Mirage Men (R)
or
On being careful what we wish for
or
The non-messiah does not announce that the world won't end
Rumor has it that GR is onboard with a nominal stipend. That rumor was true as of yesterday. He had a lengthy convo with CoK25. He will talk to TF (not Trout Fish) this weekend. Things should be sufficiently smoothed over with CoR25 to permit a meeting back here in the next couple of weeks. Soon after that would be a meeting with CoK. There was a previous such meeting 10 years ago. A press kit would be compiled by the end of the month to be released by mid June that would be published under a bi-byline in the Style section of the WP. That, at least, is one possible scenario at this point in time.
The article would be something of a segue into John's and Mark's film, Miragemen. There is already circulating a promo disc with about twenty minutes of Doty on Bennewitz. They had backgrounders with CoR and TF. No communication with CoK is scheduled. They also have film of Hansen, Durand and Weaver. A two hour documentary could be released on Channel 4 in July, and over here on the History Channel soon thereafter. CoK suggests that I need not be filmed therein. GR will try to cooperate with them. At the present time there is no plan for R&D to be referenced in either the film or the article. Even the article would not name names. It would all be on background.
So will the sky fall in June/July? The hope is that it won't. Will eyebrows be raised inside or outside the Beltway. Perhaps.
CoK suggests that the focus going forward should be on the persistence of the phenomenon/viral meme, rather than on the history of the visitation. Is that an acceptable substitution?? Who would'a thunk it? Chicken Little bites the dust....the Aquarium goes glub....glub.... Those eardrops must have worked wonders.
Comments? Suggestions?
Oh, yes, (R) is for the copyright, not the Rating.
BTW, somewhere in here is the inferred suggestion that were I to travel abroad, it might be prudent to assume another name. So much for the safe house! Well, which would you prefer? VLAA/SDP, here we come....
[5/6]
This from Starryeyes on OM:
Do you really think something will be disclosed via a piece in the Style Section of the Washington Post?
They might assign it to Joel Achenbach again... You do remember how he covered Greer's Disclosure Project testimonies after the press conference at the Nat Press Club in 02...I knew there was a connection! The more things stay the same, the more they change. We are in good Company. There is a rumor that Miragemen will be released in Britain on the Fourth of July, speaking of irony.
Or not..... This from Bren at OM:
A small update - Mark Pilkington told me (today) that they are still filming and won't be ready to roll out until NEXT year! They are self-funded, which is slowing the process down, apparently.
No minor correction, this. It leaves us with our necks out wrt the timeline.
Back to Tim O'Connor: 'And This All Men Call God' (2004). It is, of course, on the dry side, but he does hit the salient points.
Necessary being? Why does anything exist? Could nothing exist? Is all existence accidental? Is there possible existence? These are the basic issues of ontology. The BPWH is based on a moderate version of mereological nihilism: nothing exists absolutely outside of God. But God herself is contingent upon Creation, etc. God is necessarily a dialectical being that includes Creation as an essential part (sic). There exist no proper parts. This is just a restatement of Leibniz' PSR. There are no ontological atoms. Everything hangs together, or we all hang separately, twisting in the wind.
The hairs on our heads are numbered? Well, not quite. Numbers, too, have only a contingent existence. The sandcastle has ontological precedence over the grains it contains. There exists vagueness, about the dark side of the moon, and Schrodinger's cat, etc. There exists mathematical contingency. But ontos always has precedence over chaos. Fractal 'chaos' just fills the ontological gaps, as with our blind spots. Drivers are killed everyday by what is in their blind spots. That is the hard lesson of ontology, but should that fact turn us into atomists? It should rather teach us to exercise caution. Omniscience is not something that even God could afford. There would be no room for love, no dialectic, no Creation, even. Love is nothing if not blind. Fig leaves are of the essence. As Chris Straub said to me wrt the eschaton, 'Well, Dan, I guess you'll just have to surprise us!' I try to minimize that, but even I cannot eliminate it, thank goodness. Teleology is not incompatible with mystery. It may be its ultimate Source.
[5/7]
This from JakeReason on OM:
Smokey, in talking at length with Dan Smith, concerning this issue. He believes that what we would call "Disclosure" is that time in which mankind comes face-to-face with the eschaton. The global ET awareness (Disclosure) is merely the door opener. Disclosure automatically brings into view the the true nature of the universe. Which then rapidly brings into collective focus our final destiny - oneness with G-d.
Dan Smith's the BPWH is the detailed description/explanation of this awakening, in which all things are past and all things become new. Dan believes everyone will eventually grasp the BPW Hypothesis. This within a generation, to perhaps a couple hundred years at most.
And so in Dan's view, the Disclosure period can be equated to the prophesied "second coming" - eschaton. And furthering that thought, the BPWH consequently reflects the "second coming".Then Fore:
I wonder how the second coming translates into a disclosure scenario. Is it the aliens who come or the truth that they bring. Or is the second coming a sort of revelation from a body of government?
The more I look the more that I'm confused as to how two texts clash together. Wouldn't people be disappointed if the role of the messiah never came about. What if instead we all found out that disclosure was just the revelation of old alien pals for a second time? This makes me wonder if our future is not a make or break scenario. Disclosure could break the camels back if it doesn't fulfill long standing religious beliefs.Then Shmush:
Who's saying disclosure has begun? Dan, or is Dan saying that RP told him that it has begun?
Who is predicting the signals will get "stronger"?
I guess I'm not sold on DS yet.
While I personally don't think disclosure is happening, I will recognize the fact that there has been an increase in the amount of UFO information being made public. Also, it seems like the Media has been more apt to follow a couple of stories, UFO related.<<I guess I'm not sold on DS yet.>> Well, that makes two of us. We have a long way to go. I'm getting old. I may not make it to the Promised Land, but I'll do my best to point the way. And, yes, there cannot fail to be a close link between Revelation and a messianic event. There must also be a close link between Revelation and Disclosure. For the sake of historical economy, why not have these delivered in one package? I would feel negligent, and even unpatriotic, were I not to attempt to model myself upon a minimalist version of such a package. It does seem that I have been invited to do so. No?
But right now, much of the reporting responsibility rests with GR. Were he to drop the ball, it could be a significant setback. He must be granted access to CoR & CoK. That is still being negotiated. We should learn more today. The fact that Miragemen may not be released until next year means that Gus's article would have to stand on its own. It's not clear, then, what its hook would be. R&D may be too big of a stretch, even for the Style section.
-----------------------------
Back to Tim. Necessary Being is necessarily mysterious, even in its logical necessity. We should suppose that, despite its quantitative limits, it would have no qualitative limits. Obviously, there can be only one NB. Creation is an essential part of an NB. Self-Creation fits that bill. It, again, must be Singular. Thus there can be only one four-dimensional Creation, and, with moderate mereological nihilism, that Creation may have no proper parts. It must be an organic/functional unity. Thus do we have a geo/anthropocentric Creation, which fact is the essential feature of Trinitarianism, and found nowhere else. Disclosure will either confirm or deny the fact of our Singularity. Do stay tuned.
---------------------------
GR has spoken with TF. The hook here may have to be the briefings. BTW, Miragemen may actually be first released to Theaters. The signals keep switching, on a daily basis. CR on film? Another Swan? J&M still lack a storyline.
Briefings are a blast from the past; not forward leaning as CK has urged. R&D is forward leaning. What else would be? 'Open' cooperation between MASINT and VLAA/SDP? Would that require an 'act' of Congress, violating the SDP? Nothing less could fit the bill. That could be the implication of the article. Then what about CR? CK did discuss the problem of defining 'briefing', and how that definition tends to shift. J&M will only be a blast, of the PB kind. GR needs to be a bridge from past to future.
BTW, there may now be two yellow book sources: Rick and HP.
We need another word besides 'disclosure'. Implicit acknowledgment. That seems to be where we are headed. It is all a matter of degree, and it is cumulative, to a degree.
Here it is: it's all about the Internet. That is the beginning and ending of this story. Will GR buy this? This is why it is in Style. Yes, or no?
---------------------
Then this from the OM thread:
Uncle John here: I've been trying for years to get some messages back to those controlling disclosure. So here goes, Dan Smith (DS).
I agree with DS that disclosure is much more grand than disclosing the ET interaction with earth. One could look at it as Eschatology, but in reality, nothing that continually evolves ever reaches its ultimate destiny.
Perhaps mankind will wake up to this:
Your memory and consciousness is located outside your brain in a mechanism which operates outside time and space and is located in an unknown time and space. This is much more than the Akashic records in that it is the actual memory and consciousness itself.
By control of this mechanism, individual minds can be signaled, controlled or virtualized. It is like the Matrix movies but it is reverse. In the Matrix movies, the mind is real and the scenes are virtual. In this mind mechanism, the scenes are real and the mind is virtual.
Those managing the ET situation need to understand that they are mind controlled by an ET collective, this ET collective is running the world and their plans are not in the best interest of humans or God.
Short of any other beings doing this, it seems that the destiny of humankind is to design and construct this mind mechanism. What could be greater than this? Ask not what God will do for you, ask God what you can do for God.
Sometimes I think that this whole universe is just a joke in order to get me riled up.<<this ET collective is running the world and their plans are not in the best interest of humans or God.>>
Well, John, I don't entirely agree. The BPWH is postmodern and post-Copernican.
You need to do a little BPWH homework, and then we might be able to communicate a bit better. And I look forward to that.
John comes back:
John previously: <<this ET collective is running the world>>
Of course I don't agree that any force is completely running the world. Every being has free will to a certain degree. IMO, the ET's have been behind the major global forces that shape the world and not some lineage of rich families. The fallen angels, the illuminati, the black-ops, the masons, old European money, the big corporations and our elected government have all been postulated as the major force behind running the world instead of the ET's. What is your guess or opinion?We all contribute to the self-creation/maintenance of the world: we humans, the UTs and God. It is we humans who do the heavy lifting. God is the conductor; the UTs play critical roles at critical times in history: the Three Magi/Visitors expedite the second coming, IMO.
John previously: <<their plans are not in the best interest of humans>>
Whoever is running the world does not care about needless human suffering. That is clear to me, although the word needless can be interpreted in many ways.Regardless of who runs it, this is the BPW. If you disagree, John, then you assume the burden of offering a superior alternative version of history. By assuming this is the BPW, I assume the burden of rationalizing all of history. I submit that mine is the lesser burden.
John previously: <<their plans are not in the best interest of God.>>
Well like any mortal man, I can only presume the interest of God. But to me, God is love. Since I don't love to see all the needless suffering of humanity and the ravages to our environment, I assume that God doesn't either. Just my point of view and partially explains my last comment/joke.I readily agree that God is love. I submit there is no needless suffering. It is God's version of tough love.
Gee Dan, I have no idea what postmodern and post-Copernican mean. I'm 63 years old and I quit doing homework a long time ago. I've read some of your blog and listened to some of your interviews. It seems that your blog is mainly directed at disclosure. Perhaps I have misunderstood this.
I misspoke. I should have said post-Newtonian rather than post-Copernican. This is what needs to be disclosed. This brings us back to a pre-Copernican understanding of a geo-anthropocentric world. The starry sky is part of the veil of Nature, behind which the act of Creation is hidden. This is a virtual reality, a collective dream-state, of which God is the author, conductor, hypnotist, or what have you.
[5/8]
John comes back again:
Of course humanity is doing the heavy lifting. I didn't ask you that. I'm assuming that you responded that God is the major force running the world. I doubt this. This is not what the religious texts say.
What are the UTs? Who are the Three Magi/Visitors? I can't respond to that I know not.Let me repeat: God is the conductor, we are the orchestra. We are the co-Creators of the BPW. The UTs are the ultra-terrestrial visitors, i.e. they come from dimension X, not planet X. There exist no conventional ETs according to the BPWH. The three main visitors were EBE1,2,3 of the Core Story. They are also the Three Magi of biblical fame, prophesied out of time.
Dan, if you think that this is the BPW, then why are you bothering yourself to try to change it on your blog? How can you say you rationalize all of history when you can't even respond to all of my post? A short one at that!
Who said I'm trying to change it? I'm merely telling it like it is. Our free-will is vastly overrated in our ego-consciousness: this in accord with Freud, Jung, etc. I am merely the designated pump-primer for our ratiocinative overcoming of our historical ignorance. We awaken in a timely fashion from our slumber of materialism. As an exercise in history, we can attempt to rationalize the Holocaust.
If you feel that there is no needless suffering in the world, then you have lost some of my respect. Perhaps you hang out at the Bohemian Club where they celebrate the death of care?
I hang out in Baltimore, MD. Please give me an historical example of the suffering that you deem to have been needless.
-----------------------------
Back to Tim. Is it possible that there could have been nothing? That strikes me as an incoherent, inchoate idea. Incoherence is something that is not knowable, and, therefore, not effectively observable. Such states of being can only exist as abstractions of our overactive imaginations. We can try to imagine Nothingness, but it is only ever an extrapolation from the Plenum/Pleroma of our Sensorium. There is no logic that is not dialectic. All is process.
Can we not die? Could we not be lost in space? Free-will depends on the existence of paths not taken. Can such a path or such a world exist? Modal realism, like free-will, is vastly overrated. In quantum theory all paths are taken, and the BPW is the constructive interference of those paths, resulting in the Leibnizian PSR/PLA/BPW, etc.
Given the impossibility of sheer Nothingness, there then exists a necessary Being. Given moderate mereological nihilism, all that exists is an essential aspect of that necessary Being. There are no proper parts or atoms. Given the impossibility of Absolute Incoherence, necessary Being is coherent Being, and so we have the best possible Being as the singular necessary Being which is tantamount to the BPW. This is the BPWH. It is that simple. It is that unavoidable. That we have been able to avoid and deny this hypothesis for so long is, perhaps, the greatest mystery of existence. This historical fact is the central mystery of the Self-concealing God. Necessary Being is necessarily Self-concealing. A remarkable, but perfectly logical corollary. Yes, Virginia, there is a logic of mystery, and a mystery of logic. Hallelujah! This is part and parcel of the mystery of the self-creating Ouroboros.
How do we explain the real nausea of Sartre's Nothingness? Modern existential Angst? It was a necessary phase of our growing up. As Owen Barfield would say, it was the necessary psychic discontinuity or discombobulation between our Original and Final participations. It was our teenage angst. Think James Dean! It is being played out daily on the streets of Baghdad. It is the Black Flag of Nihilism. The Romance of Nothingness. The Great Attractor of a Chaotic System. The Great Illusion within our Great Illusion, i.e. our vaunted separation from God.
Here is a quote:
The conclusion to which the foregoing argumentation points is that, owing to the
mereological complexity/diversity of the natural world, on the one hand, and the constraints
implied by the very notion of necessary being, on the other, a necessary being cannot be right in
the thicket of natural-worldly things, as the friend of Spinoza would have it. It must be
transcendent. Although some of the details of the route we've pursued are novel, the upshot
should not be entirely surprising, given the tradition of metaphysical reflection stemming all the
way back to Parmenides. For when necessary being has been conceived as immanent to the
universe, it has invariably involved the supposition that the world is radically different from that
which it appears to be. I have argued that this move cannot be sustained, given only the minimal
assumption of the compositional and causal nature of the universe.I guess I must be a Spinozist due to the pantheist tendencies of my theism. Conventional theism is highly conflicted concerning the immanence and transcendence of the Creator. It is the transcendental or deistic account of the Creator that made room for scientific inquiry. The early scientists were simply Deists. This felix culpa opened to door to a mechanistic, dualistic world view. The potential for coherence became lost in the limitations of the machine. It was great for the forced coherence of industrial development, not so great for our spiritual development. With Disclosure, the spirit has much catching up to do.
Back to John:
Overpopulation, hunger, poor health, high death rates and war are examples of needless human suffering where these problems could be fixed if our collective governments gave a damn. They don't, although they appear to be trying in order to put on a good show.
The problems you mention are mainly a result of our ignorance. The BPWH places a high value on ignorance. Ignorance is the cost of Creation. Creation cannot occur without a forced separation between creature and Creator. The measure of the separation is the measure of our ignorance. That is the most basic trade-off that we creatures must bear. Is Creation worth the price of ignorance? I submit that it is worth the price, many times over. I don't imagine that any sane individual would disagree.
I see that Smokey, also of OM, is not having a good day. He lashes out against the reasoned hope of the BPWH. What is the psychology of cynicism? What is the cure? Cynicism is a defense against the slings and arrows of daily existence. Cynicism is the dark side of hope and faith, no matter how reasoned they may be. CoK is a fraud. Dan Smith is a sucker. There is an implicit challenge to prove the cynic wrong. The challenge would not be made if there were no doubt about it. Smokey would not be here, if he harbored no doubts about his cynical posturing. His cynicism is inherent in the legacy of our scientific materialism. I am not here, however, to minister to the those who are not willing to make an effort to transcend the limitations of modern culture. I have no time for those who prefer to curse the darkness. Smokey will have to find another sucker.
[5/9]
Convo w/ CK yesterday was noncommittal. CR is being bashful. With the film on hold, a pre-primary disclosure would then have to come from our side. Playing the PB card would not be easy. I could support it, but I cannot be in front of that. Remember, I'm supposed to be a victim. We are all walking a fine line here. We can push the envelope, but we don't want to tear it.
I went to hear Al Gore give his talk at a UMBC last night. I tried to ascertain if he might have been briefed, just by listening to the undertones of his alarums. I could not catch the hint of a subtext. Nonetheless, the idea of a global and alarming paradigm shift is in the right ballpark, wouldn't you think.
Another convo, and a bit more upbeat. And so it goes.... Not only are there at least two Doty's, there are now two Col. Weavers, but I should have known.
--------------------
Back to Uncle John:
I like the way you put that. One of my favorite sayings is from a Buddhist when asked why he felt bad, "Stupidity leads to love."
There are four elements I'm perceiving about ignorance.
1 - Lack of knowledge of the facts to solve the problems at hand and making choices which maximize one's life.
2 - Having the best methods to select the right facts to be applied in a situation. Who to listen to?
3 - Not caring what the facts are. One of the wisest things I ever heard was the statement that people are not interested in solutions to their problems unless they can own the process of coming up with the solution.
4 - Having the facts or ideas blocked from one's mind. This is the hardest thing for one to see, but I assure you, it is real. The suppression of humanities knowledge of the truth of 911 and chemtrails are good examples.
"The measure of the separation is the measure of our ignorance." Now that is a very interesting statement, especially when ignorance is broken down the way I just did.
Evil that is interjected into our life by unseen forces is outside my discussion of ignorance but it is very real. Where does a discussion of ignorance lie when our governments are secretly ruled by hidden forces.<<maximize one's life>> Is that why we're here? That is not even the Darwinian view. The BPW view is more like 'mission accomplished'. This is the spiritual view generally.
<<Who to listen to?>> Yes, we do have to try the spirits.
<<unless they can own the process of coming up with the solution.>> Yes, ultimately, salvation must be of us, by us, and for us.
<<Where does a discussion of ignorance lie when our governments are secretly ruled by hidden forces.>> We are all so ruled. The search for truth becomes all the more pressing.
Ultimately we are forced to trust our best informed, most coherent and innermost judgments. Simply put, we must trust the God within. What else can we trust? We must develop a healthy ego before we can appreciate our higher Self. There must be a 'breakdown of the bicameral mind' before we can hope to pass from other-direction to inner-direction. Our Final Participation must be deeply voluntary and deeply reflective. Anything less would be abortive.
If our highest truth cannot be identified with love, then we know that we must go back to the drawing board.
If you know of any cosmology that comes closer to these criteria, I want to be the next to know.
Evil revels in ignorance, but those entities can get their act together only on an ad hoc basis. It is always rotten at the core. It is always fly-by-night.
If there is a cover-up, the fact that it has lasted for several generations points to the fact that it cannot be simply evil.
-------------------------------
I see that I have neglected to respond to Fore's early morning posting on OM. It is thoughtful, but not too well informed on the ins and outs of the BPWH. He does hew to a more orthodox religious view than is to be found here. My word for Fore is Apokatastasis. Until one fully groks on that, one will be most confused.
This is the one and only Planet of Choice. Did we individually choose to participate here? More or less. This is the default school for souls. If you wish to opt out, you need a good reason. The amazing thing is that even with our overrated free-will, there are no real mistakes. Like a sausage factory, everything gets used, even our squeals. Even Adolph can't be said to have made a mistake. He let himself become the fall guy in a major sub-plot, having eschatological implications. It probably could not have happened to a more deserving schlemiel. Rwanda, Darfur, etc.? Is not some of this bloodshed gratuitous? It starts becoming increasingly less gratuitous, right about now. The grace period is about over. Things quickly start getting more serious, if we are to have anything to say about it. Fun and games suddenly become much more costly for the perpetrators. Why else do you suppose there is this last-minute foot dragging?
Uncle John:
Apokatastasis: The Final Restoration of All Things.
Uncle John here: All those philosophers who wrote about Apokatastasis didn't understand that in the higher densities everything exists beyond the confines of linear time and space. Grok that Dan. There is no such thing as final in eternity!
Everything gets used, but not in a all in one solution like stuffing a sausage. Couldn't be further [from] the truth. What happens is that everything is share and unified. Each sentient being's life experience is shared and unified with others and the choice or authority [is] given to each individual soul as to who they share and unify with. As the souls get unified into soul collectives then that choice is appropriated to that soul collective. Guess what? Adolph's soul ain't going to be shared or unified with my soul until it's one of the last pieces left. Adolph ain't going to have much enjoyment in this process. He is going to be left out in the cold, so to speak. Out there with all the other hidden rulers of humanity.
Every thought and feeling is being recorded by the mind mechanism.
And why are things changing, just about now. Perhaps because of the internet those ET's running the show are reading my reflections and are starting to awake to the major mistakes they are making. The cost of the perpetrators fun and games are beginning to stare them in the face. Death is no escape!ETs = UTs = angels & demons. We are closer to God than the angels.
<<...ET's running the show...>> What gave you this silly idea, John? Are you an atheist?
[5/10]
Shmush on OM:
I really don't like the direction that DS is suggesting to us that Disclosure has to happen, via Eschaton. When did this happen?
What ever happened to the Gov't simply admitting that they know about "them" have had contact with "them" and that they are good/bad?
Personally, I feel like what DS is saying is, "Yes, I'm gonna die, but before I get into that, let me tell you about all the math goes into determining when it's gonna happen." Is DS an actuary or someone that can actually give us something that isn't just theoretical and rhetoric? I don't think we are "there" in determining whether or not that is the case yet, but until that happens I think I'll stick to my copy of "The Day After Roswell".It's a long road from 'crashed disks' to eschatology. But, Uncle Sam is obligated to issue a Caveat Emptor to anyone wishing to proceed down that path: there is a finite probability that should we choose to start down this path, we will end up at the threshold of the Eschaton.
The need to know of a few curiosity seekers does not obligate the Gov't to arbitrarily subject humanity to the possible consequences of disclosure. Thus the sixty years of foot dragging.
The day of reckoning can be postponed only for so long. We are rapidly approaching the end of the Grace Period. This is the Final Warning prior to Disclosure: be careful what we wish for! At the outside, we will have a couple more years to grasp the possibilities. After that, it is Truth and Consequences. We will have done our humanly best to infiltrate the Message under the radar of the News Media. This is the last gasp of our preparation. Take full advantage of the short time that remains. One last tongue-in-cheek article in the Style section, that is the most we can reasonably hope for, at this late hour.
Please note the recent post of Greg Bishop concerning his role in Mirage Men.
-----------------------------------
I can't quite seem to get off the topic of Necessary Being. Allow me to start from another place. It is generally assumed that 2 + 2 = 4 is a necessary truth. But does this imply that 4 or any other numbers exist necessarily?
But wait, let's go back to the beginning: why does anything exist? Is pure non-existence even conceivable? Can we even conceive of the non-existence of particulars? Is there anything that is inconceivable? A typical example is a square circle. I humbly submit that there is no way to distinguish between a square and a circle when they are projected into a lattice world. In such a venue, square circles would be the norm. How can one conceive of that which is inconceivable? It is an empty set. Is an empty set conceivable? Not strictly, but only by extrapolation. Notice how late in our history did the concept of zero emerge. It is not a simple concept. What about the set of married bachelors? That set might have been more obviously empty in Victorian times, but in our postmodern world, we have to stop and think about it. Absolutes are rather more difficult to come by in these latter days.
Let's go back to 4. 4 is inconceivable outside of an infinitely complex domain of math and logic. 4 simpliciter is inconceivable. It comes with a tremendous load of conceptual baggage. This is a restatement of Quine's holism.
Do doughnut holes exist? As a matter of fact, they may be purchased in most bakery stores. Is that just a play on words, or does the phrase contain a grain of metaphysical truth? The marketing success points to the latter. Then see holes and the hole argument, if you think you are too smart for this.
I humbly submit that nothing is inconceivable, on both construals of that statement. So there necessarily exists something. Given something, then everything, a la Quine. Have I not blurred the distinction between ontology and epistemology? How does this relate to the BPWH? Is a sub-optimal world conceivable? Taking a page from QM, suboptimal paths are necessary to construct the optimal path. Nightmares form the shadow of the BPWH. The Holocaust is the reification of such a nightmare. Paradise is necessarily bordered by hells, but not by Hell. There is an ill-formed idea here, which I would prefer not to beat upon just now. Satan cannot exist, other than in the abstract, like 0. The God of love in arguably the most powerful idea of all time. The God of hate, seems little more than oxymoronic.
The purveyors of cynicism and nihilism can run, but they cannot hide. They have no place to rest their heads.
Our free-will exists only in our navigation of the shadows. As we go toward the light, our free-will becomes a mere shadow.
---------------------------
Smokey here:
Dan admits that he's a government operative taking instruction from that most mendacious of agencies- the CIA. That in itself ought to elevate our sense of smell. Implied in all of his absurd comments is the willful belief that 'he who controls disclosure controls human destiny.' While that proposition may contain a modicum of validity- it also contains the necessity of resistance by any means available. Lab rats and white-coats; Smith is an exquisite blending of the two- a white-coat technician with whiskers, a twitching nose, and the ass of a garbage truck.
Just this morning CK felt it necessary to remind me that I was running this (disclosure?) show. To what extent is my leg being pulled or not being pulled? The countdown to the WP/Style putative piece continues apace. If the train has not been derailed by then, well, we might wish to reconsider the odds. Yes? Shall we rush to judgment or to print?
[5/11]
Hi Dan,
I understand the point you are trying to make about "it's all (ultimately) good" / 'Hitler had a purpose' - thing.
HOWEVER - I predict that raising that as an example will switch 'off' the vast majority of minds you are reaching out to. And they will switch off in disgust at the thought of reconciling holocaust with some Gaiatic plan.
People simply will NOT want to take that on board. I may be wrong, but even my own reaction was - 'You've crossed the line there, Dan!' Had I not known you any better - which 99% of your readership *don't* - I would have immediately moved on from the Dan Smith version of the Eschaton. Dan, do you not think there is a certain amount of 'tact' responsibility involved in enlightenment? If your (loved one) had been raped and sodomised by some evil nut-ball and your children had been .. (.. I don't want to labour the point, so will refrain from going any further..) ..etc - would you like to read about someone else's perception of events, published as a form of 'grand cosmic plan to enlightenment / spiritual evolution'?
Did that hurt or offend you? I am truly, and honestly sorry if the analogy did, and I feel sick for even using it - but that's the point I am *trying* ( perhaps tactlessly and feebly) to get across.Enlightenment comes via tact and compassion for human understanding, not through making your audience eat shit.
With many apologies and best wishes,
Bren.------------------------------
Bren,
You've got to be kidding!
Being an eschatologist has absolutely nothing to do with being tactful.
I'm not here to 'sell' the idea of the eschaton. This is not about market economics.I'm not here to 'reach out'. I have a message to deliver, and it will be delivered.
Does the name 'Jeremiah' mean anything to you? I'm sorry it took you so long to figure this out.
I did not come here for absolution, yours or anybody else's.If you want pabulum, look elsewhere.
<<Enlightenment comes via tact and compassion for human understanding, not through making your audience eat shit.>>
If God were not able to 'eat shit', we would certainly not be here! Ask any mother! This is precisely how we become like God. I have a much higher regard for human comprehension than, evidently, do you, Bren.
But you see the lengths to which I have to go, just to get a single point across.
Dan--------------------------------
Bren,
<< Jeremiah means nothing to me >> Evidently!!
<< Of course you're trying to 'sell' it. >> Is that why I also acknowledge that my mission is most likely to be perceived as that of the anti-Christ?!
<< sermons >>? If you ever catch me sermonizing, please shoot me!
<< And even a damned prophet needs a bloody audience!>> Sure, but guess what, that's not my problem. That's Ron's problem. Why the f*ck do you think I play footsie with the CIA, for Christ's sake?
Bren, if you don't wish for your forum to be involved with the Disturbing Message, then please take that up with your Board. That is not my decision to make.
Dan-------------------------------
Bren,
<<Are the chosen ones meant to [believe] 'Nazism was a necessary evil' - 'Rwanda genocide is Gods Will' ? God can't get it wrong? Are YOU joking?
Whether it was Hitler, Stalin or The Pope - it was not necessary for a BPW.
If that was part of God's plan, then he presumably acted against even His own will. You don't *need* suffering for a BPW, not then, not now. Show me where the hypothesis demonstrates that 'it' is needed - on such a traumatic scale. It seems you are apologising for Hitler, not God.>>
If disclosure had come 70 yrs earlier, there would have been no Nazi Germany. The Nazis were 'selling' a perversion of the Disturbing Message.
Thus could God have easily prevented the Holocaust. Instead, She decided to let the 'show' proceed.
Was that a mistake?
Dan------------------------------
It was only the advent of the Nuclear Age that finally forced God's hand. Thus we see the timing and location of the 'Roswell' incident.
<<...forced God's hand.>> This is, of course, just a manner of speaking. God knew perfectly well what would happen, given U235 and human ingenuity. The Holocaust was a preemptive move on God's part. It was a necessary prelude to Disclosure, having to do with the return of the Bird Tribes, as explained previously. U235 was not a gratuitous part of Creation. It was another part of the Telos of Disclosure. It is another part of God's political leverage that is being applied even now. Don't underestimate human stubbornness. God doesn't!
From Chris:
I think you might have missed Bren's point. You are a messenger, right?
And as such you do have to carefully craft your message. Whether it is
with your wordsmithing or with being careful about who and what you
directly reference, it is something you do all of he time.---------------------------
Chris,
This is not an easy message. If I cannot speak spontaneously and from the heart, I will very quickly get tied in political knots. That would be the end of the message.
This is many, many light years from having anything to do with political correctness. Pretending otherwise would be to sabotage the message.
Folks are invited to take it or leave it. I have been doing this for too long to change my stripes now. Supposing otherwise is being dishonest.
Dan-------------------------
Hi Dan,
Sorry,. I just can't see it. I guess it's a damnation of not being Christened.
Genocide is a material act, created of human will - independent of God. Not part of God's Will. - God's Trust, maybe. And Humans go against God's trust sometimes - with terrible consequence. Hitler did 'it'. There is no evidence that God was involved, is there? From the forensics I've seen, it seems the perpetrator was very much an Anti-Christian. - and therefore surely anti-best possible world.
or something like that.
Bren.----------------------------
Bren,
Are you saying that God could not have prevented the Holocaust?
If it was foreseeable and preventable, God's complicity is unavoidable. She becomes a co-conspirator. There is nothing gratuitous in or about Creation. The Holocaust becomes an essential part of the BPW. No one could have done it better. The Holocaust was not just an exercise of Adolph's free-will. That truly would be a travesty. Without it, the world-experience would have been impoverished in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, but about which we can and must begin to speculate.
Dan
--------------------------Dan,
It is not a matter of speaking spontaneously or from your heart. You do those things and you do them very well. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. I'm not exactly politically correct either.
The point was just the analogy itself. Very few people understood it.
Bren was pointing that out to you and so am I. I know that you readily accept any and all commentary about your favorite topic so I know in the end that it is all good in that regard.Chris
-----------------------
Chris,
The Holocaust is no analogy. It is our closest encounter with unmitigated evil. It is a 'calculated' challenge to our understanding of Creation, of God and of ourselves.
Until we learn the lessons of history, we are destined to repeat them. The understanding of the depths of depravity is what stands between us and Apokatastasis.Looking the other way is not going to get us anywhere.
DanBTW, the answer to Starryeyes is 'no'.
[5/14]
Yesterday there was a discussion at OM that was captured in part. The second part of my interview from a week ago should be posted there today.
Back to ontology.....
Is it possible that there could have been nothing? Is it possible that there could have been no possibility? Is not possibility logically prior to actuality? Could there be actuality without possibility? Does this question not confuse epistemology with ontology? Is modality purely epistemic? That is not the consensus of the ontologists. And what about abstract objects, particularly numbers? Is it possible that there could have been no possibility of numbers? Might nothing at all have existed? It is difficult to phrase that question in a non-question-begging manner. How can it be shorn of its epistemic baggage?
Quantum Mechanics is ineluctably modal. Might there have been no QM? E&M fields can hardly be envisioned without potentials of various kinds. Physics is essentially normative and modal. It cannot be otherwise conceived. Could there be an inconceivable Physics? What is the modality of conceivability? Nothingness is an abstraction. It cannot be objectified. It is essential subjective, as per the existentialists. It is essentially a contrastive, dialectical concept. There could not be nothing without something, and therefore there cannot be Nothing per se. But is that the same as saying there could have been nothing? That premise is modal. How can nothingness be so haunting if it is inconceivable? How do the existentialists manage to make such a big deal of it? Clearly it is entailed in our notions of death.
What about the conscious and the unconscious? Back in the heyday of Newton, we had no concept of the UCs. Nothingness seems derivative of a Newtonian worldview. It may now be more derivative of a (non-quantum) informationalist view. The ontological status of the UCs is problematic, even for the materialist. Well, no, it is less problematic than the Cs. Might there have been a Cs without a UCs? Or vice-versa. We once presumed the former?
Materialists claim that there are no qualities, only quantities. Quantities are never directly observed, only abstracted. Only qualities may be directly sensed. If there were no qualities, there would be no epistemic, evidentiary basis for quantities. What color are our UCs memories. At what point in the act of remembering do our memories become colorized? How do they become color coded, if not retinally? As noted previously, such problems with indirect perception argue for direct perception, and thus for immaterialism.
---------------------
Back to politics for the nonce. Where are we wrt to IC involvement with phenomena?
- Unlike the academy, the IC cannot afford a pall of orthodoxy wrt phenomena.
- The IC must remain vigilant wrt possible threats potentially linked to uncorrelated phenomena (UcPhen).
- Unconventional collections (UcCol) must include civilians.
- The tracking of UcPhen must proceed with minimal upset to the pall of modernist orthodoxy.
- There likely exists a 'vault' or institutional memory bank of unconventional data.
- Any such vault poses risks of unplanned disclosure.
- Thus there is likely to exist an ongoing plan of acclimation.
- There is ample evidence for such a preemptive actuality/eventuality.
- Preemption would necessarily include a protocol for containment or minimization of the social repercussions of a major paradigm shift.
Does the Aquarium protocol and history not fit rather well with the above points? Is it not what the doctor ordered?
If not this, then what is its rationale?
---------------------------------
Physics cannot allow for the subjective side of reality. Logic cannot avoid it. The logical conundrums of Physics speak to its denial of the foundations of logic. Whitehead is the only one to attempt to treat these conundrums. His 'process philosophy' speaks to an essential vitalism. Despite his valor, it was too little and too late. There is no logical way to invert the materialist paradigm. The Telos cannot be snuck in the back door. The Force is with us, deny it though we try. The Telos cannot be an afterthought. It is forethought. It is the potency that grounds all possibility.
[5/19]
Rick Davis put the following out on the large Martinez list last night:
Men & Ladies,
Is this the final hour? Is what many have worked on for years about to
unfold? Is this another prelude to a failed 1990-92 Disclosure project?
Dr Greer's May 2001 Disclosure Project was silenced, as his initiative did
not meet with the approval of the PTB.
But is the [...] R & D Show the feme fatale? The seeding of the ovum?
I interviewed Dan Smith on Saturday May 5th, and he believes that we are on
that very ledge.
IF you are even the least bit involved in Ufology/Exopolitics and don't
listen to this interview . . . then you may well miss out on the Most
Important Interview you have ever heard, with regards to the "planned"
Disclosure process allegedly in the works.
But if Dan is mistaken, then no worry, life goes on.
Most sincerely,
Richard DavisHe posted the following to the OM forum:
All is settled at the country club now.
Back to the main menu, "Disclosure: What's REALLY going on?" . . .
Gus Russo and Dan and CoK25 have been speaking. Things have become serious so I am told, and believe. CoR25 is uncertain what to say or not. All are in a quandary, and so should be!. This is the Big Show folks. It hardly gets any bigger than this.
Will there be an article published in the Washington Post? And if so, what should or will it contain? Each word will carry weight. Each sentence will flag others of import. Each paragraph will play a part as a stanza in the grand melody.
Few will pay much attention, but those few who do, carry utmost responsibility for the conscience understanding of the populous. Max, are you listening?
Of course the Presidential Administration will discuss it. So too will those who are working on forming the next. Dan is no doubt correct in saying, "This isn't rocket science."
Do we want "the sky to fall"? I suggest CoR25 is wise in considering, we must be careful in what we ask for.
If Open Minds Forum and RU are linked in this article to be, then serious reflection is in order.Yes, indeed.
I put a call in to CR this morning, but he is reported to have a sore throat. He spoke yesterday with me and Gus while we were having lunch at the Spring Grove psychiatric facility. I kid you not. They actually did let me back out, afterwards. I guess they missed their chance!
The aquarium PR strategy is shifting back toward the full Monty, for several reasons. It just seems that the gradualism option is being taken off the table. I knew we would come to the 'wire-service' juncture eventually, but had been hoping to postpone it for maybe a couple of months longer, in order to expand the dialog on the Internet. But the sharks are already circling. They can smell the blood in the water.
In order for there to be further dialog, there would have to be a very skilled counterpart, willing to plumb the depths of the BPWH. Rick Davis is our closest approximation to such a one, but he has his own belief system to deal with, which inhibits his ability to grapple with another. At this very late hour, it is unlikely that a more capable interlocutor is going to drop in. Chris and I will make a final effort to see if Rick can pick up the ball here, but that is putting a lot of pressure on him.
Failing that, there is less reason to hold back on the publication front. That would mean that I would advise Gus to aim for the news section, rather than the style section, and that would require the naming of names, i.e. CK and CR. Gus can see that this story is already heading to get out of our control, and that has him leaning toward the one-shot strategy.
There are three possible explanations for government involvement:
- Counter-intelligence operation
- close observation of a viral-meme pandemic
- a major phenomenological problem
The best evidence for discounting the first two alternatives is just the R&D show. By focusing on CR, we would be looking only at the first two alternatives, and this would only be muddying the phenomenological waters. We would be p*ssing in our own soup, in other words. What is the point of that? So, why not lead out with R&D? It would only be a matter of a couple of weeks difference, anyway. So there you have it. Gus will have to make the final decision, and soon.
It turns out that Rick and I will make another attempt at a forum dialog about the BPWH, hopefully starting tomorrow. The dialog thread would be posted on my board at OM. We had a preliminary discussion earlier to day, which I will get back to in a bit. If this dialog can move forward, this will help to relieve some of the time pressure for early publication.
Apparently, what happened on the forum was that Rick, aka JakeReason, reverted to a sectarian critique of the BPWH, along with several other posters. I believe that we have a better understanding now, that I am looking for the best possible segue into disclosure, i.e. that there should be a continuing, robust dialog concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the BPWH, from a supra-sectarian point of view.
Nonetheless, Rick and I did attempt to clarify the differences between his orthodox and my heterodox forms of Christianity. As I understand it now, he is a pre-millennialist, i.e. Jesus comes back and then there is the Millennium of God's Kingdom. We agree on that much. That is our joint sectarian understanding.....but we both acknowledge that there are bigger fish to fry, i.e. every other sect, including Science and the Mystics.
[5/20]
What follows is a preamble to the prospective dialog between Rick and myself. The main topic is to be a continuing exposition of the BPWH under the probing questioning of Rick. As a sidebar, there will be a continuing update of the process.
The idea here is to make a last ditch effort to implement the VLAA/SDP version of disclosure. The success of this effort will be measured by the Internet traffic at the sites carrying the dialog and its possible spin-offs. If that dialog can continue to expand indefinitely, then eventually and ideally it could even supplant the need for any official disclosure. Ultimately there need only be a personal acknowledgement on the part of any requisite officials, i.e. various heads of state and ecclesiasticals.
The SDP part of the game then becomes that of minimizing the spill-over from the Internet into the mainstream news channels. This can be accomplished, in part, by granting quasi-exclusive access to the insiders to one professional chronicler of this end game of disclosure. The likely candidate for this role is GR. Already he has had several conversations with our two insiders, CR and CK. There is expected to be a deep background session with one of them in the next few days. I will not be informed as to time, place or any detailed substance of the meeting. I will be given only enough information to be able to ascertain that the process is moving forward. Any publications resulting from GR's efforts will be aimed at increasing the Internet traffic, without causing any alarum in the news rooms.
Is this not the best possible way to proceed, given even the moderate probability that the BPWH is reasonably accurate?
Meanwhile, we should note that the good folks over at RU are very much less than pleased with this prospective process. Why are they being so unreasonable about this eminently reasonable process?
- They want to be the ones to ferret out the truth by a merciless grilling of the suspects.
- They are not happy with the metaphysical/spiritual overtones of the BPWH.
- They want disclosure to be a matter of shock and awe.
They are the hungry sharks circling these aquarium waters, having caught the scent of blood. We keep a wary eye on them. Hopefully they will help us to detect any bigger, hungrier sharks, deeper in the water.
Now let's get back to where Rick and I left off on the OM forum.
I evidently put my foot in it, when I made the unnecessarily provocative remark that Jesus failed. This is, nonetheless, a critical issue for many people.
We mostly agree that Jesus intended to be some kind of savior. The disciples initially thought of him as the Messiah, and he was crucified as being a false messiah. According to traditional Judaism, the Messiah comes at the end of history to usher in God's global kingdom. The Messiah was supposed to have also been the King of the Jews, a super-duper King David, if you will, performing the requisite miracles to convince the world of his Divine Kingship. What was supposed to happen next, I don't actually know. I think there was an Old Testament version of the Rapture of Israel. I need a bible expert.
In the New Testament role of the messianic savior became reenvisioned. Somehow, Jesus would return in triumph, and it would be sooner rather than later. In the meantime he would be the personal savior of the individual believers. Basically, he would save them from sin. More generally he would redeem the world from the Fall of Adam, i.e. restore Creation.
At this point, the BPWH steps in to provide a new understanding of the Salvation Economy.
The nature of this Economy turns out to be integral to the cosmology. We start out by taking the point of view of the Creator. Suppose we wanted to create a world. What would be the best way to go about it? What would be the optimal criteria for a Creation?
There are two basic options: the theistic or the deistic modes, or maximal vs. minimal interaction. Should this even be an issue? What is the point of a darned creation if God doesn't get to push the buttons in some maximally entertaining interactive fashion? Isn't this the ultimate Video Game: the Game to end all Games? Creation is not meant to be a spectator sport.
Ok, so just how interactive can we make it? We can make it Ultimately Interactive! This is just the ouroboric, bootstrap model of the self-creating cosmos. You just can't get anymore interactive than that!
Is it too interactive? What it does is almost completely blur the distinction between creatures and Creator. There is a nearly continuous Great Chain of Being. This is actually a form of transhumanism, but without the evolutionary time line. It is actually atemporal in an important teleological sense.
The built-in teleology of the ouroboric cosmos, provides God and us with the best of all possible worlds. God gets to be both omniscient/omnipotent and to take the part of any creature at any time. And guess what? We get to do the same: the ultimate in shape-shifting. Just ask any mystic/shaman.
But then we have a big issue. Is there not a cosmic right-to-life? If one Creation is good, wouldn't two be even better? Hmmm.... That is basically what the pantheists believe: creation is an infinite loop. It is like the Inflationary Model of creation: all possible worlds exist simultaneously in some hyper-space.
But theists have never been particularly warm to such profligacy? Well, they did warm up Giordano Bruno to the point of his combustion! It is as if we were the cosmic version of the Catbird, pushing our competition out of the nest, in order to get the exclusive attention of the Parent. Here we are, all ~10^10 of us; shouldn't it be the more the merrier?
Why should monotheism imply mono-Creationism? This is where we come to the crux of the BPWH. There is just one BPW, virtually be definition. The only way to get around that logic would be to introduce polytheism, which becomes a very slippery slope toward pantheism. When God becomes redundant, God soon becomes otiose, which is not good for either the Creator or the creatures. Note bene the degree to which pantheism ultimately devalues creation. The only purpose of the creatures is to get off this Wheel of Illusion as soon as possible.
The point of Monotheism is that we are not God's spawn. We are God's children, all 10^10 of us. Only thus are we all responsible for each other and to the one and only God. This is the only way to maintain the total interactivity. When you pull out the stops on creation, it looses all value and coherence. It just becomes one darned thing after another. With monotheism we go for quality, not quantity. It just so happens that 10^10 is the best possible number of souls. That's us, folks! We and God are the Best Possible combo-plate. We are one Big Family. Would we have it any other way? Only thus do we obtain the total interactivity of Creation.
Now I have to run to the baseball game. It's not bad, for a spectator sport! Go, O's, and ain't the beer cold!
[6/14]
It’s been almost a month since my last posting here on the blog. In the meantime I’ve been hanging out over at the OM and RU forums.
We, R&D, seem to be coming to the end of a 5 month activity cycle that began with CK announcing a ‘repositioning’ back in January, and culminating with the posting of Gus’s article, ‘The Real ‘X-Files’: Is Uncle Sam a Closet UFOlogist?’ on Tuesday.
The highlight of the article was Gus’s interview with CR, which happened a couple of weeks ago. CR evinced a nervousness about that interview, which did contain some provocative references to his interactions with other officials, as previously noted here. CK’s nervousness was the sign that any prospect of a disclosure party was off the table. The interview was played down, with the exception of CR’s diagnosis of mental instability, particularly on the part of ‘fully involved’ ufologists.
Sorry, folks, the party’s over!
What now, my friends?
Was disclosure ever even a prospect in these past months? Was there any rhyme or reason for this latest fire-drill? We’re not likely to ever know the answers.
Where does this leave the BPWH? The upshot of CK’s bout of ‘nervousness’ is that my blogging of it is most like to be confined here for the foreseeable future. It was an uphill struggle to sell the BPWH to ufologists. I’ll doubt that I’ll have a better shot at it than what was provided in the past few months. The prospect of any better audience is dim at this point.
Am I giving up too easily? I’m not entirely giving up, simply retrenching. Perhaps it is time to let someone else try their hand at an R&D-type show.
How close did I come to even getting one person to seriously consider the BPWH? I may never know. There was a definite problem with an already limited attention span being further attenuated by the radical nature of the hypothesis itself. As I strongly suspected almost 25 years ago, it would take nearly the equivalent of a Presidential Decree to have any serious attention given to the BPWH.
My last effort at OMF was to convey the idea that the BPW would necessarily be finite, especially in regard to the number of ‘souls’. Even with this modest proposal, did I not only encounter surprise, but even downright hostility. And in none of those reactions was I even able to find a toe-hold for a further discussion. And I still don’t get it?
I simply don’t understand the thickness of the stonewall that separates the modern mind from even the mildest aspect of pre-modern philosophy. I’m doubting that even a Presidential Decree would make a dent in that wall. Quite possibly it is because I underestimate the magnitude of the impression that Sophia made upon me, so I don’t appreciate how much is required to move a person to think outside the box of materialism and dualism.
The modern mind simply cannot conceive of a Theo-centric cosmos.
[6/15]
The present day evangelicals are not pre-modern. They are part mystic, part dualist, and mostly incoherent. The first and only time that the Church dabbled with coherence was when it took up Thomism in the Middle Ages. Yes, there is a neo-scholastic revival, but it is too much wedded to its traditional forms and arbitrary distinctions to be able to compete effectively against postmodernism, or even to make a significant dent therein. Coherence, per se, is no longer an objective. Neo-Thomism remains a chapter in the history of philosophy.
Theo-centrism is not the primary problem of the BPWH. The problem is the very idea of self-containment. Quantitative infinitude is just too alluring. Folks have trouble seeing quantity as a metaphor for quality, especially in this context. The far frontier is no longer out there…..it is in here. Many find that notion claustrophobic, probably as a hang-over from the excessive psychologism of modernity.
People don’t understand that an infinitude of potency is much more to be desired than is an infinitude of actuality. In fact, the one seems logically incompatible with the other.
It is just the potency of the Present, that is foundation of reality. And how does that potency conflict with our teleology? It has to do with the immanence of the eschaton. There is the bumper sticker admonition that we not ‘immanentize the eschaton’, this being the present fear of the fundamentalists. But, to a large degree, that is what the BPWH is about. Yes, we are about the internalizing of the eschaton.
5/5/07