural issues. Both of these latter issues are often seen in apocalyptic terms, anyway. Some see the nuclear card as a way to draw out the joker. I'm not sure we want to continue to play that game.
There is pretty clearly a linkage between the visitors and the bomb. There is a serious message in that fact. We continue to ignore it at what peril? Who is deciding? Ocelot and Ferret? The Ruskies were not playing the eschaton game. With the Arabs and Israelis, not to mention the terrorists, it seems a different matter.
Even if we don't know it, should we not treat the prospective appointment as related to the timeline, even though the eschaton may be presumed to be bipartisan? How many people who are aware of phenomenology are not aware of its connection to the eschaton? I doubt there could be many. How many who know of CF are unaware of phenomenology?
I met with CF on Friday. Our principal topic was that of briefings.
Another instance of this had come up in regards to Peter Davenport, a private ufologist with a previous security clearance, who had been invited to DC where he was told by some folks who claimed to be representing the government that his UFO Hotline was a valuable tool, and that the problem was taken seriously by the government.
I asked CF about attempting to follow up on this information. His response was that he was already aware of dozens of such 'briefings', and that his previous attempts at follow-up, had been uniformly negative. In particular, his attempt to find connections between the known briefers failed. The leads were dead ends. Typically there would be a single, low echelon staff person at a given facility. The supervisor would claim to be unaware of the incident.
CF also mentioned that you had anecdotal knowledge of a number of ufo-type 'briefings', besides your own. I am not sure to what extent you may have previously shared this information with Ron, or to what extent you may have attempted your own follow-ups or informal analysis of these reports.
CF has raised the possibility that the uncorrelated nature of these briefing reports may be similar to the uncorrelated nature of the ufo reports themselves. His suggestion to me was that the sightings and the briefings might well be understood collectively as a kind of smokescreen or decoy operation. It is a screen that may be deliberately generated, and not necessarily or ultimately just by a human agency. We then have to wonder about the nature of the activity that is supposedly being concealed thereby. CF averred that an eschatological connection could not and has not been ruled out.
CF did say that your interpretation of this type of data might well differ from his own. Could you possibly help us out here?
This was sent yesterday, and there has been no response so far. CF has suggested another meeting before the election, and he also suggested inviting Joe S. Joe said he could be down here on short notice. Bill L. is not happy with this information about the briefings. He suspects that there have been more substantial briefings, particularly in the early years. Also this does not reference what might happen at a higher level. Would a president be given the 'smokescreen' theory? I would not want to suggest that abduction reports, for instance, are merely a smokescreen. They reference a substantive interaction of some kind. Is all this just about the UTs disguising themselves as ETs, to the point of arranging briefings about an alleged reverse engineering program?
My correspondent also said that he has already done his own bi-static radar tests, similar to what Peter has proposed. At whatever phase space he examined he would see uncorrelated targets. He and Peter have both corresponded with a John Sars at U of W in Seattle concerning the techniques. Thus the notion of a smokescreen. Defense systems are typically designed to filter out anomalous targets.
An agenda item for the next meeting would be the future of phenomenology, inside and outside of government. Can we ignore the smokescreen, going forward? Is there any reason to be looking for developments in that arena? Has the smokescreen theory been discussed or disseminated? Have BJ or Hal explained their reticence? Let's suppose that eschatology cannot be ruled out, then what can we do about it? Should we not be pushing harder on the EFG? Networking? Or do we this dog sleep? Can we anticipate a trigger?
I'm expecting a phone call from Steve. Invite him to a meeting along with Ron & Joe? He will also not be happy with the smokescreen rationale. Will he see it as a copout? Reference bi-statics. What positive spin may be put on the rationale?
There is typically a lot of noise in the atmospheric sigint, but not all of it is just noise. It is target noise. There is a related type of noise on the humint side, i.e. the briefings. Neither of these correlate sufficiently to provide any actionable intelligence. This is a specification of the phenomenology problem. It does not provide a briefing rationale for the pres. (for a DCI?), unless you add the eschaton, which is probably too speculative. This problem, by itself, does not explain the Anderson article or the Straub briefing. Has the eschaton contingency been discussed in connection with this phenomenology problem. CF states that there was correlation with nuclear programs, early on.
Suppose the visitors did want to facilitate an eschaton. What would be their leverage? Threats would work better than actions. There would need to be a special source such as discussed above.
We could go back to the portal problem. It seems to encapsulate several phenomenology problems. This is the problem of rematerialization. What is the path of least disturbance? We have to worry about the physiology going in either direction. How does this relate to the problem of atoms? Can there be partial metabolism?
I sent this out today:
What we know so far:
1.) There are dozens of semi-formal 'briefings', most of which could not have been arranged by any known source. They occur outside of any scheme of official secrecy.
2.) There is a reasonable degree of consistency in the content, which includes the 'core story' and some information about a non-USG technological R.E.P. [reverse engineering program].
3.) There exists a briefing coordinator. This coordinator would be very well networked with regard to collecting information on the targets and in the ability to task independent briefers.
4.) However, from past experience, the coordinator is skilled at avoiding detection.
Points 3 & 4 seem contradictory. How does one do networking and avoid detection at the same time?
5.) No obvious motive may be assigned to the coordinator.
6.) Several possibilities present themselves:
a.) Disinformation program.
b.) Psychological testing.
c.) Recruiting & induction into a secret group.
This list of possible motives is not exhaustive nor are the items mutually exclusive.
We may then juxtapose the 'briefing phenomenon' against other anomalous phenomena often associated with the visitors. In doing so, a possible message presents itself:
"We are here. We have excellent stealth and penetration skills. We can, in a coordinated manner, manipulate your political infrastructure, to say nothing of your popular culture. Stay tuned for further information."
If the REP story can be dismissed, but the core store cannot be, then the metaphysical/ eschatological scenario does become an obvious alternative interpretation. To this end we have formed an EFG. The question then arises as to what role might reasonably be assigned to an EFG going forward. Has there been an assessment of the level of activity that would be commensurate with the perceived challenge? [Lacking an REP] does the EFG presently constitute the primary mode of our response? Should the EFG view itself as an integral part of, or as an alternative to, the putative agenda of the visitors?
I am not quite sure where this briefing business is going. It is not an actionable item. I am not being encouraged to press for further information. I have the feeling that this base has already been covered. What is the point of inserting the false REP message into the briefing. It would serve simply to forestall questions about our response to the visitor presence. It would deflect the metaphysical issue.
It does seem that CF has been predisposed to an eschatological interpretation, at least from the time of my arrival on the scene.
I wonder how easy it is to discount the REP story? If it is as easy as CF indicates, then perhaps that element of the briefings is intended to raise doubts, but at the same time it forestalls immediate questions that might track toward the metaphysical and eschatological view.
In other words the briefings present the picture of a rational response to a 'conventional' ET visit. But this picture is time sensitive. It has a built-in obsolescence. The longer that the REP fails to surface or to deliver, the greater will be our suspicion as to what is really going on.
Early on we would wonder about a possible lack of cooperation between the ETs and the USG, pointing to conflicting agendas, or we could envision an evil conspiracy. But each of these scenarios is also time sensitive. Maintaining security could only be a temporary expedient. The onset of the Internet should already have doomed such measures. This leaves us with the alternative of a cooperative regime, not about technology, but still concerning a matter that is time critical. At this point our thoughts begin to turn toward matters religious.
For the most part, ufologists are still behind this curve. Is there a plan to bring them around? If I were running this informational initiative, I would see the ufologists as the prime targets for the next stage. They constitute a carefully prepared interest group that can act as a buffer between the visitors and the population at large. They represent a back channel of acclimation that allows 'us' to delay the very thorny problem of confronting the already highly conflicted sectarian interests.
'We' will have to single out a few key players in the ufo arena for a special briefing of our own device. This, I believe, is beyond the present capacity of the three of us. We would need more data and more credibility. For instance, CF has spoken about bringing Jack to a meeting, soon, i.e. the one referenced below. Jack will not sit still for anything less than the full monty, i.e. rather more than anything you or I have seen. Do you not agree?
In fact, I could ask Jack what it would take for him to change his tune. He has shown some flexibility in the past, but too quickly reverts to his formulaic business as usual. I would pick Jack out of the crowd as an optimal test subject for the next stage: a difficult but not impossible customer. But I would need more backing from CF, even just to test the water effectively. Do we need to wait and see how the political cookie will crumble?
And so it goes. Can we get back to the Green Door?
CF's principle statement was an objection to the idea that there might exist a trillion dollar REP.
We might want to pin him down a bit more on the upper limits of what might be able to slip under his radar. When they say the program is private, that does not exclude USG contracts or grants being involved. It would be beg, borrow or steal. Correct?
They speculate that many of us would kill ourselves if the truth were to come out. It is hard for me to imagine what piece of information might have such a drastic effect, short of something eschatological. Others have suggested that the 'truth' might include any or all of the following: they created us, they enslave us, they created our religions, etc.
I don't see any of these possibilities as leading to something as devastating as they suggest. Am I missing some other possibility, or do I underestimate the impact of those given?
They use the word "panic". That suggests to me only an eschatological scenario. Again, am I missing something?
They say that the persons in control are scientists and engineers. No theologians, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, ordinary folk, etc., etc.? This seems to be a very narrow spectrum of controllers.
If this were to be put up, secretly, to the Supreme Court, I seriously doubt that they would or could condone the constitutionality of whatever privatization process led to the present situation. Comments? Somehow, the word 'arrogance' springs to mind. Technically speaking, all authority here has been arrogated.
It does seem that you continue here to strongly favor the ETH over the UTH. The ETH is the premise of the REP. The UTH would only entail a comparatively very modest engineering response.
My involvement here is premised almost entirely upon the UTH. No?
This discussion now needs some input from CF concerning his view of the relative merits of these two hypotheses. There would be no point of bringing anyone else into the picture without this issue being better outlined or contained.
You and I could discuss these merits, but that would probably require a greater commitment of time on your part than what you have previously indicated.
With regard to CF, there seems to me to be a very substantial problem of due diligence. The issues that we seem to face could well be earth shattering. I think we agree that CF does not seem to be acting accordingly. This leaves just two possibilities: either CF is in gross dereliction of 'duty', or he has much better sources of information on this subject than he has ever let on to us.
This is another issue that is pressing for clarification as we attempt to move forward, if, indeed, that is what we are attempting to do.
The trillion dollar figure came from CF's extrapolating on the dozens of briefings at dozens of facilities, each focused in part on what was supposed to be happening at the location in question. After awhile, the various billions added up to a rather more substantial figure.
CF stated that you had also been informed about briefings other than your own. Is that not correct? It would be helpful if we could get our signals straight on this matter.
But, for just now, let us set aside the money and engineering problem, and focus on the core story: three guests in a sequence, a yellow book and a 'crashed' saucer.
Evidently they came here in a very deliberate fashion, and did so in order to impart some fairly specific knowledge. I would like to know if their mission was a success. Would you not also want to know this, xxx?
It seems that there is now no effort to disseminate this knowledge. It is quite unclear if there has been or is expected to be any technological benefit to us.
Could we agree then that, on the face of it, their mission failed?
If these guests were friendly, as the core story implies, then they were trying to help us, but evidently they failed in this effort. Should this failure not be a cause for our concern, or even alarm? Did you never even think to pose this question to your briefers?
In this event, you are very much like Jack and most of the ufologists. You show no concern for the deeper issues. Your only concern over the years has been to collect physical specimens. You show interest only in the 'how' question. You show no interest in the 'why' of it all.
What's it all about, xxx?
Just on your own interpretation, these entities have been around for millions and maybe billions of years longer than we have. Thus they would be expected to know orders of magnitude more about survival than do we. Is our species not now facing an unprecedented challenge to our very survival?
Did you not ask if the 'yellow book' contained any information pertinent to our survival problem? Did their custodians never raise this question to the visitors? Would this not very obviously be the number one question on the mind of any reasonable person in such a situation?
Am I to believe that in the many dozens of briefings, that this number one priority question never once came up?
Do you gather, xxx, that I am getting more than a little exasperated by what appears to be the utter and egregious lack of perspicuity on the part of everyone involved in or previously knowledgeable about the briefing process.
Are you going to tell me that I am the first person ever to have raised the survival issue, relative to our visitation?
I'm still waiting for someone to even pretend to be serious.
You are reconfirming my initial suspicion that this considerable quantity of data on the 'briefing phenomenon' has apparently been treated in a cavalier fashion.
Last Friday I suggested to CF that we ought to make a serious analysis of this mass of data. His response was that there now exist network analysis tools that could be brought to bear on this data, tools that were not previously available.
Fine. But before we plunge into a time consuming analysis effort, we should seriously consider CF's own off-the-cuff(?) analysis of this data: it is simply a decoy operation and/or a smokescreen.
My first point would be that it has been a very successful decoy operation, based on its considerable impact upon various segments of our population.
We then have a glaring discordance in the data: we have a enviably successful decoy operation ostensibly pointing to a wretchedly failed mission.
Should that cognitive dissonance (failure/success) not make the hair stand up on the neck of even the most plodding of analysts?
The very next step in the chain of analytic logic would be to surmise that the enviably successful decoy operation pointing to a wretchedly failed mission, is in fact serving as a decoy for a (so far?) successful mission of a rather different nature.
xxx, are you still with me here? Are you keeping up with the bouncing ball?
Should we suppose that the Junior Analyst of our mutual acquaintance has previously been unable to master this 'sophisticated' chain of logic? Might not such an analysis, plus another source or two, much better explain his cavalier attitude toward this data, rather than our having to posit a dereliction of duty on his part?
I would hope that my correspondent is not too far away from seeing the light, if light there is to be seen. You can lead a horse to the eschaton, but you can't make them drink. It would be helpful to have a third member of the focus group. There are a lot of people sitting on the sidelines waiting for some sort of signal. They are not making themselves useful. If BJ came around, the three of us could put on a show, even without much additional input from CF. We still have to see what will happen with Goss. BJ remains in correspondence with at least one of the briefers. Could not questions be posed? I'm not clear about what sort of meeting CF may have in mind. Jack always seems to be hyperventilating over the latest piece of physics trivia. He will not settle for anything less than a Nobel prize. That is the only tree up which he is constitutionally fit to bark. In one of his expansive moods, he will allow me a paragraph in his latest book. His forum can only be of limited use while he is in this terminal state of mind. I don't see any potential evangelists on the horizon. That is a serious deficit. Even if CF tried to bring Jack around, he would interpret it in a paranoid fashion. This would leave only Hal. If BJ could bring around a segment of the aviary, that might be of some use. That would cause some ripples. Otherwise, CF is going to have to turn over a new leaf. He will have to change his stripes.
Then there is always the green door. Easy to say, hard to figure. It is virtually self contradictory, even though, on the surface it should not be such a big deal. It does mess up the local relationalism. We have to appeal to a more general level, but I don't know how. There would be immediate problems with metabolism.
As a test case we should transition from a physical to a non-physical regime, although physicality can only ever be a matter of degree. We could take on a new body, but then have to dispose of the old one, leaving no way back. We can't go home again if we burn the bridge. It is true, however, that relationalism has to function non-locally. Strings will be attached, entanglement will occur.
Will there be air on the other side? There will not be a vacuum. There will also be a time problem, if time is less linear on the other side. It might be a problem like deep sea diving. If one comes back too quickly, one gets the bends. There would have to be a point of no return. After that point, any return would only be partial and temporary. The original body would no longer be serviceable. Or it would be too difficult to recondition it. Is there not a tendency for one regime to leak or spill into the other, depending on the amount of traffic? There would be a coattails effect. In general relativity, this is referred to as frame dragging. Not sure how this would effect inter-entity contacts. We might wonder if a pregnant person went over. 'Woe unto them that is with child'?
There would have to be a lot of yoga practice on the part of the tourists. Very likely we would be visited by the dear departed. There would be some bodily aspect of that, but it would be a shifting aspect. Our mutual eidetic memories would come into play. Another thing that might happen over there would be an age regression. It would also be a remedy for those with weight problems. On passing over we might be presented with alternative regimens. The problem of getting reincarnated is another aspect of this interchange. There must be considerable personal variation and subjectivity in all of these processes. When it comes to eschatology, where there's a will, there's a way.
Aren't the materialists lucky? They have none of these problems to contend with!
It is likely that the Earth will gradually lose its physicality in the process of the hundred year exodus. The last thing to go will be the pokatok court at Xcaret. Just a hint for any of you holdouts. There could still be a remnant Jurassic Parc place. Metabolism could persist there, and perhaps even reproduction, but all this would be rudimentary and provisional. There are plenty of rough edges in all of this transitional metaphysics, and it will take time, and perhaps even experimentation, to smooth them out. Please, bear with us. The transition process will smooth out over time. We will need volunteers to be the early adapters.
Then we return to the problem of jumpstarting metabolism at the beginning. When we did this before, I believe that I invoked variations on the theme of the vital ouroboric/zodiac/psychic cycle. The phenomenology is gradually habituated into biology. As we keep alternating between the alpha and omega, we gradually bring them into alignment.
Yesterday I met with my source guy. We seem to be making progress. I've always wondered about dealing with the presidents. Since Lyndon there have been seven presidents with only Jimmy and Ronald being briefed. In a similar time frame only Richard H. of the DCIs has been briefed.
This is fewer than I would have suspected. According to my take on the Anderson article, big George would have been told something about the eschaton, as would Straub and some other folks on the SSCI. But it might not have been a full briefing.
The point is that you don't brief a president unless there is a darn good reason. Always try to let every sleeping dog be.
My source was at the YB level, but I think he is coming around to accept PE/CL as the next level. People at that level tell you something only once. There is no discussion, and no question about about disclosure. My source never heard from them or his briefers about eschatology. There are three categories of people above his level: sincere, officious and whiners. It was Richard who contacted him to say he took Rick's story seriously. Richard died a couple of years ago. My guy had been hopeful of learning more before that.
We discussed the issue of money. All of his briefings and the ones he heard about pointed to a relatively minor and unsuccessful REP, located at Los Alamos, and maybe a couple of private facilities. This is where he disagrees with CF, who says that the briefings he knows of implicate a rather larger number of facilities and dollars. CF uses this larger dollar amount, upwards of a trillion, do discount all such briefings. I need to get this contradiction ironed out.
We discussed some more of my philosophy and eschatology in very broad strokes. We also discussed about moving forward. We agree that Jack is a major obstacle to my networking on the Internet. We doubt that CF can straighten that out. Otherwise, I need to network with some science types with the help of CF. These would be on the NAS or Jasons. Nothing specific was mentioned. Jacques Vallee was mentioned. It was stated that he among the cognoscenti might be the most sympathetic with my views.
That was about it. I was mainly surprised by the low number of DCIs in the loop. I may want to recalibrate my briefing logistic. I did not ask about foreign folks. They may pick up much of this by osmosis. My guy was talking about detailed information. A lot more people could get just the generalities, about like what you have here.
Next I'll have to get back to CF, and see if the three of us should meet. I can write a brief to him on the meeting with a copy to the source. The election continues to loom. Today I meet with paranormalist, SF.
No word back from CF on a prospective meeting. It may have to wait 'til after the election.
I did not mention that Richard identified himself to my source as being the Raven. Will we now have to revise the history of the Aviary? RH was the DCI from from '66 to '73, hired by Johnson, fired by Nixon. He had worked for the Agency and OSS since '43.
According to 'The Presidents UFO Website':
Todd Zechel, then the Director of Ground Saucer Watch, a group formed to fight classification of UFO documents by the government, was also interested in the U.S. News story of a possible UFO disclosure by the Carter White House. He headed to Washington for a visit with his telephone conversation acquaintance, Arthur Lundahl, a former high ranking official with the CIA, and a person who reportedly had been a UFO briefer to at least three presidents.
Zechel had discussed the U.S. News report on the phone with Lundahl, and Lundahl had promised to check with " the boys." (Zechel assumed the boys to be former CIA Directors William Colby and Richard Helms, both close friends of Lundahl’s).
[10/29 - Don't let me forget that CF has pointed to a Mr. Anderson, the elderly UFO library guy, and friend of Gordon's as being a significant player. I'm not sure what to make of this. He lives in DC.]
Back to Creation. We start with a bare Matrix, pure potentiality. I see only one such. There is no means of separation. The potency is channeled, by a dialectic set of selves. This is the primordial, semi-stable zodiacal group of cosmic observers. All phenomenology must be channeled through this group. Each self exists relative to the others. There is a predominant circular structure. Thus arises the archetype of Pi. With 'e' representing the Matrix and 'i' the vital dialectic, we have the primordial 'trinity' of e^i*pi. Pi is one of the Z.
I then take Pi to represent the Creator figure, X. This is the major step in analyzing and rationalizing Creation. Pi leads to the anthropocentric symmetry breaking that is Creation.
How so? Pi, in its 'trinitarian' context, i.e. mother, spirit and son, points to the quantum atom, and thus to a metabolic homo-faber-erectus: five digits with opposable thumb. Mammalian? Yes, that goes with the neocortex. Teleology is used liberally, but not excessively.
The primordial symmetry breaking is a patricide. This is the Oedipal story with Freya as Jocasta. I equate Freya with the X-factor. This apparent gender switch need not pose a problem. The conspiring Jocasta begat history, and is finally the scapegoat of history, then in the role of Eve. Thus we see the dynamics of AZO/X/QRP. The apple Pi/X is the multidimensional pi-vot. It is also Hamlet's Mill. It is the squaring or rationalizing of the circle that gives rise to the numerical coincidences and the Monster Group of Anthropic fame.
This symbolic nexus is dense, indeed. The Creation plot may be underdetermined. There may be converging paths. X remains the focal point or transformational identity, and we may still hope to use this scheme as an investigative tool.
The previous synopsis of Creation does not include the Pokatok scheme. The sacrifice of the losing team could have stimulated the reproductive cycle. The solar connotation of the game ball may have simulated/stimulated the heavens. The game was played at night. The passing of the ball through the hoop is reminiscent of an eclipse, which may also have entailed sacrifice. Once again there is a suspicious convergence of symbolism.
Now I'm being caught in a shooting match between two sources, the more and less credulous. This is an old story, but now I get to see it up close. I would think it should have been resolved back when. Is it only about the money: using rumors of phenomenology to pull in the bucks? We are back to the problem of due diligence.
The theory is that the briefings and the para-scientific 'shakedown' are all being coordinated. That is a grand conspiracy. What more might it be capable of? How might it tie in with other counterintelligence problems? It seems to argue against my PE/CL level. This racket would muddy those waters. The higher level ought to be able to restrain this exploitation, unless it is a deliberate part of the cover. CF does not act that way. That could mean that he is stuck between the two levels, YB vs. PE, and is not sure which is the real one. It is also the ETH vs. the UTH. CF is also dealing with the null hypothesis, NH. [11/4 - For simplicity, we may refer to this as the terrestrial hypothesis, TH.] What is the symbiosis between these three hypotheses?
Is the shakedown the primary motive, or is it parasitic? Jack and I are being used to probe this issue. Am I being naive to suppose that the monetary incentive is insufficient here? Only Hal might know for sure. Will I be afforded the opportunity to ask, or must I assume the answer and move on? SF describes a similar situation with crop circles. There is human involvement in all of them, but how is it coordinated? Or is it? What do I do in this case? Am I only an observer? We need to break this circle. Does this relate to the primordial cycle? How was that broken? Was it pokatok or the X factor? There is the temple and there are the money changers, etc.
The problem is imagining the scenario for breaking through the ambiguity. How early in the process will that occur? How much can be accomplished without CF being convinced? That would require access to unambiguous evidence. Would it help for the three of us to meet? I doubt that it could have much impact at this late date. Sources are no longer the issue. There may also be the case of deliberate exclusion. There would be a bias against skepticism. Presently we are attempting to track down who attended the NRC meeting last week with the source. If it was mainly just Murad, then we are back to square one. What then? I will need another source or correspondent. The motivation for the reactivation may remain moot. CF is not constituted to be proactive wrt phenomenology. I doubt that any job change would effect that. The next question is why this matter cannot be put to rest. Is the C/I problem worth pursuing?
CF is of the view that the 'soap opera' is not going away in the foreseeable future. It will just continue to transform. It can be reasonably monitored with minimal resources to avoid surprises.
I am inclined to suggest that we undergo a semi-formal debriefing concerning the briefing phenomenon and its impact. I would submit a public report. I could start writing the report now, and then solicit further information in an incremental fashion until some resolution is achieved. It would be important to include Hal in this process.
Joe Firmage has reappeared on the scene. In an email today Joe speaks of the coming socio-economic crises culminating in a singularity of consciousness. He refers us to Integral Naked. At his own website I see no reference to this singularity.
As of yesterday I have obtained free access to the EBSCO database through my public library where Debby works. This enables access to the popular periodical literature, an important complement to web browsing. These archives have been available for free for some time, I was not keeping up to date.
What I presently find most surprising about the 'briefing phenomenon' is the lack of public discussion about it. My source says that most of what he learned has been distributed in a semi-public fashion, but there has been no definitive statement as to the nature or extent of the dissemination (briefing) process. CF may be trying too hard to minimize the significance of this process. What has been the impact of it? Does it speak to the UTH? What do we surmise as to the lack of explanation for the process? Does this not just compound the ufo mystery? Perhaps what we see now is the residue of some earlier process. Is there any visible trend? These briefings should now be in considerable decline if they are only repeating stuff that has been made public, but that is not what the source indicates. What did the source think that CF should do with this info? If the government does not come clean on this, then will it not be culpable?
Off the top, I would think that intelligence types would naturally want to pursue and analyze the briefing phenomenon. It might easily be deemed to represent a systemic vulnerability that would need to be monitored, if not neutralized. Could it not be construed as a potential threat? The fact that none of this has been done, or apparently even seriously considered, is, in itself, worthy of explanation. Any serious ufo briefing would have to address this phenomenon. One would need to estimate the degree to which this phenomenon contributes to the ufo ambience. This would also come under the umbrella of phenomenology collections. At best, it would constitute a benign form of socio-pathology.
The phenomenon itself is not as significant as is the apparent lack of reaction to it. The phenomenon represents an unprecedented potential for the subversion of this country's constituted authority. The EFG, for instance, seems constituted to exploit that potential. The seriousness rests entirely on the validity of the phenomenon. Without that validity it is a soap opera. The lack of reaction may be excused only by a known invalidity. But then we are in a vicious circle: the validity can be known only by taking the phenomenon seriously. How difficult can it be to penetrate the phenomenon? Does CF understand this? I think he is understandably reluctant to admit it. What about in his work group? What would he tell the new boss? It is hard for me to picture the exchanges. Again we encounter the Anderson article, and then the Hughes incident, etc. 9/11 would be very tricky. I don't see how any of this could be avoided. CF becomes the finger in the dike, it would appear. It would require political shielding to an unreasonable degree. There must be a significant logistic beyond my ken. There would have to be more than meets the eye.
Is it possible that the new boss is unaware of phenomenology, eschatology? CF maintains the posture of skepticism. Has no one seen through that? There is still the issue of the Straub briefing. To what did that point? There must be serious discussion of the c/I problem of phenomenology. And what about the eschatology of religious extremism. Religion and phenomenology are two primary targets for c/Intel, and eschatology covers both. I'm not sure if there is any synergy between the hard and soft science tasks of CF. Bi-statics and RE provide only a limited overlap. Don't forget the IG investigation. That would stand out in the file. Then there is all the aviary/bigelow stuff and ufoguy@Masint. There are several red flags waving. Then how do I stay off the screen, or do I? We come back to the visibility to other agencies and the public-key aspect. Therein lies a reflective equilibrium concerning EFG status. There is a fairly large context or a large arena in which the EFG is a small but significant player. The ET v. UT hypothesis still has to be sorted out, but before that we must confront some real data. The changing of the guard at the agency will cover the shifting of phenomenology. If this timeline is correct it does seem to favor the PE/CL view: nukes, C/W, aviary, aquarium, 9/11, new guy. The ETH would be relevant mainly to cold war secrecy, then we start the shift to the aquarium, with EFG coming after 9/11, then the politics. It's all over, but the shouting. I doubt that things could have gone this far without access to sufficient data. Lack of data does not explain the soap opera. That is better explained by c/I (non-mundane).
If there were a major uncertainty as to the validity of the core story, I doubt that CF would expend effort on the peripheral matters. A serious investigator would be working the inside track, unless this were known to have been done already. At some point in the past half century, a definitive investigation would have been commissioned. The results would have to be available to a phenomenology group. The extent of the briefing phenomenon underscores the necessity of such an investigation. A knowledgeable person would not then stir the ufo pot unless there were a continuing c/Intel initiative. However, keeping both the ET and UT stories alive would muddy any mundane c/I/disinfo effort. This latter fact indicates a cover operation rather than pure disinformation. There was a mission. The issue is whether or not it failed. The cover is that it failed.
Only now with the Internet is the extent of the smoke coming into the public domain. The smoke is steady over a period of vastly changing political and military conditions. This constancy argues against any ad hoc screen. The hoax hypothesis also does not hold up in this context.
It is useful to compare ufos and crop circles. Does the juxtaposition increase or decrease their legitimacy? It is easier to see the CCs as mundane. Is it just a copycat phenomenon? It is a fact that no one has been exposed. The phenomenon invites participation, but that does not negate it. Its quantity and quality argue for a supra-mundane explanation.
CF has stated that the briefing phenomenon is not traceable. If so, it would represent a vulnerability that one might not wish to publicize. When queried as to the methodology of the tracing, there is an insubstantial or even casual response. This is part of the primary posture of skepticism, rather than additional information.
In short, the phenomenology remains viable.
When it comes to Creation, I rely heavily on the archetypes to jump-start it. Among these, Z & Pi are primary. Z points to the proto-selves in their dialectical bootstrap. X/Pi emerges out of these.
The adjoining of pi to X is controversial if not controvertible. It is meant as only ad hoc and for the sake of argument. It could be seen as a reductio ad absurdum of Pythagoras, but I intend it in the spirit of relationalism. It is how I bring the observer principle to mathematics. It is how I attempt to tame the Monster Group. I am suggesting that pi is anthropocentric, X being the anthropos/christos.
When it comes to numbers, I am not a (postmodern?) constructivist, but rather a conceivabilist. There are no inconceivable mathematical objects, just as there are no unobservable universes. There is no Creator without a Creation and no Creation without Pi. It would be inconceivable. X is the rationale of the cosmos. Pi is the rationalizer. Creation is the transcendental squaring of the zodiacal circle. The necessary transcendental impulse is simply love. The MG is involved in the dialectical/elliptical polarizing of the circle. The quantum comes out of this, partly in the trinitarian form of e^i*pi, or MDX, i.e. mother, spirit, son. The trinity is the teleologically realizing vision or observation, all bootstrapped on faith. Therein lies the vital stability of the microcosmic atom and all the attendant bio-cycles.
The Alpha and Omega are mutually reflective. We may ascertain the one in the other, and so we have the AZO/X/QRP based on the MDX with Freya/X providing the transcendental impulse that breaks/squares the circle, in a triangle with Chronos and Zeus. X is the pi-vot or sacrificial omphalos.
MDZ/X are the crucial components. I need to determine the connection between Z and X. Both exploit the vital dialectic force. Z relates to ouroboric circularity and X to linearity. X emerges out of Z using Creation as its bootstrap. The dialectic force of creation includes love and faith. I suspect that numbers also emerge mainly out of Z. Z becomes the prototype of physical and biological systems; however, the X factor is involved in the stability of the atom. This is due to the strength of the teleology that is required. The atom is integral to Creation. It must be fine tuned anthropically. The same goes for gravity.
It is still a long way from here to the atom. The thing about the atom is its apparent independent existence, like the tree on the quad, except worse. The atom is a place holder in space and time. It holds the identity of substances. This brings us back to the biological cycles. It may not be sufficiently clear why we need metabolism.
Without metabolism there would be nothing like nature, but I'm not sure what that means. There would be no ecosystem. There would be no materialism, technology or history. No entropy. Could there still be space and time?
The early Greeks sensed that atoms were a concomitant of space. We may not sufficiently appreciate the logic of their 'speculation'. It is very difficult to imagine a robust creation without the entailment of a spatial frame. Our imaginative faculties seem quite adept at producing and manipulating spatial configurations without benefit of same. At the same time, I'm not sure what to make of the relational view of space. At some point the pokatok scheme will be brought into play, as a way to habituate spatial figuration.
Which relations predominate in a relational view of space, and where does the quantum come into play? I would suspect that the quantum is a necessary part of spatial relations. This is what we and the Greeks have failed to grasp. It is difficult to imagine mathematics without a space-time context. The quantum has become the primary point of entry for most of mathematical physics.
We wonder if number theory is spatial? It is certainly sequential. Time and space are not independent concepts. We will then have to worry about the deconstruction of space-time at the Alpha and Omega. We, too, must avoid naked singularities. We then resort to a more digital and combinatorial point of view. Pokatok brings us from digital to analog. We anticipate a final reverse match.
There cannot be space without exclusion. Exclusion relies on exchange anti-symmetry. Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles casts identical particles into space. There could be zodiacal duplicates if they are relationally segregated. I have not considered the problem of multiplicity at the zodiacal level. If there is one Chronos, why not two? Multiplicity may require an external observer. There can only be one proto-self, which then divides dialectically.
A robust combinatorics would require Galilean or translational invariance, and so we bring on the Poincaré space groups. We are hereby broaching the subject of pregeometry (700 hits). Spin networks are one solution to this problem.
We cannot get far into the problem of pregeometry without a theory of relations. My theory of relations is a form or relationalism, which is a species of idealism: relations exist only in the mind. Relations are purely subjective: they entail a perspective. On the other hand, to be is to be related: there is no isolated or atomic existence. There is no acosmic existence. The primordial existence is zodiacal existence relative to the Matrix of potentiality. The Zodiac is our essential pre-geometric frame. All its relations are internal. Those relations are externalized in some scheme of pokatok.
A perversion of relationalism is associationism: complex ideas are formed from simples by association. This theory dates back at least to David Hume (1711-1776). This has been a prime component of the analytic tradition, suffering its same fate. It does, however, presuppose some kind of mental space, and it does point up the fact that the mind is nothing if not a relational engine.
The atom remains a stumbling block in our traverse from mind to matter. It's complexity is daunting. We must wonder as to its source. It does not strike one as fundamental, but nothing simpler could fit the bill, and it is a lengthy bill. Interchangeability is the operative word of atomic alchemy. The Monster Group lurks just beyond the atomic horizon. All of mathematics is realized in the confines of a single atom. Here, certainly, is a microcosm. Have we not been amply warned about microcosms, but who'd a' thunk it? We may look for remnants of the zodiac in the atom. It is a micro pantheon, being somehow projected by X/pi. We see the 'monstrous moonshine', but where is the still? There is a projective function we have not yet grasped.
Atom, cell and brain/mind are each likely to be reflective of the primordial zodiac/pantheon. Each is a microcosm for a different aspect of the cosmos. This would give Z a greater role in Creation, along with X. The pantheon becomes us. It does so by projecting itself through the structure of the atom, cell, brain, and perhaps even the MG itself.
Yes, I think we may need to ascribe a greater role to the pantheon/Z. This is in line with allowing the christos/X/pi to be more of a coordinator, leading up to the X-event. Z must project itself through the eye of the needle, which is Pi. That is how the Anthropic Principle comes into play, along with the UEM, unreasonable effectiveness of math. In that process the circular symmetry is broken in the fashion of the elliptical functions, which distill the Monstrous Moonshine (800 hits). That is what is happening with Pokatok. In that game the object is to pass the ball/Sun through the circular hoop in ecliptic/elliptic fashion. Ceremonial death and fertility are the result. Is there a Lamarckian fine-tuning on the playing fields of Xcaret/J-Parc? The trajectory of the ball is elliptical with a focus conformally projected to infinity. Astronomers later use this errant focus to bring down the heavens in the fashion of Chicken Little, thereby deconstructing the Rube Goldberg materialist cosmos with their dark energy, in a reprise of Copernicus who was oblivious to our postmodern moonshine.
Pi is the pinhole of the magic lantern that produces our anthropocentric world. There is a projective geometry at work. There is also a seeding. Pi is pinhole & seed. Golgotha somehow encompassed both. That must have been the eye of the cosmic needle. It was the sacrificial symmetry breaker and the rebirthing via Freya. Multiplicity comes via the trinitarian e^i*pi, MDX -> R/Z. The atom is the pi-vot. Golgotha is the Omphalos. The event breaks the precessional symmetry of Hamlet's Mill. This is done in conjunction the multiplicative DNA crystallization. There may be something here of the aperiodic pentagonal (Penrose) tiling, bringing phi into the picture. Somehow there is a crystallization of the Matrix, in the manner of a fractal. There is now the Aqua Regia of the spirit that dissolves the crystal leading to apokatastasis. I should point out that language is another kind of crystal. The zodiacal pantheon is the first crystal. In three dimensions we would have the five Platonic solids. In order to ensure three spatial dimensions we might need the equivalent of a Penrose spin network, but I don't see a source. We might also wonder how space-time emerges from an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. It has to do with the projection or measurement operators. Ecological networking in more than 3+1D may just be infeasible.
Presently I am reading Hyper-science (F & L Hatem, 1994). It is partly relevant to the BPW, but for the most part it manages to be exasperating. What can I say? It is all too French. It is Being and Nothingness on steroids. It is more Buddhist than Buddha. It is more Taoist than the Tao. It is the reductio ad absurdum of the principal alternatives to the BPW. If 1 = 0 then everything is true and untrue, but don't take my word for it. (BTW, I notice that the BPW is first on the new MSN search, while it has fallen to 16 on Google. What does that mean?)
A problem to be considered is the introduction of size scales. In the Matrix proper there are none such. There is only zodiacal coherence shading off to incoherence. We may suppose that quantity emerges before dimension. Quantity implies a single dimension. The problem is to obtain the second. A network analysis of relations could produce multiple dimensions, but these would be ad hoc. There ought to be a step or two before J-Parc. Sizes, however, are only relative. What could be the standards? How do philosophers manage to avoid these foundational issues? Mathematicians and physicists avoid them as well. We might ask how we manage dimensions in the mind. Our neurons do not have much problem. There is probably a proprioceptive basis for mental dimensioning, which is a throwback to cell function. The idea of containment might be prior to space. Can the gods sequester their thoughts? This is related to perception. What is the basis of privacy and possession? This goes back to identity. Immaterial identity is a problem.
Similar problems arise in trying to make sense of direct perception: visual experience may not be abstracted from total experience. May we say that size is an abstraction? Perception is based on functionality. Then we need a non-biological source of function. It is interaction between selves, plus internal actions or exercise of the will. There is the issue of externality as with dreams and visions. It is not clear if there is originally only one self. I suspect so. The primal self may be without awareness, which comes only in a social context. It seems likely that infants dream. If one self emerges, why not two? But how would they find each other? We could designate X to be the primal self. The Matrix must include X. But what is experience without time or coherence? Do the blind have visual dreams? msn: blind-people dreams? I'm not satisfied with the standard answers, which assume indirect perception.
We have yet to embrace direct perception. It then becomes a challenge to explain our apparent faculties of indirect perception, e.g. representational artifacts, and communications. Truth comes natural, everything else has to be rationalized, e.g. when I shut my eyes, the world disappears.
Indirect perception has to do with perspective. It is the price we pay for the realization of space and time, for the cloning of God and the outsourcing of Creation. This tells us that space and time begin with the dialectic and the zodiac.
The Matrix then must be our proto-self, dialectically striving for coherence. That striving is outsourced to the zodiac, and the rest is history. Realization is a social enterprise. Is it surprising that we forget our roots? X maintains a special tie to the Matrix: apron strings. The Mater blows a smoke ring: Z. Omniscience is compartmentalized and condenses into matter. Symmetry is broken. A concentric set of Platonic solids are formed. This is our spin net.
We might wonder what happens at apokatastasis. Are we back to scratch? I doubt it. Now we have to embrace eternity.
Omniscience is something to be avoided. Attention is to be focused, or there can be no action. Omniscience is the disease of direct perception. Barriers to the mind are made to be broken. The unobstructed universe is omnipresent. What are we to make of imagination? When do unicorns become real?
At another extreme we could take the the Matrix to be an omniscient being. This would be closer to canonical theism. What prevents this view? There still needs to be a source. Could God not have an subconscious? Can God have attention and imagination? How can mind come to be limited or segmented? This has to do with the function of the dialectic.
Perhaps a self is simply a center of ignorance. It is a hole in the mind field. Where does the BPW begin and the matrix leave off? There is a filtering process. This brings us back to time and memory. This is also the problem of the microcosm: presentation without representation. Omniscience and self-hood may be contradictory. Where is the river Lethe, and what is it? We can consider the problem of an eidetic memory. This would conflict with a coherent memory which would be more teleologically oriented.
We need a science of nescience. Dialectics may provide a starting point. There could be logical barriers to knowledge. It is a contest of coherences.
Direct perception must take into account the relational nature of knowledge. The episteme and the ontos must both be weighted toward the relational. The selves are seeds for the relational crystallization of the Matrix. This is preparation for the aqua regia of apokatastasis. This logistic is a bit like the game of free-cell.
Materialism and sectarianism are two sub-optimal forms of coherence. They are about to be overtaken by something larger. There is the apparent conflict and orthogonality of systems that is a barrier to the larger knowledge.
Perception is filtered by coherence. Most of the coherence is presently absent to us, it is subconscious. Coherence is ordered by functionality and teleology.
There is then the issue of emergence. The selves must be able to draw new things out of the Matrix. Things do not arise from the matrix unbidden. There is no true chaos. The imagination is our portal to the matrix. Artifacts are our fishing tackle. From whence did the self emerge, if not from the matrix? It is the only thing that could bootstrap itself out of the matrix. It has a logical priority. Its imagination is not distinct from perception. Does that first self know everything? No, because multiple selves may spontaneously emerge. They will emerge more easily if they are related to other selves. How might they become so? Would there not be innumerable selves? Is there no filter on this? Atoms may derive from these. That may be correct. Then what about the UEM? That speaks to the relationality and rationality of atoms. This also speaks to the construct of numbers and the MG. Did I not get any of this before? This is a restatement of personalism.
The self is just a crystallized matrix, and so is the atom. What is a number? How do they relate to selves and atoms? Is there a society of mind? Numbers and atoms fill in our blind spots. They are an extension of our collective memory, and a functional extension, at that. An MG out of numbers is as likely as a living cell out of atoms. There must be a telos in both cases. The same one? The teloi of atoms and numbers are inextricable, viz. e^i*pi. How do the other coincidences come into play?
But then we come back to the problem of not having any definite number of atoms. How do we get the oceans to evaporate? Is there a Jurassic Parc for atoms? Gaia and the matrix may be similar. Which came first, numbers or the MG?
A review of Mandelbrot Mystery may be in order. The Mandelbrot appears as a selfless, impersonal link into the Matrix, seemingly contradicting my statement three paragraphs above. It resides on the boundary between coherence and incoherence.
(I just got a new toy: Google's desktop search function. It will help to facilitate the internal linking, over using site-search on all of comcast.net. In the process of using it, I realize that the primordial dialectic and the zim-zum are very similar.)
Zim-zum (and here):
A term from Lurianic Kabbalah meaning the contraction of the Ain Sof to form a "space" into which all of creation would manifest. God still fills this space, like the fragrance of a rose lingers after it leaves the room. This is the first appearance of the "separation" between God and the Universe necessary for manifestation. In order for anything to become distinct and visible, something else must become invisible. A foreground is not visible unless there is a background. This is the first appearance of the Abyss and also of Knowledge (Daath). By the very act of separation God imposes ignorance or latency on Himself in order to create. This ignorance is simultaneously the birth of Knowledge.
Perhaps this is what F & L Hatem are referring to above in their Hyper-science.
The Abyss is filled with numbers and atoms, etc. The Mandelbrot is a model for the filling that becomes Creation. We have come a long way from the pokatok court, and I wonder how we will get back to it. With the Mandelbrot, there are no atoms, unless we arbitrarily limit the resolution. If we switch models from math to language, we have letters, words and grammar in the place of organic chemistry.
We need to arrange for atoms to be present when we need them for the physics, but otherwise we don't want them to get in the way of the phenomenology or the teleology. I don't want the atoms to take on an independent, objective, material existence. The same is true for the stars and numbers. Selves and atoms cannot exist apart from a telos. Their function is to reify the virtual telos. How many hydrogens and how many threes do we need to maintain the world? One of each may be enough for the formalities. How many Monster Groups does it take to run the world? Its influence is as widespread as the particles it guides. Must the MG be attached, as we often suppose our minds are, to a material substrate to be effective?
How does a substance maintain its identity without the benefit of objective atoms? Can we ask the same of pi or the MG? For an emergent entity, the whole transcends its parts, rendering it less dependent on its atomic constituents. The parts are there for our analysis.
It has finally occurred to me that the immaterialists should turn the tables on the materialists, relative to emergence. It is atoms, numbers, words, etc., that are the emergent entities. This thought stems from the zim-zum and the thunderwords of James Joyce. The operative concept is articulation/distinction. Language is the articulation of the logos. Individual/ego consciousness is the articulation of tribal consciousness. 'Developing' societies continue to struggle with this articulation. Their egos evaporate to emigrate to the developed countries wherein they recondense into our articulated socioeconomic structures. (BTW, art-, ars derive from 'arm' of Sanskrit origin.)
This thought has been dormant for some time. It has been a struggle to articulate it. I wonder where it has been previously articulated, beyond the crib notes I used for Finnegan. Atoms are latent in matter until we articulate them with quantum measurement. I have always figured that the spontaneous quantum collapses of the statisticians was just an artifact or a fudge to avoid the obvious teleology.
This is truly about the deconstruction of atoms, again and, hopefully, finally. The Matrix is the cosmic white hole, Ain Soph, Brahman, and the primordial selves are the prismatic articulators of it. The X factor is the archeonic Coherentor. Its dialectic co-focus is the Analyzer. This is the engine of creation and we are the micro-engines. This is the primal duality conspiring in creation. Are we needing a name for the Y factor? The christos incarnates a bit of the latter. Y2X may have more of the Y. I'm not sure how that works in the Z phase. And where is the Pokatok? The ball/sun is the precursor of the atom. It is articulated by the team to place it through the ecliptic hoop.
There is gradually constructed an analytic infrastructure which is guaranteed to produce atoms when it is employed. This infrastructure is itself not necessarily analyzable. It is non-local. It consists of hardware and software, and it is cultural. Instances of it are like a quantum measurement. This does not quite tell us how the oceans evaporate. Can evaporation be subsumed under metabolism and heliotropism? The R of AZO/X/QRP brings a dialectical re/Creation into space-time via our newly appreciated atoms. It is about the culturing of our Gaian crystal/chrysalis, a pearl of great price. A seed is a microcosmic precursor of the atom. Pi is the seminal seed of e^i*pi.
It is not clear how we knew how much diversity we could wring from the atom before the fact of it. This has to do with the preordained atomic limits of the BPW, but that may be a moot point. These teleologically derived atoms can hardly stand in the way of the Telos. We could also ask about the telic priority of the MG vs. pi. I suspect that coincidences of pi are presaged in the complexity of the MG. This information is also encoded in the Riemann Zeta. The organicity of math and the world are written into carbon, as in a charcoal sketch. The BPW is not contingent upon carbon. It is vice versa. There would be no carbon and no nothing without the BPW. Even the Matrix is dependent upon us, in no small measure. The felicitous zodiac sat around the ol' fishing hole, and now see what the feline dragged home, still dripping. Are the atoms now tamed? Surely el Telos Taurus is cracking a bit closer to their ears. The properties of carbon are vastly overdetermined, but the quantum gap can more than accommodate all those analytic sins. Do we have to worry that the ouroboros will not be sufficiently long and supple to grab its own tail? Fear not! That's like worrying that the Centurions might have run out of nails. It's not the atoms that account for the stability of the world. It's the other way around. Nonetheless, the structure of all the atoms are accounted for with a very few parameters. The fudging does remain well concealed. There is a superficial simplicity.
Back to the MG. Was it pulled out of the ol' fishing hole fully formed? I doubt it. Like a pretzel, it had to be twisted into shape. There was a logical vacuum that needed filling. The relative simplicity of the atom is balanced by the complexity of the MG. But aren't the genealogies of the elementary particles gratuitous? Are they not just meant to keep the mathematical physicists off the streets for another few years? The neutrino is not needed outside of astrophysics. Why go to all the trouble just to save the celestial appearances? The intricacies of stellar dynamics are quite gratuitous to a pre-Copernican cosmos. Perhaps the MG has all the functionality of a gargoyle, not that that is to be underestimated. Perhaps the Sun, though, is not as gratuitous. Saving its appearance is more than academic. Cosmic rays help to save the appearance of genetic mutation, no small savings. And let us not forget the political significance of nuclear weapons in this age of culture clash. Still, we could have gotten by with a few exceptional groups, without having to go full-bore for the sporadics. It is our attempt to quantize gravity that puts us under the sporadic spell.
We might also attribute the MG to the organicity of math. This is no small matter, either. This organicity may indirectly reflect upon physics. The MG might also serve as a proxy for the organicity and complexity of the world. That has been my generally unstated assumption. I need to work out the significance of proxy-hood in this context. It may just go with relationalism. Math, like most things, exists as a microcosm. It 'represents' the extremity of articulation in an organic world. Complexity substitutes for organicity. Numerical coincidences, however, point to the organic. If human understanding is part of the teleology, and we have now discovered the most complex mathematical object, then this fact may have eschatological portent. Only the Riemann Zeta may still stand between us and the Omega.
An outstanding problem for the BPW is the the placement of the Alpha. Most idealist philosophies are simply acosmic and atemporal. The BPW was born out of a theistic and eschatological concern. It is unabashedly cosmological, and is necessarily theo/anthropocentric. Linear, historical time is commensurate with human consciousness. The primary departure of human from animal consciousness came with the development of language, which I speculate was contemporaneous with the appearance of eidetic memory, some fifty thousand years ago. Prior to that time, there will be a marked divergence between materialist and idealist conceptions of the phenomenal world. Materialists suppose that we can extrapolate the present phenomenology of linear time back to the big-bang, long before observation or memory. Idealists may not be so casual in their extrapolations. The Alpha is the point at which the biological creatures become the primary custodians of Creation. I seem now to be contradicting the Pokatok scenario that has been useful up to this point. Permit me to bracket that for the time being. Since we cannot rely on atoms and physics prior to Alpha, we must remain circumspect in our use of them afterwards.
There is a 'cheat' at this point. To complement the use of 'physics' after Alpha, we can substitute physicists to fill in the record that appears to antedate Alpha. This is admittedly a heavy reliance on creaturely mediated teleology. But this epochal contrast is overstated. What I mean to say is that memory and the historical record coincide in the latter but not the former epoch. This too is misstated. I do not appeal to memory, but to direct perception. This is the case for the historical epoch. What happens before is a matter of projection rather than perception. In its turn, this duality between projection and perception is also being overstated. It is true that language is very often a force for analytic rather than holistic thought. The struggle for holism is an uphill battle with the conventions of language. This fact points up the difficulty of this pedagogy.
With idealism there need not be a clear distinction between interpolation and extrapolation, or between foreground and background. It all originates with the same vision of the BPW. I do need, however, to revamp my understanding of nature. What I have so far is mainly just an excuse for nature. This is a negative explanation. I need a positive explanation. Previously I have attempted to outsource nature to Jurassic Parc. That is simply a restatement of the problem. Can we incorporate the appearance of nature into a rational process or creation? Can we have nature without naturalism? Can we get by with an ersatz big-bang, or do we have to go all the way? We have made some progress with the emergence of ersatz atoms. Cannot the big-bang emerge in a similar fashion, and then we can ditch the Parc?
A big-bang would be the only 'natural' source of atoms. The two are logically co-dependent, along with evolution. What is the cost of all this 'naturalness'? Need it be more costly than an ad hoc Creation? One may be sorely tempted at this point just to posit an actual big-bang, but this leaves us with a very tricky exit strategy, plus an excessive degree of ad hoc intervention along the way.
When we go digging, go stargazing, go microbe hunting, go atom smashing, we are going to have to find something. We cannot just fall off the edge of reality. Phenomenology, just like nature, abhors a vacuum. All blind spots are filled. I suggest that the 'natural' filling in may be the path of least psychic resistance. This is the path of greatest coherence and of the least cognitive dissonance. It may seem that God has allowed the phenomenology to go too far in this direction, making it harder to extricate ourselves from the path of materialism. If there were more dissonance, my life would be easier. That's alright. I do my job, and God does her job.
The big-bang and evolution provide a 'false summit' of sub-coherence. As soon as we reach that summit, the true summit will loom into view. It will look a lot like an eschaton. The false summit is the scientific telos, or the unified theory of everything. That unification of phenomena is the path of least action for the Creator. We seem only to figure out the scheme of unification after the fact. But, from the perspective of cosmic intelligence, facts are always theory laden. It is the condition of relational existence. From the bias of temporal existence we discover the theory after the facts, but that bias is just our illusion.
We 'discover' the Earth to be round, after failing to fall off the edge. We suppose the Earth to be objectively round. But if the Earth were flat, someone would have to shape an ad hoc set of edge effects. Lacking that special someone, the Earth cannot fail to be round. The world is that much simpler. Bill Occam is glad. The same goes for evolution. Without that principle of coherence, biological phenomena would have to be jerry-rigged. The phenomenal pieces would all be gratuitous. The whole point of phenomenology is that it abhors a vacuum, and that entails that there can be no rough edges. This should tell us something about the eschaton. It is not an edge for us to fall off of. It is rather an apokatastasis, a restitution.
May we revisit the Monster Group? What would Bill think about it?
Off of what edge does the Monster prevent us from falling? On the early maps of the world, in the blank areas, terra incognita, it was customary to depict a monster or two. It kept the explorers guessing.
In explaining the MG we can hardly appeal to simplicity. The MG seems the archetype of extravagance. What we seem to be missing is a phenomenology of math. There seems to be nothing natural about the MG.
It is math that keeps us from falling off the edge when we come to the quantum. It is only with the quantum that mathematical physics comes into its own. This has to do with the greater level of abstraction introduced by the probability wave functions and the concomitant projection operators. With the quantum we fall into the infinite dimensional Hilbert space. At the same time we are forced to take onboard the theory of complex numbers. These abstract spaces open us up to issues of symmetry. It is the MG that connects for us the discrete and non-discrete symmetries, having to do with the 'moonshine' conjecture and string theory.
It is these symmetries which hold the atoms and particles together. They cannot be smashed, they can only be transformed from one symmetry state to another. There is a process of self-containment and closure that can be expressed only with mathematics. This logical closure is the basis of our ontic stability and identity. This same closure is responsible for the melding of the ontic and epistemic in physics.
If we project back in time or out in space, it is the big-bang that saves our appearances. If we project down in scale it is math that saves the appearances. It is the MG, in its coverage of the discrete and non-discrete, that melds these disparate projections. The smoothing out of the rough edges of reality is of more than academic concern. It has to do with the ouroboric/bootstrap nature of reality. Coherence cannot be a local phenomenon. It is cosmic or nothing. Tying together all the loose ends requires a knot of Gordian proportions. The Langlands and Erlangen programs of mathematics speak to this coherence. It is about the rationalization of math, the squaring of the circle.
The discreteness of the atom allows us to combinatorially fill every ecological niche. This metabolic combinatorics accounts for the continuity of nature. The logical closure of nature is what grounds and redirects our transcendental impulse leading to the eschaton. The MG is the Anthropos in mathematical dress. It is our jumping-off point to eternity. It is our Cartesian pineal gland. The UEM is just a manifestation of the ouroboric principle. The MG expresses the finitude of the Anthropos and Gaia, and so it ensures and may even codify the eschaton.
It does appear, to me at least, that the BPWH has been significantly consolidated this time around, by bringing closer together the principal loose ends. Outstanding from above is the conflict in the placements of Alpha. The acquisition of language is spread out over time and space, whereas the introduction of certain ceremonial sports is more easily specified. It could be two stages of a single process. We allow Alpha to be segmented or articulated. And so may be the Omega.
The aesthetics of mathematics (beauty & mathematics - 950,000 hits) provides another handle on the organicity of mathematics. Combine this with the UEM and the Ramanujan phenomenon and we see the ouroboric principle operating on all levels of reality. My point is that a world without a robust mathematics is inconceivable. The most direct line of progression here is metabolism -> chemistry -> quantum -> math. Another similar progression is ecology -> evolution -> big-bang -> math. Leaving out any one of these steps would result in a logical hole in the world. Its coherence would be radically reduced. To be is to relate. Without the relational power of mathematics, being would be impoverished. Without this mathematical extension nature would be at loose ends. The Grand Unified Theory may be a false summit of coherence, but that does not negate its contribution thereto. Dualistic thinking about mind and matter has spilled over into a perceived dualism of math and matter. That duality is artificial. There is then nothing unreasonable about the effectiveness of mathematics.
Stars and fossils remain challenging for the idealist. We have to arrange for filling in the background of deep time and deep space.
Stars could fairly easily fall under the aegis of Sol. Sol is then the main challenge, and we can subsume that in the metabolic frame heliotropism. Given a round Earth and gravity, it is not a big step to placing a primary energy source. The physical details of the Sun are emergent properties along with atoms. The Sun is a spin-off of the big-bang.
The fossils are a different challenge, but it would be strange if there were no 'record' of the evolutionary phenomenology. The Earth needs to be antiqued. This need not, however, require any very special provisions beyond what we have for atoms and the big-bang. This is following the path of least intervention.
Given a spatial frame, the logic of atoms is inescapable, just ask the Greeks. We invoke an anthropic Telos as our final cause, which then elicits a chain of being out from the background of atomic logic. The big-bang is the logical anchor that is projected out from the Alpha end of the chain. All the rest of the chain, including stars and fossils, is just a path of least phenomenological resistance.
Need this be implausible? We underestimate the degree to which plausibility is socially conditioned. In short, we will very easily get used to it, if we have the slightest motivation to do so. The scientists will cry crocodile tears. Poor dears!
Yes, Virginia, there is a Chain of Being. That it appears as natural as it does is a matter of an aesthetics which may best be ascribed to cosmic convenience. The X-factor can be as Zen-like as the best in that tradition. No unnecessary action or disturbance in the cosmic flow. The cosmic Santa relies mainly on us elves to keep the phenomena on the designated track. It's only as we approach the Omega that we experience trepidation. Up to now it has mainly been combinatorics. That's what space is for.
Let me summarize the logical sequence:
Forms/zodiac -> diversity/separation -> combinatorics -> space/atoms -> eco-metabolics -> chain-of-being -> big-bang -> sun-stars-fossils. And the rest is history.
These are the logical organizing principles that guide the phenomenology. This logical guidance of the phenomenology works in a manner similar to what we suppose is the mathematical guidance of physics in the quantum realm. Collectively, we mediate the logical guidance, and we often do so in a teleological fashion.
May we now discard Jurassic Parc? Well, the challenge we have now is to turn the logical sequence into a temporal sequence focused on Alpha. This is the articulated creation. I am prone to discard the fifty-thousand year mark, and head back toward the pokatok/megalithic frame. Prior to that would have been a timeless or time-optional J-Pc. This would have been a test-bed for the basic cycles and functions, with pokatok as an occasional sideshow.
In worrying about J-Pc, we can go back to here. We are looking for the 3-D seed crystal that will include the R archetype in a significant fashion. It is not easy to jump-start the reproductive cycle. Which came first, chicken little or the Omega? To what extent can R be related to the dynamics of Z? What are the metaphors/analogies for R? From whence came the idea of the seed? Bring on the dialectic.
Earlier on this page it was suggested that there might be a link between the ouroboros and the reproductive cycle. Another point to recall is the normativity of biological cycles.
I realize that I don't yet have an explanation for fire. My thoughts turn to Gaston Bachelard and his Psychoanalysis of Fire. Notice also his Poetics of Space, etc. Have I been neglecting Gaston in my phenomenological efforts? Where and how does fire fit into the BPW? Is it mainly logic or aesthetics that explains fire? Gaston points to the Promethean and social aspects of fire. I would sooner point to the technology of fire, being the smith that I am, but that is implied by Prometheus. The sun empowers vegetation. We bring the sun down from the sky and empower ourselves. The domestication of fire is lost in pre-history, a history to which I ascribe a derivative reality. Still we may wonder as to the relation between fire and language in our domestication and socialization, and how these features relate to, or might be included in, the J-Pc/creation scenario. As Gaston points out, the concept of the hearth is crucial in many ways that we can barely appreciate in the age of microwaves. The hearth is the heart of our domiciles. In cooking, we are all alchemists. He further points out that fire is seen as a link between matter and spirit, as in the case of ceremonial sacrifice. Imagine the role of fire in bringing us down from the trees. Consider the role of 'fire water'. Fire is another kind of evaporation and portent of atomicity. Oxidation distinguishes animals from plants. We are the two sides of the carbon cycle. Consider the role of CO2 emissions in our eschatological sensibility. The consideration of fire could cast a more psychological light upon the J-Pc. There remains, however, a phenomenal and logical gap between metabolism and pyrolysis.
With fire, the demands on atomicity are greater than before. It may help to put more emphasis on the numerical ground of atoms. With evaporation we may invoke aqua/heliotropism, but with fire there is no relevant tropism, beyond our own fascination. Forest fires, lightning and volcanoes are a mixed bag. They do seem to have a mind of their own, and they are atomic mainly in theory.
Psychologically, we may not speak of fire without also speaking of ice. That combo has had an enormous impact on the human diaspora. Was that combo a positive creation, or was it a logical spin-off of the main show? The peculiar negative thermal expansion of water near freezing indicates the former case. This observation puts us well beyond Gaston's analysis. It is not clear to me what were the self-imposed limits of his analysis.
In this context I am looking at John Fraim's website. It provides a useful contemporary compendium of symbolism. My contention with Gaston is his embrace of the claustrophobic going back to the womb(/matrix?). Cosmology is not in his lexicon.
We must not forget that the polar thermocline is the Carnot engine of meteorology. Ice limits the organic stress imposed by the thermocline. Atomic substances must have at least two phases. The middle phase is ruled by water.
Cartographic diversity -> meteorology -> thermocline -> ice -> fire.
Does this sequence gives us a better handle on atomism?
Don't forget that CO2 is necessary for plants. What was its supposed primordial source? The primordial atmosphere was nitrogen and methane?
Then we come back to lightning and volcanoes. Were these deliberate? And consider the role of cosmic rays in triggering lightning. Plate tectonics is a rationalizing of cartography. Volcanoes are a residue of this rationalization. That brings up earthquakes. It is hard to find something positive there, but they are a lot less deadly than the mosquito or virus. The virus is a residue of genetics. The game of ecology is serious, and not totally anthropocentric. Nature should not be kept on too short of a leash. No shorter than our leash.
What is the role of the fear of God in the above? Is that a legitimate component of the BPW? We must be reminded that we are on a leash.
How closely related are lightning and electricity in the telos? Is there a psychology of lightning, or is it just its role in the carbon/nitrogen cycles. Is there an overdetermination here? The exact mechanism of charge separation remains obscure. Does it depend on ice? The lightning bolt is the preeminent phenomenon of nature, beyond the eclipse. Did it spark our fascination with fire?
I need to reconsider the four elements: air, earth, fire and water. How do they relate? Then I need to get back to the eschaton, and how that fits into the BPW scheme.
Air and water are essential to transport, particularly of the atomic variety. The combinatorics of metabolism is essential to the combinatorics of space. Space is the way to avoid the limits of Leibniz' II. What becomes of that combinatorics in the eschaton or beyond the portal? In short, what becomes of us. Will there be stages of recombination? Can space gradually become more relational? Cyberspace will be a part of that. Virtual pokatok is a step beyond and back. Halo is of that ilk. RPGs may be truer to form. Metabolism enables self-maintenance. This goes with our territorial/homing instinct. The RPG moves us toward a more functional and group perspective. We have reached the apogee of ego development, and we are reluctant to move beyond that point, despite the pressures and inducements of modern society. Society has learned how to harness the egos to its own, more organic, ends. This is the hidden hand of economics. Forced collectivization is a vision of the past.
Atoms maximize the self-organizing combinatorial possibilities allowed by spatial symmetry. The R cycles are the means of realizing those possibilities.
MDX -> Z -> AO -> QRP.
DX is the Dia/logos. It breaks the Z symmetry into AO. Space/time is formed with QRP. Q expresses the normativity of R and P, and re-expresses the Dia/logos with e^i*pi. The J-Pc corrals the cloning Rs. The J-Pc may also be the primordial gap between A&O. It is a timeless Xcaret, a Camelot. History then encircles that Mt. Meru or axis mundi. The J-Pc leaks out and gradually the core removes itself from the mainstream. It goes off the mass-shell like a virtual particle. It is the mother of all seeds. That's one speculation, anyway.
The digestive and reproductive cycles may be viewed as tandem challenges in the combinatoric scheme. Fire, especially in the guise of internal combustion, is digestion in extremis. Plants operate on external combustion. Ideas don't burn, do they? How will we ever get people to believe that ideas burn? If people can believe that, they will believe just about anything. And isn't that the whole point?!
The conservation of energy in locomotion is a burning issue. This is a space-time symmetry. Why not telekinesis? That symmetry is necessary for combinatorics. In order for ideas to move, they must also be combustible. What is the downside of telekinesis? It would be abused? Or we can't ordinarily break the symmetry? Are continuity and causality separate issues? I have not looked at these. Atoms must be related to both. They are centers of causality and manifest the limits of continuity. That is how Q is kept small. Combustion manifests both. Does combinatorics require these? Atoms are a distributed intelligence. But does that bind mind too tightly to matter? No, it is just the minimal localization of same. We cannot attend to atoms, and so they attend to themselves, when necessary. They are foci of habituation. Some of this is true of numbers. When it comes to continuity we have to think globally and act locally. It's difficult not to take space-time for 'granite'. The jump-starting of atoms and chemistry remains a challenge. How much of a jump-start is Creation? This is the problem of the J-Pc. The problem of cosmogony is genealogical. That is what all the biblical 'begats' are alerting us to. The photons are the stretch marks of space. Does this sound too much like the big bang? They are our communion. UFOs may function in a similar, coordinating fashion. There was no first baby. We are all still babies struggling for the first breath. There is the symbolism of 2001.
Atoms are the logical foci of habituation and physicality. Q is the fudge factor that mediates the conflicting teleological/functional demands that we place on atoms. Do the atoms determine the cycles, or is it the other way? There are trade-offs and conflicts between atomism and teleology. How is the balance maintained? The relation between atoms and numbers remains tenuous.
Optimizing the combinatoric possibilities in time and space is the primary thrust of Creation. How important is Nature for this? Is it merely the logical backdrop for the human drama? Is there not a more positive role? I raise this question back here. In other instances I have stated that God uses nature to hide behind, but that is nothing positive. It was a major deal to go with nature. It was an all or nothing decision. To what degree is nature just an obstacle to be overcome by us? Or is it just to balance the carbon cycle? Could there be an Earth without Gaia? It would simply be incoherent. There could not be flora without fauna.
Ecology is an all or nothing game, and it cannot be played without giving much autonomy to the atoms. This is why materialism has such a hold on us. The space-time combinatorics must begin at the atomic level, but then the atoms must be kept on a short ontological leash. That requirement remains to be fleshed out. This must relate to Q, but Q is not something that is added to atoms. Atoms emerge from it. That misunderstanding may explain the quantum enigmas. The dialectics of e^i*pi must come into this. Fleshing out Q may be the next priority. It is the least determinate of the archetypes.
That matter emerges from Q, whatever it may be, has not yet been appreciated. e^i*pi is only a small aspect of Q and P. (Physics students must understand that these are not the anti-commuting quantum variables of the same names.) A point to consider is the relation between matter and memory. Also consider that this problem is a bitch, along with the Nature that it is. We are just trying to see what makes matter substantial. Certainly the physicists have not a clue. Substance is just something that metaphysicians used to worry about. The relationality of it is hard to compute. How can there be a virtual substance? Substantiality is largely qualitative and normative. QRP are also of this stripe. Yes, even P/pi is grounded in normativity, I would claim. It is not just another number. It is a very special number, and its singularity is ultimately a matter of judgment and perspective, embedded in the depth and coherence of mathematics. Atoms are the manifestation of QRP when projected onto space and time, which in their turn may also be seen as projections. The normativity of space and time has been widely noted, particularly with regard to time.
Our concern for the reality of atoms could be extended to the reality of bytes, letters, etc. There is a similar contextuality and normativity. Misplaced bytes and atoms are of dubious ontic status. Consider the rise and fall of 'sense data', or the status of a stray neural firing. Can signal noise be parsed with any effect? Substance is holistic or nothing. It is relational. We don't have a good handle on the glue. We can't put a finger on it. All substance is ultimately subjective. There is a genealogy of substance that is entangled with that of the self. Analysis requires effort and infrastructure. It is not natural. There is a story of atoms. We live that story, and their substance is entangled with it and us. Does this explain solar neutrinos and the other exotica of science? All of that is a spin-off of the functional core of phenomenology and QRP. Does any of this help us to reconstruct the Creation scenario?
One does find seashells by the seashore. Are they misplaced? What is their ontic status? Some are valuable and wind up in collections. They may become currency, wampum, having a social metabolic function. Otherwise, like fallen leaves, they are cycled back into the earth where we all end up, more or less. Each one of us can become a stray sheep, without a shepherd. But can we? Can anything? Truly? Consider the fractal and apokatastasis. Can there be any leftovers? Between cycles there is a no-man's land. Or is it? There are typos and there are spell-checkers. There are culture clashes. Terrorists get caught in the middle. In ecology, the carcasses pile up. Detritus. If oxygen gets too high, fires bring it back down.
Is it not possible that we are having experiences that will not be apotheosized or restituted? Some experiences take on greater portent than others. There is repetition. Will we be able to point to waste? I am skeptical that it will be a lasting issue. By creating new contexts, we create new experiences, be they social or technical in nature. The Internet is a case in point.
How did the starry sky get filled? Partly by fractal, partly by coherence. Did it ever have a different look? Who shaped the Andromeda galaxy, or Orion? There may have been various final causes that were over-determining the shape of the heavens, not the least of which were zodiacal. Z could have been a component of a Lamarckian J-Pc.
The Alpha need not be jumpstarted. It is lost in the mists of time. At some point history merges into the J-Pc, and J-Pc has an eternal component as discusses on 12/3. It is a nexus and highest common denominator of our consensual imagination. It may be fleshed out with our dreams.
We have to keep looking for gaps in the BPW, and hope that in filling them we don't have to make gross adjustments. At some point there will be sufficient confidence in the model to enable a divestiture. The least integrated facet at this point is the numerical. This is surprising for an immaterial model. Their provenance remains obscure. Their appearance in mathematical physics is exotic. With computers, they become more functional. Perhaps, though, it is in combinatorics that numbers and symmetries find their most natural home. It is on the atomic level that these symmetries become the most robust. Numbers and atoms are mutually reified, and somehow our minds partake of same. We don't yet have an observer principle for math. Our minds are combinatoric machines relative to thoughts. Our intuitions of the MG and the Ramanujan phenomenon go far beyond the basics. An axis mundi must be involved. If there were to be a breakthrough, this would be a likely venue. There must be a strong connection between the observer and anthropic principles. That connection may be the basis of substance. It is the Q that comes in here. It is the connection between micro and macro. Music and aesthetics may be involved here.
The organicity of the numerical coincidences is our best pointer, but to what end? Where would we be without numbers, or without their coincidences? Where would we be without Mozart, or without the Golay code and the Monster? The geometry of all the sporadic groups is based on that of the Leech lattice, or optimal packing in 24 dimensions. We might link mathematics to aesthetics, but then what is the function of aesthetics in the BPW? Why music? It has an abstract coherence like math. Why abstractions? Why words? They have to do with the combinatorics. This is where music comes in: combinatorial coherence and aesthetics. Aesthetics must be an aspect of love and of normativity. Consider synaesthesia, poetry, abstract vs. representational art, color vision, rhetoric. Why then does this have to show up in the quantum domain in the form of math. What is the linkage between the several aspects of math?
It would seem that between aesthetics and anthropics, the math structures would be overdetermined. How can we arrange for both to be fulfilled? Somehow there has to be a link. Where could that be? And how does the epistemology work? The episteme comes from the same place that our spatial perception comes. This may speak to the proprioceptive construct that is space. Aesthetics must be closely related to coherence, which is alignment between micro and macro cosms. Science provides a sub-alignment. This may be a spinorial/relational view of space. This may be where the virtual pokatok model runs into trouble. It assumes a perceptible space. The zodiac then is a kind of pre-space, or a projective pre-geometry, which then gets cloned according to some proto-symmetries. What is the primal spinor? What is its psychic basis? It must have to do with the dyadic dialectic. The dialectic must be multidimensional. That is a trick. The zodiac is an expanding spin-net that becomes space. What is the basis of orientation, the primordial dimension or polarity? Then we need a pokatok for spinors. It sounds like foosball! Yin-yang could be a primal dyad, but how do we get from the qualitative to quantitative dimensions. By way of numerology? Hasn't this been worked out somewhere?
Permit me to set aside aesthetics momentarily, to deal with the construct of space. I need a link between the anthropic and aesthetic aspects of math. It has something to do with combinatorics. The combinatorial view of space has long been championed by Roger Penrose, in a solitary battle. His views were motivated by Mach and Leibniz. According to Mach, the conventional view of space depends on an infinite background of particles. What if we start off with a finite number, wondered Roger? Then you have to consider Leibniz, and employ a quantum spin network. Space is constructed in a purely combinatorial and relational fashion.
Yesterday I had been watching Brian Green's Elegant Universe. The hero of the movie is Ed Witten, the fellow who in 1994 rescued string theory with his M (monster) theory. It seems that Ed has now taken up the cause of Roger's twistors. I haven't yet seen whether Ed's interest is also Leibnizian. My cohomology theory is regrettably weak. Ed follows the diagrammatic path of Andrew Hodges.
I'm now looking at John Baez' discussion of how Euler's discovery that 1 + 2 + 3 +..... = -1/12 has led to modern string theory. I'm not sure I buy this, Leonhard, that is. This is also the formula that launched Srinivasa's career. What is the sense of this, we might wonder? John shows that the 26 dimensions of bosonic string theory is directly related to this result of -1/12. What is the aesthetic of obtaining the finite from the infinite? Is it not the aesthetic of the microcosm? This may be where the microcosm impinges upon the cosmos, or where the mutual alignment is realized. And now looking at Conformal Infinity, another of Roger's ideas. A good discussion of the philosophy of divergence is here. Euler's discovery hinges on the unappreciated strangeness of negative numbers.
I refer you to A note on divergent geometric series by Kevin Carmody. He points out that if
This fact is used to store negative numbers in computers by using their two's complement. You can see why the ancients were so wary of these negatives.
Having studied mathematics for many years, I am surprised to be surprised by this so late in the game. It is turning out, however, that the substantiality of the world is based precisely on similar renormalizations of divergences. The deeper we get into mathematical physics, the more sophisticated become our renormalization schemes. The entire quantum apparatus might be viewed as just one such scheme. Now I'm reading John's Renormalization Made Easy. Also take a look at Pierre Cartier's, A mad day's work: from Grothendieck to Connes and Kontsevich - the evolution of concepts of space and symmetry, Bulletin of the AMS, 38 (2001). Alexander Grothendieck draws parallels between semantic and physical spaces. He pioneered the constructive view of spaces. Epistemology replaces ontology, in the limit. Perhaps he can help us to understand how space emerged or was projected from the Matrix, as an alternative to the pokatok scheme.
Somehow, atoms must serve as proxies for our episteme. Must we anthropomorphize atoms and numbers? This is merely an extension of animism or vitalism. It is pantheism, and so we see why the theists are wary. Atoms, like us are chips off the old block, but this can also lead us into materialism. Materialism is pantheism without the 'theo', and without the possibility of apokatastasis. The restitution of numbers seems more logistically feasible than that of atoms. Mathematical physics ought to help level the playing field. It ought to expedite the relativization or deconstruction of atoms and space. We do this using the music of the spheres. Atoms and numbers are a medium for the telos. There is the not so spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Matrix by the dialectic. There is the sundering of synaesthesia.
Mathematics consists of reasoning and computation, and of the two, computation is the more fundamental. Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole, and Hilbert each took a big step towards realizing the vision of reducing reasoning to computation.
Thanks, but no thanks! I wonder how many formalist 'gnomes' are still around. Does the analytic vision still survive on the margins of mathematics? The mainstream shies away from philosophy. Does computationalism still survive in the philosophy of mind? Haven't we gotten over that? Did we forget to tell the formalists? If you want to know about computationalism, just talk to Srini. He'll give you an earful! Long live semantics!
I'm still lacking the proper metaphor for mathematical physics. What is the attraction of pure math, and why does it spill over into physics? How does the math migrate from atoms to brains? Is it all built into our construction of space? It may have to do with Rene Thom and his 'catastrophes'. Atoms and organisms are just 'defects' of space, or, rather, space is the sum of all its defects. This is scant support for combinatorics. Must there not be multiple dialectics operating on the Matrix to produce a stable weave? Or is Z the only stability? What was the precursor to the atom? The primordial catastrophe might be the atomic knot, then the alchemy.
I am just learning about clathrates and warming (3,300 hits) from an op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun by John Atcheson. The global extent of these methane trapping hydrates only began to be appreciated in the early 90's. They range from the arctic tundra to the deep ocean sediments, and contain at least double the known coal and oil reserves. A prior rapid release of these unstable methane deposits may have contributed to a sudden warming episode 55 million years ago: Methane hydrates stir tales of hope and hazard (Science News 11/9/96). We may have to double the magnitude and halve the time scale of the expected global warming. Even with the Internet, news can travel slowly.
Usually it is the space lattice that gives rise to the defects, but we may need to reverse that sequence. Space may be a crystallization or sublimation of defects arising from the Matrix. Could the ego be such a one? What can twistors tell us about this? Do we wish to have space-time emerge independently of the creator? That might be putting the cart before the horse, almost literally. Should we look at Z as some kind of knot?
For more on twistors see M Theory Visionists and R. Penrose, F. Hadrovich.
What we don't know is whether the Matrix is primarily analog or digital, i.e. continuous or combinatorial and discrete, in terms of whatever potentialities may emerge from it. In my thinking so far, Z and D are some of both. The answer to this has a bearing on the types of pre-geometry that may be anticipated. Might any of the tools of field theory, e.g. symmetry operations, be usefully applied to Z or D? We could ask the same questions of mental states. How far removed is the Matrix from the symmetry of space and atoms? Will the answer be mainly epistemic or ontic? How big a role will logic play? It favors discrete entities. How heavily does relationalism favor continuity? Cognitive science deals mainly with discrete functions. This may be true even for perceptual systems. Which do we prefer, digital or analog? We'll take both, if we can. This issue also touches upon free will. Do we want to gives numbers a foothold in the mind? We deal with the cause and effect of thoughts. Are numbers going to help or hinder the teleology of the mind? From person to atom may be too big of a step. The single cell is a logical intermediary. That makes it harder to trace any mathematical continuity. The best we can do at this point is to check back with Rene Thom and his topological singularities in biological phase space.
Presently I am reading Temple Grandin's Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior (2004). Ms. Grandin invites us to use her autism as a bridge from human to animal consciousness. Now all we need are bridges to atomic and zodiacal consciousness. Horse whispering is a natural talent for the autistic.
A problem we face is that if atoms do not partake of selfhood, we will not be able to relate to them. Every cognizable entity must do so, and there are none other. This should tell us something about universal function, telos and apokatastasis.
What then is the relation between the selves and the ideas they entertain? Episteme always implies mutuality. This is the essence of animism. This is Srini's secret. He has intercourse with numbers. He is a number whisperer. There are no numbers, only number. Egos are the atoms of God. Atoms are God's alter egos. There are only states, be they mental or atomic. Sam's stone is a degenerate, unformed self. Politics is alchemy. Primality (of numbers) is something functional and ultimately only probable. I am my ideas and my ideas are my facets. There is no other context. Scheherazade must die when her story runs out. That is our fate. Every moth has its flame. The autist flies too near the flame, and is touched. Would we, wont we, all. Hiroshima was touched. It brought down the gauntlet. The skids are greased. Prometheus and Siva, meet Pandora. This is a restatement of the chain of being and its ouroboric character.
If the the self didn't already exist we would say it was impossible, but nothing else can exist without it. However, there must be relative degrees of selfhood, but can any partial self exist without an ultimate self? Is it then incorrect to suppose that a primal self emerged from from the Matrix? The Matrix and primal self may have to be identified, which would force a reinterpretation of MDX&Z. Can there be a difference between the primal and ultimate selves? The A&O are already seen as just two facets of one being.
If God is eternal, and if Creation is an essential aspect of God, then Creation is eternal, but then calling it a 'creation' would be a misnomer. No? One might then suppose that Creation and the MG have the same provenance. It is the eternal Telos. Then we have to deal with the flow of time in relation to the eternal Presence. We may already be beyond the point of the maximum linearity of time. If Creation were not essentially eternal, it could not relate to the rest of the cosmos, or to the MG. If physics were not logically necessary, there could be no mathematical physics. How then may we restore creatorship to God? Much of this has to do with the puzzle of presence, which is also about direct perception. Is Mozart a creator? The value of a creation is related to its endurance thru time. Mozart then is a transcriber of the eternal. His composition is not unlike the discovery of the MG. The idea is not to appreciate God by deprecating Mozart. God is the realizer of eternity. Her presence underwrites Presence.
Perhaps God is simply a virtual attractor, which is also the Telos. This is the God of the eternal future, who is finally present. It is our temporal egos that struggle to relate to the eternal self. It is the prophetic tradition which attempts to bridge the gap. What is our equivalent of the MG? There are the genetic generators and the resultant structures.
Creation is a collective process of which God is the coordinator. But is not everything pre-coordinated? Nonetheless, our struggles are real, and are essential to the process. It is the tension of the suspension (bridge). Ours is the optimal tension. God is the glue. The tension and the dialectic are related. They are both involved with symmetry breaking. We need to determine how God, egos, cells and atoms participate in the tension/dialectic. And what about numbers? How do these various beings rise to their many varied occasions? How do we manage to exist all at about the same time and share in the same mutual presence? Or is that strictly illusional? Time must be derivative of presence. Time and space are simply the mediators of presence. They often override direct perception. The problem of the mutuality of the present arises only when we treat time quantitatively or as derivative, or view being as non-relational. Do numbers share in this problem? Lack of simultaneity is a problem for relativity theory. There is the related problem of the directionality of time that enters into entropy and into the collapse of the quantum wave functions.
The great preponderance of what we think of as reality is based only on our counterfactual expectations. How are these expectations constructed and maintained, presumably in the collective subliminal mind? Is this the ground of materialism, the source of mathematical physics? Or do atoms have a distinct subliminal realm? To what extent might our expectations be able to steer events, and when do they fail to do so? Find the telos of the tsunami that can override so many expectations. There are cycles and then there are 'relaxation oscillations.' Some things bend and some don't. There must always be fault lines.
By and large, reality manages to abide by our expectations. Where it does not, scientists work to revise our expectations. Falling stars are an example. The timing of aperiodic events is left open. One might wonder how our varied expectations are mediated. How is the global coherence maintained? We suppose that it is the atoms that do so. Or are the atoms merely proxies? It may be the decoherence that is harder to explain. Atoms could also be the foci of decoherence. There are very few free atoms. They come in bulk, with standard bulk properties, be it a gas, liquid or solid. Consider storms and volcanoes. They all manage to be idiosyncratic. Are atoms to blame? Do they have minds of their own? A storm ravages a beach. Are the grains of sand to blame? Grains of sand seem to qualify as neither bulk nor atomic. There are many instances of such interstitial phenomena, i.e. the interaction of otherwise categorical phenomena. With a purely atomic metaphysic there would be none such. Can we deploy proxy atoms without falling into dualism? What might be the logistical distinction between atoms and dust? Consider Brownian motion. From dust to dust. And what happens in between?
In her book on autism, Ms. Grandin points out that 'animals and autistic people don't have to be paying attention to something in order to see it.' Things just pop out at them. Humans are more likely to see only what they are expecting to see. Her conclusion is that despite all the appearances, our normal consciousness is mainly verbal in orientation. Vision is brought under the control of the 'left brain' (pp. 51ff). On pp. 55ff Ms. Grandin points to the neo- or associational cortex. Autistics and animals have much less of, or have less functionality in their associational areas. We end up seeing mainly our own generalities. Also, as a result, normal adults are much more subject to ambivalence than are animals, autistics and children (pp. 88ff) whose emotions tend to be more compartmentalized. We might wonder whether atoms and dust can be conflicted. Does this have something to do with the quantum? Atoms are Nature's way of resolving her conflicts, as are we with respect to God.
<-- Prev Next -->