This is absolutely spectacular material!!!!!! Thank you so much for putting it out here. I need to internalize it more before I comment (if I do, it may not be needed). But thank you, this is truly cutting edge - like a knife to the essence.

- ashanti

Posted by: Ashanti at March 27, 2006 10:04 PM

Can I just ask what is being discussed here?

It seems to me from reading recent material that the ideas being formulated are of accelerating the level of economic/industrial/technological development of the present day so we can aggressivly overcome the problems we face in the future.

In essance, shunting the blind and explosive destruction and consumption and alteration of all that is around us onto a path where it can sustain itself and grow to a size where it can overcome any problems by its sheer size, power, and technological ability.

Ofcourse this is the pathway that modern soceity has been over more increasingly aware of, but reluctant to persue incase it interrupts their lifestyles.

Now here at FutureHi you are developing a win-win scenario where the species doesnt collapse into apocalypse, and at the same time people can still persue their urges.

Oceans of biofuel and hyper economics, 500 fold increases in the ability for Earth to sustain human life. There is nothing fundamentally good in our soceity, in my opinion, only ever increasingly complex ways of staving off the bad, hunger and disease, war and god forbid boredom. We dont work together, we dont live together, we dont help each other, we dont share, we arn't DOING anything except being alive, we arn't doing anything except feeding ourselves if we can, raising families, trying to enjoy ourselves, and we right now will pay almost any price for these things.

Dont you think we owe ourselves and our surroundings more than this? More than using our cunning and intelligence to by pass our planets natural defence systems against the things we do?
Is all we are ever going to do is spill out across the cosmos, turning everything we touch into a part of our Termite nest of human sustainment, pubs and clubs, chemicals, TV and sex?

If this hyper scenario of survival and progress, the economic and technological big bang that our current soceity needs to grow, can actually work, then imagine what we could do as a species if we took our minds off of money, and off of social pressures and appearances and boredom, imagine what we could do if all our eyes and minds at once looked in the same direction.

We used to build temples to our Gods, to the Stars, to Existance itself. If I am correct in my understanding of recent discussions, we will turn the Earth, and eventually the cosmos, into a temple to ourselves.

I believe Genesis claims we are to watch over the animals and the plants, we are to be shepherds of creation.

What ever happened to being equal? Equal opportunities and equal rights and equal choices. You cannot be equal in economic systems, granted those who suffer now may suffer less, but they will still get less opportunities from life than others, even less fulfillment and pleasure from life than others, if that is their mentality. Money by its very essence is a tool of power, of transfer of power, of redistributing materials and services, of access to, and barring of access.

We shall travel to work along our mile wide roads at hundreds of miles per hour using manufactured and processed and produced fuels, we shall buy holograms of 'memories of Earth', 'remember the Amazon', 'The Orca at Hunt', and we shall have done little more than allow countless millions and billions more people to see how stupidly we live our lives.

Will our children grow up learning to worship the corporate conglomerates, 'the man with the machine'? The entire World will become the workplace and shopping mall and housing estate of man.

There is not enough room anywhere for humanity with desires unchecked, and 'other things', we either act responsibly and curb our desires and roll up our sleeves and make those sacrifices, or the entire Universe becomes a High Tech Fifth Avenue.

Our society may bestow upon us greater things than any have ever had, but there is little sign of intelligence in how we live, and there is little sign of point. We just aim to get what we want, all of us, at all time, and our entire social infrastructure is based entireally upon this principle.

We spend our lives working hard, so that we can eat, and amuse ourselves, and joke with our friends about inter-human relationships, and we have our families, and nothing more.

Our society is not geared towards knowledge, or fulfillment, or equality, or aesthetics, or spirituality. You can argue what you like about individual peoples, but the entire thrust of society is making money, because it allows you things. We should allow us things. We should stop competing and stop exploiting and start creating and start building and making.
Why is it people see themselves at the centre of all existance, when the truth is that the existance they are centre of is a minute aspect of an even larger whole?

Is this what you want? The continuation and expansion of a society and race blinded by a world of human interaction? Absolutely and utterly focused on the sucking in of all that is around them, into themselves, like some kind of physical, emotional, metaphysical black hole?

Not only do I see this perhaps as potentially being the birth of some kind of biological haegomonic swarm, but perhaps also the most inescapable prison for the human soul.

Over dramatic and nay saying, it doesnt matter, if I cant speak my mind then what is the point?

This is not some kind of pop at anyone either, I admire and appreciate your work Rev. Tom.

Can we say perhaps, 'here is a way we can avoid destruction', and by all means push it if thats required, if we as a species dont wake up even slightly in the near future. But surely this is not anywhere near what is possible, what we aim for, what is worthy for us and for existance itself. This proposal in itself, if it turns out to be valid, and im no great student of the workings of modern day capitalism, must form the first step, the foundation, for work here. Not the epitome, but the first step. We must aim for developing trully just societies, trully visionary and fulfilling and meaningful ways of living.

I cant except that the future is a map of dominated worlds, and hyper hedonism, maybe it will be, but if and when it arrives it will be anticipated and work will already have begun, will have never stopped, on how to develop and progress from there.

Posted by: eventhorizen at March 28, 2006 06:09 AM

Paul, it seems like some of what you're saying is actually contradicting what Tom is saying.

"Everything will break down. But not in a bad way."

Why? Because contemplating the idea of everything breaking down is a let-down and gets in the way of our unbounded optimism and enthusiasm? If I had 100 million dollars, a few years of planning, and an appetite for destruction I'm sure I could enact damage on a massive scale before a SWAT team broke down my door and arrested me. All it takes is one powerful/rich psycho and the rosy future is not so rosy anymore.

"All the automation in the world is not going to be enough for the super-rich to bootstrap themselves to the stars."

Of course it is... do you really doubt this?

The spiritual traditions found in the psychedelic community (and many other spiritual traditions) are based on the premise that humans are about as powerful as each other. If you think you can accomplish great things without the help of others, you're generally wrong. So these traditions teach us to get along with each other and not go off on an egotistical tangent.

The thing is, though, this premise is invalidated by certain technologies. For example, the nuke. George Bush, commander in chief, has the political and military power to launch a saturation nuclear bombing on the country of his choice. Who is anyone to say that they're 100% sure that this won't happen?

Tom seems to be accepting of the idea of mass death, calling it the menstruation of Mother Earth.

I see that Tom also refers to the "wholesale lifting of matter to spirit". This indeed could happen, and because spirit fits in a small space than matter, it needn't travel very far physically to travel leagues in terms of spiritual and mental exploration. So our civilization may never desire to leave this planet.

I see Tom discusses solar satellites and oceanic algae farming, two things I'm fond of. :)

It seems like Tom has read Marshall Savage (the source of the above image), and uses language similar to him. I was greatly influenced by Savage as well.

Posted by: Michael Anissimov at March 28, 2006 06:18 AM

Is it not our way, once we have ensured our survival, ensured our continued existance, to then build majestic monuments to life itself?

What greater thing to turn into a monument to existance and life, than our very own selves? Our civilisation?

It will be our message to who or whatever is watching that we have learned, it will be a message to ourselves that we have learned, it will be a message to existance itself of just how glorious it is, and how deeply we are indebted to it.

If we overcome our problems in the future, then everyone alive will owe everything to those people who 'saved' them, and they will probably never know how close they came. If this is the case, and people dont understand just how close human life came to being extinguished, they can still, we can still, build a monument to ourselves, to our own lives.

That is my view, I dont believe 'everything' here is specifically for our enjoyment, I believe it is up to us also to realise and understand what role we play, what part we play, where our place is in the scheme of things.
And to this end, having being born from the fires of a star, under the eye of existance, mothered by Earth and fathered by fate, it is our turn to repay the favour by creating something worthy of having a place within this existance.

And Michael, you use the Elected Leader of the Worlds most powerful single collection of people as an arguement to prove humans dont need each other for their power?

How many reclusives and hermits do you know that construct nuclear weapons?

Posted by: eventhorizen at March 28, 2006 06:23 AM

Paul,

Thank you for summarizing the thrust of my ideas so accurately and so enthusaistically.

Rev. Tom

----------------

Event Horizon,

I appreciate the concern you've expressed in the following snippets:

> It seems to me from reading recent material that the ideas being formulated are of accelerating the level of
> economic/industrial/technological development of the present day so we can aggressivly overcome the problems we face in the future
>
> In essance, shunting the blind and explosive destruction and consumption and alteration of all
> that is around us onto a path where it can sustain itself and grow to a size where it can
> overcome any problems by its sheer size, power, and technological ability.

But please note my focus is first an foremost on the subject of collective enlightenment, and that the accelerating the level of economic/industrial/
technological development is something that I see as being utterly an inseparable component of said collective enlightenment. I know that you have strong skepticism about the idea of collective enlightenment, but please note that I view the following six items as an ALL or NOTHING package:

1. Technological singularity.
2. The embrace of joy, faith, and pronoia.
3. Spiritual awakening and unification.
4. The skillful insemination of visionary ideas.
5. The embrace of libertarian ideals.
6. Holistic ecologically beneficient ultra-high-growth.

As such, the dawning of:

> Oceans of biofuel and hyper economics, 500 (50) fold increases in the ability for Earth to sustain human life.

And the healing of:

> There is nothing fundamentally good in our soceity, in my opinion, only ever increasingly complex ways of staving off the
> bad, hunger and disease, war and god forbid boredom. We dont work together, we dont live together, we dont help
> each other, we dont share, we arn't DOING anything except being alive, we arn't doing anything except feeding ourselves
> if we can, raising families, trying to enjoy ourselves, and we right now will pay almost any price for these things.

...will happen simultaneously in any version of the future with living in. And the reason this will be the case, is because God has prearranged apocalyptic destruction and/or dystopic collapse as the only alternatives so as to prevent:

> Is all we are ever going to do is spill out across the cosmos, turning everything we touch into a part
> of our Termite nest of human sustainment, pubs and clubs, chemicals, TV and sex?

You have expressed resistance to the spiritual side of this, put please consider whether the basic combination of hyper-holism and holographic-libertarianism gets to the bottom of your concerns. I feel your heart is in the right place, but I would like to challenge your mind to grapple with some high voltage pronoia in which "God Himself"will give us this glorious destiny if we but ask for it.

Sincerely,
Rev. Tom

P.S. I haven't forgotten about the list of arguments/evidence that I promised, but I am behind schedule.

---------------------

Michael,

> Paul, it seems like some of what you're saying is actually contradicting what Tom is saying.
>
> >> "Everything will break down. But not in a bad way."
>
> Why? Because contemplating the idea of everything breaking down is a let-down and gets in the
> way of our unbounded optimism and enthusiasm? If I had 100 million dollars, a few years of
> planning, and an appetite for destruction I'm sure I could enact damage on a massive scale before
> a SWAT team broke down my door and arrested me. All it takes is one powerful/rich psycho and
> the rosy future is not so rosy anymore.

Consider it this way. Our cultural paradigms are, institutional arrangements, hierarchical structures etc., etc., are indeed breaking down, and will indeed break down. There is no question about this. What Paul and I are both saying, albeit in different words, is that a window exists in which visionary ideas could be inseminated into culture, and thereby prevent the mass-death and physical breakdown that would be an otherwise inexorable concomitant of paradigmatic/institutional breakdown.

Your point about the powerful/rich psycho with 100 million dollars is well stated. If causation did not have a time-reverse component (i.e. if reality were the simple material realm that "rationalists" claim it to be) there would be no hope whatsoever (except for those deluded enough to consider the "panopticon police-state" to be "hope"). Fortunately, causation is time-symmetric, and we can engage/channel coherent intelligences (i.e. spiritual forces) that can and will thwart the intentions of the rich psychopath by continuous changes to the past that will undermine his/her every move. Indeed, if it were not for these time-symmetric spiritual forces, this world would already be a smoking hulk. We have to actively engage these spiritual forces for this to work, and as we increase our focus and intentionality, the utopian cosmic future will become ever more probable.

Sincerely,
Rev. Tom

Posted by: Reverend Tom at March 28, 2006 08:29 AM

I'm feeling a great nostalgia for the future .... Dont stop what youre doing, Tom -- new momentum is beginning to surge.

Peace to all,
Upwinger

Posted by: Upwinger at March 28, 2006 08:41 AM

For all the other pin heads out there, like me, may I make one suggestion –
K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple and maybe “silly”). In between all the big words and big ideas I can catch glimpses of your dreams of the future. And I can see the Utopia you present as possible. Even in my own little pin head brain.

So much to do, and time is ticking away. May I just present some thoughts -

We have no trouble understanding that children who grow up in families of musicians often become musicians, and kids who grow up abused often become abusers. But we don't seem to get that raising children in the constant din of warfare, in societies obsessed by warfare, creates freaked-out adults prone to creating and accepting war as a way of life.

How to change the world from thinking in a “warrior” frame of mind to a “magician” frame of mind? Magical thinking and science combined? Possible?

Science is nothing more than facts we have learned. What we have learned has made us forget what we were born knowing.

Darkness and light, and only love can bring the light out of the darkness.

To put it plain and dumb and too much like a Stephen King novel, there seems to be a kind of race going on. Will those who are working in the service of love and understanding be able to ground enough loving energy on the planet, and focus that into real forms of worldly power, before those working in service of chaos, death and greed destroy everything

What comes of this process is obviously what we make of it, or what we're able to make of it. Okay, now I sound like the class president advertising the student government on the first day of school. It's YOUR student activity fee! So get involved! Yeah, man! That's it! It's YOUR life on YOUR freaking planet! It's your soul's mission to be here now! It's your karma to be here, dude, so get involved! C'mon it'll be fun!

Twenty-twelve is what we make it, one day at a time, one outer-planet sign change at a time, one breath at a time. Twenty-twelve is what we envision it to be. We, that is, you and me. Not those cool groovy people somewhere else. Not the really enlightened ones who know how to have a good time and manifest new cars with their minds. Not the ones who really know what they're talking about, or who have been meditating 15 years longer than you. You and me. You and your friends. You and your kids. You and your mom and dad. You and your boss. You, me, and your mom and dad. You and your co-workers. You and your best friend. You and your lover. You and your clients. You and your therapist. You and the people you go dancing with. You and the people you get drunk with or do X with or go hunting with. Whatever. What do all these have in common? You.

This is different than thinking you have to personally take the whole thing on your shoulders. To the contrary: it's only necessary to do your little part, to be aware, to cooperate, and to maintain some sense of awareness of an integrated process going on, within you and without you. This is not merely intellectual abstraction. It is a way of looking at the world, of perceiving evolutionary change, and of adjusting your beliefs to adapt to reality. Too often, we attempt to adapt reality to our beliefs, and it works, sort of, for a while, at a great cost -- mostly pain and boredom.

Let's see. There is the issue of group dynamics. There is the issue of individuality. There is the issue of the psychology of conformism, and the related issue of the mass psychology of fascism. There is the idea and the reality of freedom. Aquarius, Aquarius, Aquarius.

There is media and its influence, which is how many of us connect to the larger world. How about technology -- Aquarius. How about how media and technology, combined with industry and government, which all join forces to create our ideas of who we think we are. The notion of 'self concept' is Aquarian: a theory of self.

And self is what it all comes down to.

Theoretical biologist Rupert Sheldrake proposed a theory on how living beings assume new forms. In A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (1981), Sheldrake explains that behavior that is repeated often enough forms a "morphogenetic field," a field that generates a new form.

This idea can be applied to the development and emergence of new archetypes. It means that when enough people accept a new pattern of behavior, the scale eventually tilts so that this becomes the accepted way of doing things. It is the "hundredth monkey" hypothesis in action

The archetypes that become dominant in our own lives are based upon cultural influences as well as our own unique history. And previously, our culture has defined the hero in terms of the archetypal Warrior, who lives life battling a series of challenges.
In order to redirect the course of our own lives and reshape the future of our planet, we need to deconstruct old myths and reconstruct new ones. When we become more aware of the myths we live by and the archetypes that dominate our psyche, we can change them by creating a new personal mythology and pulling in the qualities of the new archetype we seek to embrace.

Sorry writing this on the fly, kids are due home and thoughts are scattered, hope it makes sense. Just call me a pin head.

Posted by: Connie at March 28, 2006 01:27 PM

Connie -- It made perfect sense, and I'm right with you on every point. -- Excellent summary!

Posted by: Upwinger at March 29, 2006 11:19 AM

Everything is going to change and we do have the ability to influence that change. What most people cant grasp is that our consciousness, thoughts, actions all create manifestaions of reality. Yea, things are looking grim now and they will seem to get worse, but remember this, there are lightworkers, spiritual forces at work that most are not aware of or able to comprehend, yes they may "understand" but do they? Things are going to work out exactly the way they are supposed to, will it be easy? Not at all, but rest asure the next few years are going to change everything...pay attention and let you heart lead the way. If people let FEAR ( an illusion ) cloud your thoughts and over shadow love then you will not wake up....just continue the process that seems inescapable, its time to drop all the old belief systems that no longer serve a purpose and get ride the waves of consciousness...expand the mind and open the eyes....time is an illusion

Peace and Light
Mike

Posted by: Awakened1 at March 29, 2006 11:39 AM

Thanks Mike for the spot-on assessment. (begin sarcasm) But don't you understand, we humans don't have the power, we are stupid mechanistic machines. There is no 'spiritual' reality, so we need to create an artificial super-intelligence to do it for us. (End sarcasm).

Here is all I have to say to all the nay-sayers. If you go on and on about how hard it is, and how many problems there are, your just succumbing to that belief system. All of your perceptions of how fucked up everything is, is your perception. If you believe the problem is hard, the problem is going to be hard. If you believe that you can actually solve the problem, then you just increased your odds of solving it. The irony is this - THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE NOT BELIEVING WE CAN CHANGE COURSE. The problem is lack of beliefm, OR a belief that everything is doomed.

If we can collectively change the belief systems of enough people, and people like Tom, Dlight and myself have given lots of good reasons why this is easy if we talk THEIR language, the rest is easy.

Posted by: Paul at March 29, 2006 12:35 PM

Bravo Connie. From one pinhead to another. Thanks.

Posted by: tHisIsreaLLyHAPPEniNg at March 29, 2006 01:30 PM

And 'Yes' to Mike.

And a big 'Yes' to Paul, also. Glad you and the others are here to act as translators to, and for, the less technically-minded of us.

Everyone of us is perfectly here at the perfect time. This 'simpler' viewpoint just has be seen as an available choice. Whether people want it or not, choose it or not - the choice is undeniably there. Your choice. Everyone's.

Trust the process, be brave, swim to the middle of the river and go with the flow.

Travelling Suggestions To Improve Safety and Quality of Journey

*Relaxing will always provide a more enjoyable ride than stuggling, however it may be advisable to carry a flotation device for times of fatigue.
*Journey is always more pleasant when shared wth travelling companions.

Posted by: THIsIsreaLLyHapPEniNg at March 29, 2006 02:12 PM

I think the real problem is that the concern plays a vanishingly small role of importance in lives of most people. I cant speak much about the importance of the issue in the lives of people living in Asia, Africa, South America etc. but these people 'dont count' among the powers that be unless its about trade/war/unignorable growth.

My point is that even if 'people' do believe 'its all doomed', ultimatly and in general its a once-a-rare-sleepless-night kind of worry.

Its not so much that the rest of the (developed) world thinks its a problem that cant be solved, its that untill it begins to affect their lives directly, its not something that bothers them much.

And on the other side of the coin, the problem is people dissapearing into their 'pronoia', 'subjective-objective-illusions Things are going to work out exactly the way they are supposed to, bullshit' as a method of fitting their lives and views into some kind of loosely tied together 'personal answer' that is an equal problem. How many times I have come here and read all these 'comforting' single choice answers and views is in a way almost frightening.

If its hard its hard. Difficulty is ultimatly irrelevant. Things working out the way they are supposed to is not a signal for you to grab the beers and head out to the pool for some psychadelic exploration and group 'love'. Everyone trying to live exactly how they want is exactly how we managed to get where we are now, you cant condemn it and glorify at the same time.

You know I find this 'naysayer' tag most amusing. I have spoken against nanotechnology single handedly 'saving' us, I have spoken against 'pronoia' and general joy 'saving' us, and here, with Rev. Toms work, I voice my fears and hopes for the future via this method, this view, but ultimatly think its one of the only things to appear on this site that just might actually achieve anything, because for ONCE its focused on realistic issues AND problems. For a change its not some kind of hand holding campfire dance around modern life, nor some faint hope of an almost divine intervention in the form of technology.

It cuts to the very core of my being to see a proposal that has at its heart both money and technological mastery of our Planet in ever increasing forms, but I'm not blinded enough by my own existance not to realise that this kind of view actually has a point and a chance.

By coming up with a 'win-win' scenario, Rev. Tom has probably addressed the single biggest factor in the 'inertia of change', the fear of having to give up anything in ones lifetime to make a change that wont directly benefit themselves in their own lifetimes. Disagree?

At the same time though, the biggest single problem that may be encountered by this point of view is its overtly spiritual nature. This may be heralded as the shining culmination of spiritual truth by many here, but it will become, in my opinion, the gleaming thread that people will glory in pulling rather than actually giving this view any real consideration. If you cant see that, if you cant see past 'my nay-saying' then I despair. Trully. It could be seen as the 'developed answer' to Islam, it could be seen as some kind of emergant internet sect, it could be seen as dream eyed clap-trap. You cant really expect to put out any kind of remotely spiritual material into the world at large and not have become instantly torn apart and misused and misunderstood. If you think you can, you are dreaming. There is no way it will become any thing other than a mass rejected, minority worshipped piece of spiritual material, because that is how our world loves to behave.

You need to take a realistic view with this, try to emphasise dramatically the economic and sustainability aspects, and remove or diminish immensly the spiritual connotations. I'm not saying I disagree with them, but the point is not to add more fuel to the burning religious and spiritual fires, and take the focus away from the mess this society could easilly collapse too, and the possible short-medium term solutions.

At the end of the day I dont buy into all this 'spiritual-subjective-objective-consciousness dependant and created' stuff. I am a part of the miracle of existance, a part that can observe and contemplate and interact. This to me is not overwhelming evidence that human mind is the absolute core of existance, regardless of the at best shady arguements to the contrary, any more than the rising and setting sun turned out to be absolute proof the Earth was the centre of the Universe. But dont dismiss me as some kind of 'anti spiritual retard' just because I look outwards as much as inwards.

Posted by: eventhorizen at March 29, 2006 03:38 PM

Mike (Anissimov, that is): So good to see you posting **here** again. And I LOVE **YOUR** new blog, too, Kid-O (haven't posted there yet, but will soon; I busy with some other stuff lately). Am pressed for time at the moment; will post more tomorrow or Friday. For now here's my 2 cents:

We need to form an Internet-based (or at least partially Internet-based) Think-Tank/Consulting Consortium (yes, I'm feel a bit alliterative at the moment [wink]). It would be--natch--transnational, and thoroughly polycentric and decentralized (with good ol' EventHorizon, bless his heart--assuming he's in on this--, for example, still comfortably ensconsed over in the Scottish highlands, with the rest of us scattered, well, at first, where-the-hell-ever we happen to be scattered! This Think-Tank/Consulting Consortium can consist of whomever wishes to join it, providing they subscribe to a basic vision and set of principles (admittedly this sort of entrance/admission filter is tricky, perhaps even a bit problematic to some, but, let's all admit we DO need some coherence/cohesiveness--everyone should be, perhaps not quite on the same page (much less paragraph, so to speak), but should definitely be at the very, VERY least, in "the same **book(s!!)**", and ideally, on any given issue, in the same "chapter" (again, metaphorically speaking). We want individuals from not necessarily only FutureHi, but from Mike Anissimov's excellent group of bloggers as well (if any wish to join us), as well as psychedelic extropians (isn't that what WE are, many of us here at FutureHi, after all?) as well as other transhumanists.

I think Paul (and Upwinger and Chris [lvx23]), along with Rev. Tom are right. We need to (and DAMN WELL **CAN**) form a decentralized yet magnificently/superlatively coherent/cohesive consortium that can provide global leadership, both spiritually and cognitive-intellectually (these two, for me at least overlapping about 99% anyway), as well as politico-economically. I'll be, among other things, the librarian-bibliographer (as distinct, mind you, from a more technical cyber-archivist).

We CAN put our heads together, guys & gals, and come-up with a win/win Global Critical Path, which will consist of specific reforms, but many of these reforms need only (only!!!???!!!!) be structural/instiutional. Bucky was right; and so was Hayek. WE--this soon-to-emerge consortium--can provide the guidance and leadership to nudge us onto a Planetary Critical Path/Spontaneous-evolving Order that will culminate in an optimally-pathed, optimally-coordinated, optimally-instantiated **Singularity**. Because, make no mistake, with each year, each month, each week, from here on out, things are going to be ongoingly changing/accelerating not merely exponentially, but **super-exponentially** (see, btw, Dave Brin's latest post [from about a month ago] at Ray's (Kurzweil's) website). Can we help maintain a Hayekian/Lockean Global spontaneous-order, avert/avoid fuck-ups, croney-capitalist crap, and catastrophe, while also nudging us along onto an optimal Bucky Fullerian Planetary Critical Path? Sure WE can. WE have virtually no other choice, those of us who see the need for this so clearly...!!! But, if we can form the sort of consortium I (and, I think, Rev. Tom and, now, Paul) envision, then WE (this consortium--cyber-amorphus, polycentric, many-brained/parallel-processing...) can be the spearheads, the catalysts...

And, one more thing. WE will have to be, in the best and most noble of the term, LEADERS. But not, of course, in the Hitlerian/Nixonian (sorry, Richard...r.i.p.) sense of "fuher prinzip", but rather in a much more intense, cutting-edge, innovative sense of that term. The world no longer needs such "fuhers" (if it ever did...) but it now needs what amounts to a new group of Founders/Framers...yes, I'm talkin' Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Franklin. Which might seem like a trite ego-trip-out, and a terribly pretentious comparison, but (hopefully y'all know me well-enough by now) it's not. We need to form the kind of brain-consortium that was the Framers. WE need individuals, such as Paul, Chris, Upwinger, Mike (Anissimov), Rev. Tom as well as Brin, Kurzweil, Drexler, Josh McCall, Ralph Merkle, Bryan Keavy (aka bk_2112), Stuart Kaufman, Saul-Paul Sirag, John Hagelin, and many many others to form a coherent/cohesive group-mind (see the book--can't remember the author's name--**Shared Minds** which came-out about 10 or 12 years ago) which can spearhead the guiding of humanity onto an optimal Singularity Critical Path...As Toffler said at the end of **Third Wave**: "Like the legions of revolutionary dead, we have a destiny to **create**" (emphasis added).

WE CAN DO THIS, GUYS & GALS...Let's go...

More soon...

Here's to our having a celebratory bancquet-luncheon 50 years from now (I'll be a [presumably NON-senescent!!) 98-yr-old Playboy of the Western Solar System by then. And where will we do lunch? Well, I'm partial to the SkyDome at the top of Olympus Mons, m'self, but word has it there's a delightful restaurant called Stardust Deli & Digs in the Rings of Saturn. So I'll let the rest of y'all hash it out--I'm pretty-much indifferent...WINK...

Live long & prosper, and with love always,

Posted by: MCP2012 at March 29, 2006 06:46 PM

MCP2012,

Yes, I was happy to see Michael Anissimov pop here after so long. I pretty much assumed the direction Future Hi took would more or less alienate nearly all non-spiritual extropian, transhuman, and singularitarians.

I can't speak for Michael, but I'm thinking he would not be interested in colloborating on any kind of think tank we propose. Especially considering that the very foundation of it has a spiritual component. Michael is as strick a materialist as they come. Because of that Michael, along with most other Singularitarians of the Yudkowsky variety, believe that ONLY the creation of an ARTIFICIAL Super-Intelligence will save us.

Posted by: Paul at March 29, 2006 07:38 PM

Hi Folks,
I'm glad everyone is feeling so bouyant. I fully agree that we can shift things if put our minds together.

I think the idea of a think tank is fabulous and realistic. And I'm glad Rev. Tom's wild synthesis has got everyone rev'd up.

There is tremendous power in building spiritually soaring, but practical models of new forms and systems. Putting a clear vision, on paper (cyberpaper?), with all the practical stuff thought out, makes it much more likely that the dream will manifest. Creating a blueprint is hard work and few dreamers have the skills to clearly eludidate their vision. However, as a group, if we can craft these blueprints, taking advantage of our collective knowledge and experience, we can really craft a delicious future.

I personally find Rev. T's writings a bit too much on the religious side for my taste. But I can certainly pick and choose what speaks to me in it.

Tom, your section on creating a biosphere, and then testing out various energetic techniques on the group to see if it influences the biosystem, is almost a perfect description of what we're doing on our land. We have a group of amazing multi-dimensional people, and will be applying very deep psychological healing techniques which are very close to a form of magic, and which may well affect everything there including the plants we're growing on the land. Most of all we're intending to create an irrestible vortex of positive energy and unbridled creativity.

We'll also be hosting other pioneers as well, and may well include a regular Daime gathering, which I've had the pleasure to participate in recently.

Anyway, as far as the think tank goes, I'm a scientist and I've spent a great deal of time researching various emerging technologies, and would be happy to collaborate on a blueprint taking humanity out of it's energy and environmental blues.

It would also be interesting to work on elucidating effective paths to personal healing, although this is certainly an area where there are many different points of view as to the best approaches.

Finally, I see one of my missions as that of "doom and gloom" debunker, so expect to continue to see me challenge any theories or speculation which has the world falling apart anytime soon.

I personally see us at smack in the middle of the most fertile and revolutionary period in human history. Our pathetic "leaders" are just dinosaurs in the process of dying off. We don't need to pay them any attention, rather we just need to get our visions elucidated as clearly as possible, and then start activating them.

I congratulate Paul and everyone else on the site for having created this unlimited collaborative opportunity.

Cheers,
Dlight

Posted by: dlight at March 29, 2006 08:23 PM

Only recently have i stumbled into future hi and it seems that i have already been on this wavelength withhowdt even knowing it. As a chemistry scientist working in natural resources, i have had the opportunity to study nature by being immersed - the web of knowledge woven is so frayed that it no longer pays to contribute in rational ways, to the irration of what life has become. But remaining connected to the information loops has expanded personal conscousness - it would be highly entertaining to sit down with rev tom and paul and crosslynk some ideas, philosophies and mechanisms.
My alter ego lemme howdt is a poet/bard who signs songs of today - in fact that was the title of yesterday's poem, today.

If the think tank pulls through, there are lots of ways that productivity and efficiency can be convoluted back into the wise concepts that they were originally set to be, rather than the tentacles of the octopus holding the marionette strings. Game theory, with cooperative competition offer insight, but application across fields, well - too much to type on a morning surf, with the day following.
Glad to say hello. I'll try to keep my spirit high today.

Posted by: doctor lenny at March 30, 2006 06:50 AM

MCP-hey dude! Glad to see you including me amongst
the "illuminated";-). I have one minor quibble with your (overall superb)post:You suggest the need to "maintain a Hayekian/Lockian spontaneous order";this(alas) implies that such an order currently exists. It does_not_(although the ideas/tools/institutions needed do, at least embryonically). Worse, the fine name of market-liberalism has been shat upon over and over again-to the point where "neo-liberal" borders on profanity in many "progressive" circles.
Worst of all, those who stand to benefit the most from a real liberal order hate the idea...because, between the monsterous sellouts and the wannabe dictators, they have been convinced that liberty is nothing more than a slimy excuse for the politico-economic equivelent of gang rape. We need to shout the truth from the housetops: Liberty is Left!

Posted by: bk_2112 at March 30, 2006 11:01 AM

Dear FutureHi,

Good to be back online, and in a place where the energies and juices of a long dormant cosmic life are flowing. I'm thrilled by what's happening, and can feel our coherency forming.

---------------

From Paul:
> I told Tom that his ideas are a few steps ahead of most people, and probably at least a step or two ahead of even the most
> astute Future Hi reader. What he has presented in these preliminary documents are first drafts, raw manifestos to get the
> ball rolling. Let's see where we can go next.

For a long-time, I resisted the idea of online coherence because I know that: a) Dlight's idea of local person to person community is where 98+% of the action will be, and b) the Internet is a veritable Tower of Babel. When I wrote "Coherent Opportunity" I took a leap that pushed myself a step ahead of where I was already at; and now a mere eight days later, I am being pushed to again deepen my own vision. Paul challenged me to get rid of "visionary jihad," a mistake that was obvious in hindsight. EventHorizon and Dlight challenge me to more clearly communicate my ideas, and to more effectively bridge the paradigmatic center. But MCP2012's wild network proposal is what really challenges me, re the creation of:

"a decentralized yet magnificently/superlatively coherent/cohesive consortium that can provide global leadership, both spiritually and cognitive-intellectually (...), as well as politico-economically" that's going to grow and integrate our work with the efforts of a host of cultural leaders, and forge us all into a "coherent/cohesive (...cyber-amorphus, polycentric, many-brained/parallel-processing...) group-mind". And how this decentralized group-mind can be: "the spearheads, the catalysts..." or "LEADERS" who can help humanity "maintain a Hayekian/Lockean Global spontaneous-order, avert/avoid fuck-ups, croney-capitalist crap, and catastrophe, while also nudging us along onto an optimal Bucky Fullerian Planetary Critical Path" — and by this means turn us into the "Founders/Framers" of a "Planetary Critical Path/Spontaneous-evolving Order that will culminate in an optimally-pathed, optimally-coordinated, optimally-instantiated **Singularity**".

I've always subscribed to this wild vision in the long run, but I didn't have something this ambitious in mind when I wrote "Coherent Opportunity" — for how does a robustly growing, decentralized, self-organizing Internet entity:

1. Generate the robustly growing, decentralized, self-organizing cash-flow that will be needed to pay full-time salaries for the dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of people who could be very quickly incorporated into this network?

2. Synchronize itself to the physical/ecological world by effectively grounding itself in a decentralized network of intentional communities that must necessarily grow at the same robust rate (as per the core wisdom of Dlight)?

3. Synchronize itself to the political/economic world so that this robustly growing network of communities will have both the political freedom and the even larger cash-flow that they will need?

I've come up with an answer by weaving together disparate parts of my own vision, but it forces me to go another step beyond where I'm already at. I feel the magick that I was hoping would appear via our coherent alignment to the cosmic destiny, and as this magick deepens I'm sure it will push all of us far beyond where we currently are. I'll describe the answer I see at the end of this post, but will first address a two key issues that others have brought up.

---------------

From EventHorizon:
> It cuts to the very core of my being to see a proposal that has at its heart both money and technological mastery of our Planet in ever
> increasing forms, but I'm not blinded enough by my own existance not to realise that this kind of view actually has a point and a chance.
>
> By coming up with a 'win-win' scenario, Rev. Tom has probably addressed the single biggest factor in the 'inertia of change', the fear
> of having to give up anything in ones lifetime to make a change that wont directly benefit themselves in their own lifetimes. Disagree?

EventHorizon, I thank you for acknowledging the value you see in my vision.

> At the same time though, the biggest single problem that may be encountered by this point of view is its overtly spiritual nature. ... You cant really
> expect to put out any kind of remotely spiritual material into the world at large and not have become instantly torn apart and misused and misunderstood. >
> You need to take a realistic view with this, try to emphasise dramatically the economic and sustainability aspects, and remove or diminish
> immensly the spiritual connotations. I'm not saying I disagree with them, but the point is not to add more fuel to the burning religious and
> spiritual fires, and take the focus away from the mess this society could easilly collapse too, and the possible short-medium term solutions.
>
> At the end of the day I dont buy into all this 'spiritual-subjective-objective-consciousness dependant and
> created' stuff. I am a part of the miracle of existance, a part that can observe and contemplate and interact.

If the expansive network/think-tank that MCP2012 proposes is to have any chance of success, we are going to have to communicate with people in the various archetypal languages that they are going to demand. For some people, this is going to mean first and foremost, quoting the Bible, and then as an entirely secondary issue, speaking the language of science and technology. For others, it may be the exact opposite. For still others, we might have to start with the language of science, and then go onto the discussion of ecological integrity, or vice versa. And for yet others, we may have to speak in metaphors of collective enlightenment, and then as an entirely secondary issue, talk about entheogenic/holodynamic Eucharist as being the very mechanism for collective enlightenment. Indeed, there are endless permutations of how we can initially relate to people, and thence bring them on board the network. In this regard, I've argued the point of hyper-holism at length with Dlight, because it is not something that we are going to coerce on society, but something that we need to embrace as the sine qua non of our own Collective Empowerment. Different people will have different roles and different areas of expertise within the overall network, based on their own comfort zones — but the network as a whole must have an ability to relate to all the disparate groups/forces of society or we will be necessarily cutting off our own arms and legs.

I agree that "rationalists" are likely to tear into this effort with the ferocity of wild animals in their attempt to debunk what we are saying, but those who do so are going to "break their teeth" on the Adamantine Truth of time-symmetric causation. And since out-of-control hard-core materialism/consumerism is every bit as dangerous as the religious and spiritual fires that you speak of, I suggest that we get ready to pop some champagne corks. Likewise Christian fundamentalists may want to defend apocalyptic destruction, deny the cosmic destiny, and/or refute the idea of entheogenic sacraments, but if they declare "Holy War" against a truly empowered hyper-holistic network, they are going to get "judo flipped" by an integral package of Biblical Quotes and Christian theology that will make their heads spin. And the next thing we know, liberal Christians and Unitarian-Universalists, etc., witnessing the spectacle are going to be jumping on the bandwagon, as our number of allies/think-tank members relentlessly increase.

I also agree that we need to dramatically emphasize the economic and sustainability aspects, re the utterly real possibility of sustainable cosmic-scale growth. However, the mere act of doing so will very quickly reveal the global warming hysterics to be little different than someone yelling "FIRE" at the top of their lungs in a crowded theater because someone just threw a burning cigarette butt on the floor. And for completeness, we should also note that the purveyors of escapist New Age/Hindu claptrap (re "our only purpose in life is to escape the cycle of death and rebirth") will be very quickly revealed as the deluded laughingstocks of culture when the two sacraments of the entheogenic/holodynamic Eucharist uncork the collective enlightenment that they have steadfastly denied for millennia. Indeed Dlight can attest to the power and beauty of the Daime ritual which (as is) is one of these two holodynamic sacraments. And I can assure you that the power and beauty of a Daime ritual with 500+ people singing can be orders of magnitude greater (and 500+ people is just the start).

You and Dlight have both complained about the religious/spiritual aspect. Dlight complains about the fact that I posit an objective framework of hyper-dimensional truth/law, and presumably complains about the infinite Hegelian hierarchy therein. Yet paradoxically, you complain because I posit the subjective as being coequal to the objective pursuant to the blossoming of our free-will and super-free-will. As such, I'd like you both to contemplate the Four-Fold Paradigmatic Empowerment that I outlined above, and consider just how deep this empowerment will be.

In summary, I propose that we need to discuss this issue at length, and generate a collective consensus as to whether hyper-holistic communication and validation will play a fundamental role in our empowerment/success.

---------------

Dlight,

I'm glad you put up with the religious flavor of my writings because everything that you are involved with and/or suggesting is music to my ears. And even through we disagree on some things, you very much feel like a kindred Spirit.

> Tom, your section on creating a biosphere, and then testing out various energetic techniques on the group to see if it influences the biosystem,
> is almost a perfect description of what we're doing on our land. We have a group of amazing multi-dimensional people, and will be applying
> very deep psychological healing techniques which are very close to a form of magic, and which may well affect everything there including the
> plants we're growing on the land. Most of all we're intending to create an irrestible vortex of positive energy and unbridled creativity.
>
> We'll also be hosting other pioneers as well, and may well include a regular Daime gathering, which I've had the pleasure to participate in recently.

The above is nothing short of amazing. I am thrilled with what you are doing, and would postulate that regular Daime rituals alternating with regular psilocybin-enhanced contact-improv rituals (done in the spirit of artistic non-sexual lovemaking) would function like the positive and negative poles of a 750,000 volt power line — in regard to how they would channel the energies of magick, healing, and creativity. I know you don't like the way I've described it as an entheogenic/holodynamic Eucharist, but I can't help but suspect that you will be intrigued by this second ritual, and by the magical power that I suggesting will be present in the combination.

> I personally find Rev. T's writings a bit too much on the religious side for my taste. But I can certainly pick and choose what speaks to me in it.

I've focused on the religious side of things, because I've found it unavoidable — for four key reasons:

1. Because three of the four archetypal paradigms are of a religious nature (i.e. paganism, pantheism, and monotheism), and even if we jettison the term "meta-religion" I don't see we can jettison the hyper-holistic empowerment that I described just above (whereby we'd use a variety of "archetypal languages" to communicate with the diverse forces of culture). Indeed, why should we give up this aspect of our collective empowerment?

2. Because "religion," for good or for bad, deals with powerful emotions (both ecological and "religious") that are inherent to the nature of human life. And while religion has often led people in a bad direction, we must necessarily engage the emotions that are behind "religion" if we are going to be a truly empowered force in this world — even if we don't call it "religion." Indeed, the healthy integrated harnessing of "religious and ecological emotion" is what can most effectively reverse the tendency of western culture to reduce whole of life to a dry, functional, self-centered analysis on how to "get the best return on investment" — while at the same time fueling the collective enlightenment/apotheosis that we seek. So again, why should we forsake this second aspect of our collective empowerment?

3. Because entheogenic freedom is going to be a crucial item if we are going to truly engage the incredible fertility of culture that you just mentioned (and by this means ground MCP2012's decentralized Internet-based group-mind into the physical world). Yes the recent 8-0 supreme court decision is hopeful, but we need to remember that it has no bearing whatsoever on state law, and is but a mere ruling on statutory law that is easily overturned by Congress. In this regard, I believe the Christian Eucharist is a key from God that is meant to fit a very difficult lock, and that if we accept this gift, we will be able to create a broad, timely opening for entheogen use that will never be closed. Likewise, if we are to be the leaders/founders that MCP2012 called for (or as I say, "a new tribe of Levites"), that is going to guide humanity through an "optimally-pathed, optimally-coordinated, optimally-instantiated **Singularity**," I don't see how we can turn our nose up at this Divine Key because it has religious overtones. And again, why should we give up or risk this third aspect of our empowerment?

4. Because radical life or death bifurcations are an innate part of the Divine Feminine, re the acorn analogy, the fertility cycle analogy, and the giving-birth analogy. And while the geopolitical version of these bifurcations necessarily describes scenarios with apocalyptic potential, I don't see how we can deny the possibility or language of apocalypse without: a) dishonoring the Truth of the Divine Feminine at a fundamental level, and b) throwing away the very analogies that will allow us to most effectively engage the pagan/environmental aspect of culture, and healthily redirect the passionate emotions therein. And again, why should we give up this fourth aspect of our collective communication/empowerment?

> Finally, I see one of my missions as that of "doom and gloom" debunker, so expect to continue to
> see me challenge any theories or speculation which has the world falling apart anytime soon.
>
> I personally see us at smack in the middle of the most fertile and revolutionary period in human history. Our pathetic
> "leaders" are just dinosaurs in the process of dying off. We don't need to pay them any attention, rather we just need
> to get our visions elucidated as clearly as possible, and then start activating them.

I totally agree that we are in the most fertile and revolutionary period of human history, and I would be the first to admit that culture is inundated with destructive apocalyptic messages both monotheistic and eco-pagan. I also assume it's obvious that I'm "preaching" a well-thought out scenario of radical bifurcation, and not simple "doom and gloom." In this regard, I'd like to return to the first point of coherence, and ask whether the fertility that you mention is analogous to the fertility of a woman's womb at the moment of ovulation (or perhaps analogous to a women who is about to give birth). I haven't mentioned it yet, but the four horsemen of Revelation 6:1-8 perfectly match the four cardinal hazards that are obviously present in human culture re:

1. White Horse: Mystical Escapism/Fatalism
2. Red Horse: Religious Warfare/Terrorism
3. Black Horse: Economic Insanity/Instability
4. Pale Horse: Eco-Anarchist Fanaticism/Terrorism

Indeed, not only are these four hazards present in human culture, but they are all getting worse. People often argue against time-symmetric causation on the basis of "temporal paradox." In actual fact, there never is a paradox, just the healthy integration of time-reverse causation, or the failure to do so. If we integrate, we get an artistic, utopian, cosmic destiny in which the past slowly but surely becomes ever-more fluid. If we fail to integrate, we get the "apocalypse" and/or dystopia that kills off the fully empowered "quantum observers" (i.e. humans), and thence the "quantum-eraser." In this regard, I posit that monotheistic and eco-pagan apocalyptism are half-conscious reactions to a validly perceived danger.

I truly honor your positive view Dlight, and your willingness to debunk the fanatical purveyors of "doom and gloom," and I would not want to alienate you over this issue. On the other hand, it should be clear that humanity must come to grips with the deeper, time-symmetric nature of reality, and in this regard, I ask you to reflect on this issue at length — especially given both: a) the seven points of economic insanity that I listed in my most recent coherent opportunity post, and b) the way the four "horsemen of the apocalypse" are obviously present in culture, and obviously getting worse. And in the end, I believe we can best engage the bright destiny that you see (and best empower ourselves) by accepting and integrating the entire multi-faceted wisdom of humanity, be it Biblical, mystical, nature-spirit-based, and/or scientific — even if it means we sometimes have to address the subject of apocalypse.

In summary, I propose that we need to discuss this issue at length, and generate a collective consensus as to whether the radical bifurcation that I've depicted is an accurate description of "Reality" or not.

---------------------

Lastly, I'd like to propose how a robustly growing, decentralized, self-organizing Internet group-mind can:

1. Generate the robustly growing, decentralized, self-organizing cash-flow that will be needed
to pay full-time salaries for the dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of people.

2. Ground ourselves in the physical/ecological world via the catalysis of an almost immediate reflection
of our Internet presence into a robust decentralized network of intentional communities.

3. Synchronize/integrate ourself to the political/economic world so that we can begin establishing the Dominion of Wisdom over money.

How do we do this? I propose that this is where the idea of "visionary insemination" will have its deepest meaning, and where the role of the Jewish faith will be most important. In short I propose that we could engage a very unusual decentralized form of interfaith ecumenism in which we would: a) honor Judaism as the "Bride of God," b) describe the basic nature of a "cosmic pregnancy," c) build relationships with leading-edge members of the Jewish faith, and d) suggest a "spiritual pregnancy," in which the Jewish faith as a whole would become "pregnant with the new millennium." The one-page file "Judaism and Interfaith Ecumenism" describes a presentation that I've outlined in this regard. [ Note: I'm having trouble with my FTP server. The above link won't work until much later in the day. ]

Philadelphia is home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world. I'm going to be sending the above file to a number of rabbis in the near future, and will see if I can schedule some presentations. If it is received favorably (and I really believe it will be), I don't see why each and every person (or local group of people) on our network could not empower his/her/themselves by going around and giving this presentation in local synagogues — and by this means: a) generating an initial set of donations that will bootstrap our effort in an effective decentralized way, b) linking up with a small number of allies who might feel called to fully participate in what we are doing, and c) cultivating an even larger set of relationships with the Jewish community as a whole that will lead to very profitable business endeavors, and eventually to large-scale macro-engineering endeavors.

For now, let's consider it an idea/experiment. I'll keep everybody posted on how this local interfaith initiative turns out.

----------------------

In the end, I believe that the above empowerment will be so successful that we will have to give MCP2012's final thought some serious consideration re:

> Here's to our having a celebratory banquet-luncheon 50 years from now (I'll be a [presumably NON-senescent!!) 98-yr-old Playboy of the Western
> Solar System by then. And where will we do lunch? Well, I'm partial to the SkyDome at the top of Olympus Mons, m'self, but word has it there's a
> delightful restaurant called Stardust Deli & Digs in the Rings of Saturn. So I'll let the rest of y'all hash it out--I'm pretty-much indifferent...WINK...

My vote will be the "Stardust Deli & Digs" because the food will be great and the view spectacular. As far as the Skydome on Olympus Mons, I suggest that we hold off until we've dropped a few large comets on Mars to bring up the humidity a bit, and then let the gardening crew work on the place for a century or two. If we do it this way, we can combine the luncheon with a "no helmet eco-safari," and check out the Martian seashore to boot.

Reverend Tom

Posted by: Reverend Tom at March 31, 2006 07:12 AM

Reverend Tom: Wow. This really needed to be written and I'm glad you were the one to do it. Top stuff. It's good to see that many people on here have got a plan and want to see it implemented.

Quick question: does future hi have an IRC channel?

Posted by: vegenaut at March 31, 2006 11:02 AM

Hi Reverend Tom,
I fully agree that we are kindred spirits and certainly support your vision that mankind can rise to the occasion with a skillful application of technology, as well as continued and necessary spiritual evolution. And it would be really cool if we could collectively develop our ideas into tangible vehicles for change.

If I criticize, it’s not to stop you, but rather to see if we can mold this into something that most of the FutureHi community (or at least me) can rally around.

Now that I’ve issued this disclaimer, let me RANT a little:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hello? Is there anybody out there?

Am I the only one on this site that considers some of Rev Tom’s writings a wee bit bizarre and unrealistic? How about this paragraph:

“The Koran itself unambiguously grants the entire Holy Land to the Jewish people, and that Islam is supposed to assist Israel in the regathering of the end days. In particular, it shows that the relation between Islam and Israel is a macro-scale reflection of the relation between Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22, when God told Abraham to offer Isaac up as a burnt offering. Likewise, it shows that the new hyper-holistic Levite tribe would “invoke” the angel of Genesis 22:12, and thus free the nation of Israel from the “altar of human sacrifice.”

Tom, I think you’re right that your only chance at financing these kind of ideas is through a bunch of Rabbis, although I doubt that many Rabbis would be willing to engage in this kind of wishful thinking and wild theological speculation.

Considering that Israel is one of the most hated countries in the world at the moment---Judaism is a very controversial subject. Any suggestion of uniting the world under Judaism (however modified) is not going to go over well in most circles.

You may as well convene a convention of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers and get up in front of them and proclaim how they are actually in harmony with each other as cogs in the wheel of “Bride of Fetus/Godhead/Oblivion”. Somehow I don’t think you’d convince them.

I really don’t mean to be a naysayer but I honestly don’t see how such hyper-religious fantasizing is going to bring us together as a think tank. That is unless FutureHi is filled with latent Christian Transhumanists waiting for Rev. T’s inspiration so they can finally come out of the closet.

Otherwise I would suggest that we keep the vision somewhat more down-to-earth. That’s not to say that I’m against spirituality--actually I consider myself highly spiritual.

But Spirituality and Religion are completely different animals.

It’s quite possible to have spirituality without religion, and I feel that most institutionalized religions don’t offer much in the way of spirituality.

Spirituality to me is (among other things) the ability to find divine love and bliss in all experience and to help others to achieve this.

By contrast, religion is defined as a set of beliefs and value judgments that are supposedly handed down from Divine sources, and therefore NOT TO BE QUESTIONED. With religion, you have to either agree with everything (Faith), or forget it.

The beauty of secularism in science, philosophy and spirituality is that we still get to think for ourselves and our ideas are allowed to evolve. People who disagree in an intelligent manner are still respected, not discommunicated or burned at the stake.

It is possible and highly desirable to create a secular spirituality, where we are able to utilize the full range of consciousness expanding tools, ancient and modern, without having to get hung up on what is “right” or “holy” or “wrong” and “sinful”.

Enlightened secularism is powerful and can provide a hyper-holism which is broad enough to encompass all beliefs, religious and non-religious, seeing them for what they are: social and spiritual agreements --- consensus realities shaping how the world works.

I really believe that in order to commuicate effectively among ourselves and to a wider audience we need to couch our ideas in welcoming secular terminology.

Much love,
Dlight

Posted by: Dlight at March 31, 2006 11:36 PM

Hi Dlight,

Rest assured, I am not a closet Christian transhumanist. :)

I also agree with everything you said and your specific problems with Rev Tom's parts where the religious stuff gets very bizzare. When I said there was about 10-15% of his material I didn't agree with or didn't understand, that was it. For now, I wanted to give Tom a wide berth to get all of his ideas out before the heavy criticisms came down. Because as of late, there has been a 'heavy' tone on the site and it has dragged a lot of people down - me, Chris and others. I didn't want that to happen to Tom right out of the gate. But yes, I don't see how some of Rev Tom's religious notions are going to go over very well in ANY circle. What I did get out of Rev Tom's religious ideas is a sincere attempt to find a deeply mythic, entheogenic, unified 'system' of sorts to some how bring them all together. I do believe Tom is right in one respect - we need to approach the worlds peoples and their respectic religious zealism from a position of inclusion rather than exclusion. I have never seen anyone succeed in convincing me how this could be done, until Tom. That's another reason why I'm very curious to see where he is going with this, and looking forward to his response to your latest critique here.

Much love as well,

Paul

Posted by: Paul at April 1, 2006 09:19 AM

I'm pressed for time yet again! More to follow perhaps later today or tomorrow.

Rev. Tom: I'm very flattered & honored to be quoted by you (and, presumably, to have inspired you...). But, not unlike DLight and EventHorizon, I'm a bit skittish about **religion** (and any emphasis thereupon or the assuming of the trappings thereof)---**as distinguished from** spirituality and spiritual values & protocols. While I myself happen to be an ordained minister, the two "religious" (actually, **spiritual**) organizations under whose auspices I'm ordained, namely, Universal Life and Spiritual Humanism, are, for me at least, about as far, (meta)psychologically-speaking, from virutally all mainstream religions, ***especially*** the 3 Abrahamic ones (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, & Islam). While I'm sympathetic to some (perhaps much) of some of the mystic/truly-spiritual elements in these *religions*, my own (panen-, and almost a-)theology is more akin to Taoism, as well as (to some extent) Buddhism. Within Christian theology, I have the most respect for, e.g., Wolfhart Pannenberg, but otherwise **most** modern/contemporary theology (but not necessarily **all**, mind you!) is drooling, blathering drivel! Unless theologians are prepared to embrace **science**, and, indeed, **techno-(trans-)humanism, then they're pretty-much (to/for me, anyway) worth little more than a cow-pattie!! (Spoken like a true Texan, aye?-wink!) Having said that, Pannenberg, and the theologian (can't think of his name) who wrote a pretty-good book called **Pandemonium Tremendum**, subtitled something "Chaos and Coherent Order in the Life of God", wherein he incorporates cybernetic info theory and systems/chaos theory into theology, these guys have (some of) my respect. As does the Aussie philosopher Mike Forrest, who writes very sophisticatedly about (philosophy of) quantum physics, yet also is some sort of theist, in that he also tries to incorporate sophisticated quantum theoretical considerations into his concept(ion) of "God". And then, of course, there's also Frank Tipler's excellent musings, for which I have signficant respect. But, other than these guys, and, OF COURSE, **SAUL-PAUL SIRAG'S** excellent work in hyperspatial physics-of-consciousnesss---I have little respect/use for the entire **conventional, garden-variety** language-game (thanks Lu, for that term!) of contemporary mainstream (actually mud-puddle) religion. In fact, everyone here (you, Rev. Tom, you, DLight, you, Paul, and all the rest of my [*very*, be assured!!] **esteemed** colleagues...) should get the new pb edition of Sam Harris' excellent book, **The End of Faith** (with a great subtitle, too, but can't recall it now). Harris nails it. Much if not most (almost all) of contemporary mainstream "religion" is mind-numbingly inane claptrap/propaganda, and is, basically a racket. (Libertarian jurist Butler Shaffer says the same in his excellent book, also MUST READING, **Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace & Human Survival**, back in print...)

Can't finish this post, am being kicked-off this terminal (library is closing soon...) Will finish later...

But we need to be VERY CAREFUL about using or involving the trappings of religion...

But let's DO figure-out how to pull-off the Think Tank thing.

Love always,

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 1, 2006 11:46 AM

:-)

It seems to be difficult to convert your visions to practical earthly procedures. I don't know, perhaps those rabbis are really much more advanced spiritually than I think them to be. Then they may appreciate the information you have. Or you may have a faith so deep that you can move them in some other, non-rational way. Don't know.

Anyway, I don't think all of us could do the same. The problem is that it's you who got this revelation. I can feel that you are very much moved by what you got. You have divine inspiration. But how can you transmit this seed to another human heart, so that you can be sure that this other person gets the same info that you have? This is important, because if the other person does not have the same revelation as you, then sooner or later the movement will be diluted and fall apart. This happened to all religions, all movements, however smart or enlightened their founders were.

To overcome this hurdle, the teaching you transmit should contain only those elements which are common in every reality tunnel. But if I look for this commonality, I find nothing. Even speaking at the meta-level (which you do) presupposes a certain mental attitude. Perhaps that's why some saints chose to remain silent.

Posted by: cellux at April 1, 2006 02:21 PM

"new tribe of Levites": this idea is inspiring and frightening at the same time.

inspiring because it would be great to be at the cutting edge of the spiritual evolution of this world. it would be very good to know that God loves ud and entrusted us to carry out His mission on earth. geez, it's good to be important. (especially after all these years of seeming insignificance. :-)

frightening because every time I think something like this, I have to face the possibility that it's only my own fragile nature and psychological wounds that make me responsive to this stuff. I always have to consider that dreaming about saving the world may be a defensive mechanism against the perceived difficulty of living and acting responsibly in the "real" world. (unfortunately, most of these thoughts cannot be annihilated with any type of mental trickery, because the mental trickery is part of that which is considered to be a defensive mechanism.)

anyway, if you have a calling, follow it through to its consequences. :-)

Posted by: cellux at April 1, 2006 02:45 PM

Hey Cellux, you said: 'elements which are common in every reality tunnel. But if I look for this commonality, I find nothing.'

The only things that everyone in the human race, 'perfectly-formed' or not, have in common are - a birth day, a death day and a navel (belly-button). Though I bet there'll be a reader at FH who can point out someone born without a navel. :)

Trying to find a generic reality experience for EVERYONE is a useless quest and unecessary anyway, but it's what so many religions and philosophies try to do. The simplicity of what we do have in common, the real commonality (birthday,deathday,naval), could maybe be enough of a shared experience if we'd let it be, but humans do like to over-complicate things and are not great at embracing 'difference'. This need for over-complication (distraction) is the machinery which drives the quest to homoginize each other and get each other to 'sign up' to 'my way'. And there we have the reason for so much of the stuff and suffering (racism, ethnic and religious wars etc) that humans choose to spend their time 'doing'. Why not just respect and enjoy each others manifestations, instead of trying to control them, trying to make them alike?

I think you're on the right track about the 'silent saints', Cellux. Their lives would have been a perfect demonstration of that. A birthday, a deathday, a navel. Otherwise I'm just here doing what I'm doing and make of that what you will - no need to control it, or change it, or copy it - just be inspired by it!

Posted by: thIsIsreaLLyHapPEniNg at April 1, 2006 05:59 PM

THANK YOU FOR THE HEADS UP SIR

Posted by: Wombaticus Rex at April 1, 2006 06:13 PM

Dlight, Paul, MCP2012, Cellux,

You have all posed some very difficult questions. When I posted collective empowerment, my idea was to inject some high-voltage ideas into the discussion, and help dispel the negative energy that had been getting Paul and others so down. The entire thrust was/is admittedly very speculative (as Dlight has already pointed out), but balanced by a host of proposed experiments by which the basic ideas could all be tested as per the scientific method. The basic point was that a testable hyper-holistic logic could be used to trump the narrow minded orthodoxies of both science and religion. In this regard I am approaching the entire subject from the perspective of scientist, and not that of a prophet, and will reject/revise my hypotheses as necessary to accommodate a negative result from one or more experiments.

When I posted coherent opportunity, my idea was to cobble together a small focused think-tank that would help coal companies boost their stock price via the promotion of: a) an integrated short and long term solution to the global warming issue, and b) synthetic fuels as both a replacement for oil, and a means for balancing the US trade deficit. I proposed the seven points of coherency as the basis for a non-local energetic coherence that I felt could radically empower us. This quite naturally created a link back to the much larger set of ideas. When MCP2012 proposed the idea of a "coherent/cohesive (...cyber-amorphus, polycentric, many-brained/parallel-processing...) group-mind," he synchronized with one of my more distant visions — but it naturally begged the question of who would pay the salaries for the many thousands of people who would comprise this empowered, decentralized, group-mind.

The only answer I could come up with for decentralized support on this scale was the Jewish people, and in this regard Dlight and I seem to be in agreement (even through we don't agree on the basic reality of this vision). The entire set of ideas about the role of Judaism is an extension of my basic hypothesis re the fertility cycle of "Mother Earth" in which modern Judaism is, by analogy, the unfertilized egg (and high-tech industrial civilization, the fertile uterine lining). Likewise, the proposed presentations to the Jewish people are "experiment number 22," and as a scientist I will do the experiment and report the results. Very preliminary contacts have already been favorable, and that was before I identified the detailed correspondences between the Biblical narrative of Jesus' life, and the millennia long history of the Jewish people (which I will post shortly in the form of a pdf). Dlight is right that Israel is one of the most hated nations on the Earth. Indeed, Judaism has long been the black-sheep of religions, but that just gives the Jewish people all the more reason to cooperate with us — even if it means supporting the emergence of (or being "pregnant with") a new hyper-holistic communalism (and from what I know of Jewish eschatology, it's not an overly wild idea).

Since MCP2012's coherent, decentralized, group-mind vision is, by far, the optimal solution for mankind's woes at the largest geopolitical scale, I'll walk my own talk, re the role of Judaism, to see if there is any chance that we could generate the kind of decentralized support that will be needed to make this happen. Cellux posited that the transmission of this vision to the hearts of others might be problematic, and that I might be the only one able to sell this vision to said Rabbis (and through them to the Jewish people). But this is where I feel the seven points of coherence come in, for I believe these seven points are what can non-locally empower the entire network in this regard (pending, of course, the report of my own initial success of generating interest for this endeavor within the local Jewish community). If this doesn't work, I see little hope of a large hyper-holistic network becoming funded/empowered in any meaningful way — and if this happened, I would wholeheartedly endorse both: a) shelving the wild global-brain idea, and b) engaging a narrowly focused think-tank endeavor involving a small number of people trying to rustle up money from the coal companies.

On the assumption that I am going to report success in my local interfaith initiative, I will address the two main issue that people have brought up. I see these as: a) the distinction between religion and spirituality, and the horrific track-record of religion, and b) the question of "Christian trans-humanism" vis a vis the "new religion." Dlight's idea of a secular hyper-holism is a good starting point for future agreement, but there are issues that will need to be addressed before a secular and/or spiritual hyper-holism can negate the main religious issues.

In regard to the first issue, i.e. "religion vs spirituality" I will be the first to agree to the objections that people posited about the sharp distinction between religion and spirituality, and the horrific track records of religions, especially the Abrahamic religions. My belief is that the Abrahamic religions (especially Christianity and Islam) carry, as yet, unintegrated energies of the Divine Masculine. In particular, I view Islam as the collective embodiment of Shiva, and see His/their role as an utterly enlightened yet utterly merciless enforcer of cosmic law. I see the classic description of the "dancing Shiva" as depicting the role of Islam perfectly given a hyper-holistic interpretation. In this regard, I would posit that: a) the four arms represent the four cardinal paradigms/aspects of reality that we are challenged to integrate, b) the left foot standing on the prostrate body represents the merciless destruction of an unenlightened civilization at the end of every Kali Yuga/26,000 year cycle, and c) the right foot lifted, represents freedom from the entire cycle of Yugas.

Likewise, I see historic Christianity as the collective embodiment of Brahma, the deluded but potentially salvic aspect of the Divine Masculine that has been desperately struggling toward an enlightened state throughout the whole of history. In this regard, I do not deny the horror that has been inflicted by the Abrahamic religions for a second. In fact, I claim that we have not yet begun to see the horror that can be manifest through these religions, and will be manifest unless a collective enlightenment actually occurs. As far as "Christian trans-humanism" goes, I see Jesus/Yeshua a fractal incarnation of Lord Brahma's enlightenment projected back into the past, and the very early Christian church as being/manifesting but a dim reflection of hyper-holism/ collective enlightenment that will occur during the Millennium (either on this version of history, or some alternate version of history that is more successful). Its a radical idea that is easily testable in one regard, in that it predicates the Jewish people as being preternaturally receptive to a properly defined hyper-holistic communalism, and to the visionary ideas/cosmic destiny associated with such.

It is my experience that the reduction of monotheistic religion to pure mysticism/spirituality (or pure neuro-chemistry) is one of the most offensive ideas from the perspectives of the Christian and Islamic faiths, and I see little chance that either religion will tolerate/cooperate with any kind of move in this direction. On the other hand, I see both religions as easily cooperating with the higher-dimensional spirituality that would necessarily exist in any true system of hyper-holism, due to the way said hyper-holism would seamlessly integrate their deepest gems of truth into the dawning of a true collective enlightenment. A basic tenet of hyper-holism is that the monotheistic scriptures really do contain divinely inspired pieces of truth that are specifically related to the dawning of collective enlightenment, and that our challenge is not to negate these scriptures, but to provide a truly accurate interpretation of said scriptures. Indeed, the Bible and Koran both contain truths that have been hidden for the whole of history, and numerous passages that would allow the truth of these religions to be radically reinterpreted such that the gems of truth are extracted therefrom, and the superstitions of said religions dispelled. As such, I claim that the best way forward is to enlighten religion so that it can merge with spirituality, and by this means, manifest the higher dimensional spirituality that can support the actual dawning of collective enlightenment.

My highest priority at this point is to put these ideas to the test vis a vis my Jewish interfaith experiment. If the experiment is a success, I think we will need to seriously consider the reality of both: a) the fertility cycle analogy, and b) the role of hyper-holism, meta-religion, and holographic libertarianism in the transformation at hand. And if people don't like the term "religion," I'm totally open to calling the new paradigm spirituality or hyper-spirituality or meta-spirituality — so long as it includes:

1. Hyper-holistic communication/empowerment.
2. The healthy integration of religious and ecological passion.
3. Support for entheogens in a healthy spiritual context.
4. A language for communicating the reality of radical bifurcation.

If the experiment doesn't work, a large chunk of what I've offered will have to be reexamined.
Such is the life of a scientist. I've made my prediction, and I'll live by the scientific method.

Sincerely,
Reverend Tom

-----------------------------

P.S.

For those interested, the Koranic verses that support the Jewish ownership of the Holy Land are:

Suras 5:20-21:

And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Remember Allah's favour unto you, how He placed among you prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures. O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers:

Suras 17:101-104:

And verily We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses. He said: In truth thou knowest that none sent down these (portents) save the Lord of the heavens and the earth as proofs, and lo! (for my part) I deem thee lost, O Pharaoh. And he wished to scare them from the land, but We drowned him and those with him, all together. And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

Note also that: a) 5:20 clearly states that the Holy Land was not given to anyone else, b) 17:104 further supports the regathering of the Jewish people to the Holy Land in the end-times, and c) the basic claim to ownership in both sets of verses is legitimate under Islamic law (as some imams are themselves saying). My basic claim is that an empowered hyper-holistic network could secure a just and lasting peace by invoking these Suras.

-----------------------------

P.P.S.

From thIsIsreaLLyHapPEniNg:

> The only things that everyone in the human race, 'perfectly-formed' or not, have in common are - a birth day, a death day and a navel (belly-button).

If I really believed this, I would immediately adopt the philosophy of Genghis Khan:

"The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to him bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms."

Note also that an estimated 8% of the entire population of Asia are considered to be direct decedents of Mr. Khan.

Posted by: Reverend Tom at April 1, 2006 09:41 PM

Hi Rev Tom,

I understand that my idea is not your cup of tea and we probably won't agree on this 'religious' stuff, but I don't understand your Genghis Khan reference. Can you explain?

My point in commenting on Cellux's comment is that 'the birthday, deathday and navel' are the only things that EVERY single human being can have in common with every other - otherwise we're all different and that's the way it is. (I've never been able to think of any other absolute commonality in the manifested world anyway.)

There is not a lot of commonality in the big picture. And to use this as a reminder to embrace the differences rather than trying to bland everyone out into a sameness, into a same religion. Resist the urge to over-complicate the spiritual experience. It just gets confusing and parochial.

Can we not be 'individuals together'? (Life of Brian)

Posted by: tHIsIsreaLLyHapPEniNg at April 2, 2006 12:06 AM

huh. great insights. I feel the connection to what you are saying (esp. seeing our western history as Christianity's struggle for enlightenment). however, I doubt I could bring this out to the masses in such an inspired form that it ignites the dormant seeds of enlightenment in them. up to now I experienced the validity of what you say only in entheogenized states. I resonate to them now only because your words call back the memories. but if I wanted to be a spokesperson for such ideas, I'd better have a direct communication line with God. which I have not.

(I doubt that people would easily accept that they should partake in an entheogenic ritual to understand what we are talking about. based on your Collective Empowerment PDF, I had the impression that you had something like that in mind.)

Posted by: cellux at April 2, 2006 03:32 AM

btw, I used to see the psychedelic trance movement as a possible carrier for the spiritual evolution you describe. they had the ideal ritual which united the ancient and modern elements: a divinely inspired DJ guides the participants with carefully selected electronic music through a shamanistic journey during which it becomes possible to manifest the four archetypal paradigms and their unresolved conflicts can be played out in a magical, symbolic theatrical act involving the whole community of trance dancers. thereby the whole party-crowd may become a vehicle through which higher beings can think and experiment with various combinations of the elements until the correct solution is found. and when this happens, it just "clicks" and everyone feels that something has been done now (but who knows what?), everyone goes home in the morning as if nothing had happened but in fact the door had been opened that night and another bunch of alien saviors have migrated successfully into our dimension. :-)

(if nothing else, the prominent role the Jewish artists have played in the evolution of Goa Trance is an interesting "coincidence". why is it that they were - and possibly still are - so much drawn towards this music?)

unfortunately, when I finally looked up from my hazy dreams and took the courage to actually compare the real trance scene existing in the outside word with the ideal living in my head, I had to admit that we have still a long way to go. again the same thing: where are the truly inspired people? (ok, Goa Gil might be one.)

perhaps the goa dance floors should be filled with reborn Christians who see that pumping Astral Projection's Kabbalah at 10000 watts may be the best answer one can find to the world's problems. (maybe this has already happened, I don't know.)

Posted by: cellux at April 2, 2006 04:12 AM

This is the problem with both religion and spirituality. It is the badly articulated musings of the mind of humanity on the greatest and deepest questions we have.

Rev. Tom you may have gathered up the threads of the Abrahamic religions, and fused them somewhat with far eastern philosophy, and western spiritual mantra, but this is not the word of God.

It is the word of man on the topic of God.

I believe I have started to get a handle on your time reverse energy principle over the last few posts. Its similar in a way to certain scientific principles I am aware of, coloqually 'quantum hadshakes' where direction of time plays no 'real' importance in the action, forward and reverse time actions occur to balance the 'reaction'. But you take it a stage further, by claiming that thinking of the future is actually the myriad futures projecting their 'energy' upon us (I think this is your 'gist' forgive me if I am wrong) and you tie this 'aura of the future' via spiritual connotations to God.

Perhaps 'you' could see it this way, and yes, for sure, it is another way to view things, another idea to chew over.

But ultimatly, what do we, me, you, trully know?
We have our names for our 'miracle', we have our words and our 'theories' and our 'ideas' but it is words and thoughts of man. Our 'God' may be visible everywhere, or forever remain hidden, but he never appears.

Our world knows a hell of a lot more than it did 10s of thousands of years ago. And at the same time, from another angle, it knows nothing more, perhaps has even lost somethings. It is clear that their are words and teachings from those clearly close to God, words of such subtle but awsome truth as to BE gifts from God to man. But at the same time they are the works of man, and there are works of history as much as philosophy or spirituality, words to people and nations in times of Earthly troubles by watchers of the world.

I can understand the metaphor of what you say, and do not doubt for one minute that I also see the incalcuble value of what is written in religious scripture. But let me show you where we disagree.

"And verily We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses. He said: In truth thou knowest that none sent down these (portents) save the Lord of the heavens and the earth as proofs, and lo! (for my part) I deem thee lost, O Pharaoh"

Ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them. Who are the children of Israel? And how did the Lord appear to them?

They are us! And He came unto us, by the very fact of our being. The Children of Israel are not a people, but a mindset. The people who do Gods work upon this Earth. The people who see His hand, while God himself never appears.

The Jewish people have had a long and troubled history, marked by both works of incompareable spiritual and philosophical thought and wisdom, and at the same time immense hardship and frightening persecution on the account of being a group. The works of their history, that they see, or saw, as works of Divine Deliveration, become a part of their spiritual teachings and writings, but they take away from the true teachings. Not the miracles of God as he delivers this group of peoples, but the work of individuals as they look to infinity and question like we do.

"And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations."

Who else can dwell in the Holy Land but the Children of Israel? The Holy Land of the mind and of eternity and of Spiritual and divine glory and questioning and deliberation belongs only to those who are the children of Earth and Heaven and Existance. It is those people who view with the mind, not the eye, that listen with the soul, not the ear. That act with the fire and drive of all of time and space, not the desire of man, that have and always will create our world.

When the promise of the Hereafter comes to pass we shall bring you as a crowd gathered from the various nations. Does that not say it all?

The answers may have evolved and sprawled out across the millenia, changing and evolving and affecting and influencing. But the questions REMAIN THE SAME. The Children of Israel can find direction from the word of their fathers and founders, but they can only find answers in their God, their task, their calling, their unavoideable journey is to the do the work of their God on this Earth. Those are the Children of Israel.

The entire works of the life of Christ seem to my mind to be an attempt to clarify and reteach the true message.

And if the driving force behind the Exodus and other subsequent historical events, was ultimatly a new, perhaps greater, philosophy and vision, then ofcourse One could claim divine motivation, and who are we to say its wrong?

Think on this, in the distant past Heaven and Earth were seperate, seperated as distant as either side of death. Today, as knowledge and philosophy seeps into the minds of all people in a more true sense, a sense of question NOT believing, Heaven and Earth start to become closer, even one, in the minds of people.

Under what flag the musings of great philosophers and spiritual visionaries marched to the present day does not matter. The politics of 'thought' and 'philosophy' (present here in no small volume) make me despair.

You must understand that only an individual mind can 'find' 'God', but the second one person tries to articulate that, tries to speak upon it, in any form, in any way, it becomes the work and word of man. In this way the words from the pages of the Old Testament, or Septeguant (I probably got that wrong, my apologies) become no different than the words spoken by Alexander the Great, and the truth remains to be refound, the message rediscovered.

Is there a Kernal of truth in the words of all religion? Perhaps there is. Should these religions form any part of any future philosophy, absolutely NOT. These are the meandering actions and events caused by history, flowing from those original base words. Teaching on the fundamental basics and truth should be listened to, absolutely, but to take groups of people because they stand under flags, regardless of their awareness and understanding of their OWN RELIGION, is just another step of the complete misunderstanding that has perverted these works of philosophy and spirituality throughout known history.

God manifests himself in His Work. You cannot say the Base Truth of Spiritual and Natural Philosophy is that one group of people is favoured above the rest, because in order to escape persecution and endure hardship A tribal leader said as much to his people in an inspiring speech.

I get the impression you have woven together a vast arrey of threads to formulate a drive, and a vision, that does not need to be woven together.

You do not need to have a Divinely presented decision, for the journey to be Divine. It already is. You weave together astrological ages with other viewpoints and ideas to present the truth of a divinely given choice. It is so easy to get pulled and sucked into the mystic meaning of everything around you, or even worse to see aspects as more divine than the whole. Do they play some kind of role in Human existance? Well yeah, they are now and seeminlgy always have been psychologically linked to human existance. But so what? What is so incompareably divine in astrological ages that is not present in the physicality of the existance of the Sun? Or in the marvelous stretching, expanding, moving, changing web and lattice of the nature of our own Universe?

The more I read your work, the more I see the merging and linking of the wild ideas and claims that make religions 'whole' in the light of ignorance, rather than the linking of ideas and claims which make sense in the world around us. You claim Brahma and Shiva, yet you make no attempt to involve the physical cyclic nature of existance with Buddhism.

And to be honest, the thing that really points the full stop for me on the spiritual aspect of your post is the fact you do not include any thought or discussion regarding Zoroastrianism within your posts. An ancient religion based upon the philosophy of the struggle between Good and Bad! I mean if this is not relevant considering the fact we are humans, in the singular individual personal sense as much as the group, then I dont know what is.

There are many points of view, and little truth. What little truth I personally know is that we are all here, and lo and behold so is everything we need to create our wildest dreams. This as far as I am concerned is all the foundation for the core of a realistic and spiritual philosophy that people need or will accept in large scales.

The Why will be a personal quest. If you are going to 'reveal' some more spiritual truth, then you will have to do so by shedding the layers lain down by the history and man, and return to that which sprung forth from the Earth and the Heavens alone.

The What, How, When, Where. These are all utterly and completely dependant upon the species as a whole. These are not up for 'interpretation' only discussion, development, agreement, and implimentation.

I admire your work, and hope you will continue. But if you are going to keep your spiritual aspect as it is, and integrate it wholly into your view, then I expect the rest of the world is going to greet your work with a simple 'Yes' or 'no'. I might be wrong though, and I sincerely hope that the strength of your arguements and views on the short-medium term development of society and civilisation can overcome the screaming desire by many to completely debunk your entire thinking on all aspects due to their disagreement with your spiritual views.

"When I posted coherent opportunity, my idea was to cobble together a small focused think-tank that would help coal companies boost their stock price via the promotion of: a) an integrated short and long term solution to the global warming issue, and b) synthetic fuels as both a replacement for oil, and a means for balancing the US trade deficit."

That last part about the 'importance' of the US trade deficit would have usually brought from me a rather lengthy rant. Suffice to say that I feel perhaps some priorities may need to be addressed, even if you feel that a strong robust USA is the engine room of the future.

Posted by: eventhorizen at April 2, 2006 08:12 AM

Hi thIsIsreaLLyHapPEniNg,

> I understand that my idea is not your cup of tea and we probably won't agree on this
> 'religious' stuff, but I don't understand your Genghis Khan reference. Can you explain?
>
> My point in commenting on Cellux's comment is that 'the birthday, deathday and navel' are the only things that EVERY
> single human being can have in common with every other - otherwise we're all different and that's the way it is.

I understand that the commonality of birthday, deathday and navel can lead to an enlightened celebration of our differences.
Unfortunately, it seems like they can lead just as easily to the attitude that Genghis Khan expressed.

I'll admit that these points of commonality and other basic characteristics of our physical nature are the only easily perceived universals within humanity. But I claim that we are also embedded in a common matrix of "Reality" even if we humans can not yet fully grasp this Reality, and that we have a common birthright to not merely the enlightened celebration of our differences, but also to their uncompromised reconciliation — such that we may come together in our diversity to manifest a whole that is vastly greater than the sum of the parts. Alas, this is what we disagree about.

Granted, a lot of blood has been spilled in the quest for these more esoteric forms of commonality. We certainly don't want to spill any more blood over the issue, but I have come to believe that these deeper forms of commonality are so valuable that the historic spilling of blood in this quest is potentially excusable. It's a radical thought, but it does clear the way for a deep forgiveness.

---------------

Hi Cellux,

> ...up to now I experienced the validity of what you say only in entheogenized states. I resonate to them now only because your words call
> back the memories. but if I wanted to be a spokesperson for such ideas, I'd better have a direct communication line with God. which I have not.

Ask for a direct communication line backward in time from the living destiny. I understand
it to be granted upon request to anyone who agrees with the second point of coherency.

> (I doubt that people would easily accept that they should partake in an entheogenic ritual to understand what we are talking
> about. based on your Collective Empowerment PDF, I had the impression that you had something like that in mind.)

The entheogenic rituals are not suggested for the masses (at least not anytime soon), but for the new "Levite tribe" as the means by which they could be empowered to anchor the dawning of collective enlightenment in the human realm. This is why I describe the holodynamic Eucharist as form of libertarian freedom, pursuant to the unfoldment of an organic self-organizing transformation of culture.

> btw, I used to see the psychedelic trance movement as a possible carrier for the spiritual evolution you describe....

Indeed, I see psychedelic trance as very close to what could be manifest in the "Body of Christ" ritual.

> (if nothing else, the prominent role the Jewish artists have played in the evolution of Goa Trance is an
> interesting "coincidence". why is it that they were - and possibly still are - so much drawn towards this music?)

Interesting how the Jewish artists are right at the center of something like this. Thank you for the unexpected confirmation. And if you do decide to become a "spokesperson" these people (and their Rabbis) will be the ones to seek out, for they are the ones who I believe will be preternaturally open to the ideas being spoken of here.

> perhaps the goa dance floors should be filled with reborn Christians who see that pumping Astral
> Projection's Kabbalah at 10000 watts may be the best answer one can find to the world's problems.

This may be a lot closer to God's plan than we think. And with this, I'm going to become very scarce on the blog for the next week while I prepare my presentations for the local Jewish community, and begin conducting my experiments. I will however post links to the list of arguments and evidence that EventHorizon asked for, and to a detailed write up on how life of Jesus is reflected in the millennia long history of the Jewish people.

------------------

Hi EventHorizon,

> Is there a Kernal of truth in the words of all religion? Perhaps there is. Should these religions form any part of any future philosophy,
> absolutely NOT. These are the meandering actions and events caused by history, flowing from those original base words... ...is just another
> step of the complete misunderstanding that has perverted these works of philosophy and spirituality throughout known history.
>
> God manifests himself in His Work. You cannot say the Base Truth of Spiritual and Natural Philosophy is that one group of people is favoured
> above the rest, because in order to escape persecution and endure hardship A tribal leader said as much to his people in an inspiring speech.

I agree that religious texts often reflect the inspired speeches and meandering actions and events of history. None the less, I believe that transcendent intelligence has used these meandering events to implant gems of truth related to collective enlightenment in said scriptures — and by this means convey aspects of truth that are not generally accessible via mystical experience, but readily accessed via the time-symmetric logic of 21st century science. Nor am I saying that historic religions understand the truth of their own scriptures. Indeed, the Christian New Testament has the word "Cosmos" in over 150 places in the original Greek, and even though historic Christians have never translated/interpreted it in this way, there are numerous passages that are clearly related to the cosmic destiny that Paul and I and others so very much resonate with.

> I get the impression you have woven together a vast arrey of threads to
> formulate a drive, and a vision, that does not need to be woven together.

I agree that I have woven together a vast array of threads. I hope you understand that I am not committing bibliolatry, but describing the tools that will allow us to relate to, and "tame" a group of people who are driven by unintegrated religious passion to a very dangerous degree. Everybody bemoans the impact of Christian (and Islamic) fundamentalism, but twice, I've engaged the discussion of our cosmic destiny with born-again fundamentalist Christians, and convinced them that this is God's plan by quoting the Bible — and this was in Oklahoma, the heart of the Bible belt. So I present this as an already tested example of hyper-holistic communication/empowerment. Since that time, I've not only refined the Biblical arguments for a cosmic destiny, but also generated a similar line of Biblical arguments in support of entheogen usage. We can complain about the lumpen thoughtforms present in historic religion, but that seems like a poor use of our time when it is within our collective power to radically reinterpret the entire doctrine of these religions — and by this means unleash a deeper truth that is far more aligned with the fullness and blossoming of life that we seek.

As far as I can see, the only alternative is to utterly reject these religions, and thus give up any chance of actually relating to the many millions of people therein. And since they form a very large, powerful, and potentially dangerous minority in the US, I can't help but choose the first approach over the second

Sincerely,
Rev. Tom

Posted by: Revered Tom at April 2, 2006 09:22 AM

this forum might be a good place to find your levite brothers. perhaps you already got e-mails from people who had read what you posted but instead of writing here contacted you personally because they felt the calling inherent in your message (I hope that this is so). if God really intends to do the work along the lines you have in mind, then most likely He planted the same seeds in the hearts and minds of all the future Levites (not just you). then your posts may act as wake-up calls, some of us will answer them from the heart, and you will know those, and then you will have a collective to work with.

do you know these guys: http://www.thenewcall.org/ ? if you don't, I recommend reading their two books (Servers of the Divine Plan and The New Call, downloadable freely from the website). perhaps you could find some other soulmates over there. they have a forum for the inner circle, to which I could not subscribe because their leader wrote me that based on the contents of my communication I did not seem to be mature enough to join. how unfortunate. perhaps you would be in a better position. anyway, those guys seem to be knowledgeable to me. (perhaps even wise.)

Posted by: cellux at April 2, 2006 12:07 PM

I'm baaacckk...(quick...head for the hills...[wink]) But seriously, folks...

OK. I'm glad there's been such good, articulate, edifying posts since my last, truncated one. Rev. Tom pretty-well sums-up much (if not all) of his position quite eloquently in these two passages (from above):

>>>It is my experience that the reduction of monotheistic religion to pure mysticism/spirituality (or pure neuro-chemistry) is one of the most offensive ideas from the perspectives of the Christian and Islamic faiths, and I see little chance that either religion will tolerate/cooperate with any kind of move in this direction. On the other hand, I see both religions as easily cooperating with the higher-dimensional spirituality that would necessarily exist in any true system of hyper-holism, due to the way said hyper-holism would seamlessly integrate their deepest gems of truth into the dawning of a true collective enlightenment. A basic tenet of hyper-holism is that the monotheistic scriptures really do contain divinely inspired pieces of truth that are specifically related to the dawning of collective enlightenment, and that our challenge is not to negate these scriptures, but to provide a truly accurate interpretation of said scriptures. Indeed, the Bible and Koran both contain truths that have been hidden for the whole of history, and numerous passages that would allow the truth of these religions to be radically reinterpreted such that the gems of truth are extracted therefrom, and the superstitions of said religions dispelled. As such, I claim that the best way forward is to enlighten religion so that it can merge with spirituality, and by this means, manifest the higher dimensional spirituality that can support the actual dawning of collective enlightenment.

>>>We can complain about the lumpen thoughtforms present in historic religion, but that seems like a poor use of our time when it is within our collective power to radically reinterpret the entire doctrine of these religions — and by this means unleash a deeper truth that is far more aligned with the fullness and blossoming of life that we seek.

I very much empathize (even sympathize) with these thoughts...VERY much. While I much prefer the worldview/meme(s) of science/technology (not reductive, so much, as merely evolutionarily supplanting, neuro-sematically/conceptually), I concur that we may have to travel, for a while, at least, down the path Rev. Tom is contemplating... But can we pull it off?! I think we damn-well might be able to... But--forgive me--I must admit to little more than contmept and pity for the "lumpen", incredibly inane, oftentimes downright stupid-&/or-mean-spirited CRAP that is spewed-forth by "Christian" pastors & televangelists, as well as the ludicrously-stupid, as well as ridiculously-evil, pompous, One-True-Religion, utter fucking bullshit believed-&-*acted-upon* by at least 10-15% of the world's muslims. If we can use meta-theological, meta-philosophical, and meta-semantic "JUDO" or "AIKI" to transform this bloated, festering bunch of--again I say--CRAP, then I'm interested!! Count me in to have a go at it!! Because, I suspect, Rev. Tom is right: we may have to play (but which is to say TRANSFORM) the "religion" or "religious" **language game**---at least for a while, initially---so as to have *entre* into these throngs of adherents (*** "believers" ***--G.O.D., please save us from **believers**!!), and then neuro-linguistically, neuro-semantically, TRANSFORM what goes-on in their brain/minds into something that genuinely manifests agapic, inter-eudaimonistic love & respect & appreciation for every other human being, and a reverence/respect for BOTH science/technology AND the Solar Ecosystem (of which Gaia--we--are the most cognitively developed element at the moment...) THAT is a noble project, perhaps the ultimate cultural/applied-anthropological project for the next decade or two.

*Please*, Rev. Tom, and EventHorizon, and Paul, Chris (lvx23), Upwinger, Mr. Neutron, *et al*: get and read Sam Harris' **The End of Faith**. It's SPOT-ON and utterly brilliant. But, having urged y'all to read **that**, let me also suggest reading Gary E. Schwartz' hot-off-the-press **G.O.D. Experiments: How Science Is Discovering God in Everything, Including Us**, as well as some of the works contained in its bibliography. Also important, if we're to play the religious language code "card", is Gregg Braden's **God Code: The Secret of Our Past, the Promise of Our Future** (Hay House, 2004). Schwartz is himself an accredited scientist, as well as a practicing psychiatrist, so he's (at least) not a dumb-dumb. Braden is an interesting character, too; and *God Code* makes for interesting reading. I still am more of a secular (albeit also spiritual) (trans)humanist, but Braden & Schwartz' stuff, Rev. Tom, may be of **help to you**, if you're not already familiar with 'em...

What I ultimately want is for us to **integrate** science, technology and genuine higher-brain-circuit(s) spirituality. We DO have a grand (almost incomprehenibly grand) awesome-&-awe-inspiring (meta)cosmological destiny right ahead of us--IF we don't blow it. We need to transform/**integrate** scientific cosmology, technology, and eschatology into a very (cognitively/intellectually/spiritually) **powerful** new set of (meta)MEMEs that can guide and shepard us optimally on into the Apotheosis/Singularity--and **beyond**... This is what I see as Rev. Tom's grand intention/plan, and I share that very deeply.

To this end, it is IMPERATIVE also to read and integrate-into-one's-worldview James N. Gardner's truly ultra-important and inspiring book, **Biocosm**. This thesis leaves "intelligent design" way back in the dust. It is purely scientific (i.e., in-principle falsifiable), and, indeed, is a bounce-off extrapolation of the work of Lee Smolin, one our best cutting-edge mainstream cosmologists. See also Gardner's latest post on Ray Kurzweil's site.

Part of what OUR (if this group does indeed congeal into a cutting-edge Singularity Think Tank/Group) project must be is to explicitly **integrate** more conventional/traditional theology/eschatology with Kurzweil/Drexler/Moravec/John Smart/Gardner secular memes/truths, as well as with the entheogenic/neuro-anthropological breakthrough memes contained in Terrence McKenna's **Food of the Gods**, Pinchbeck's **Breaking Open the Head**, and most recently, Graham Hancock's wonderful book, **Supernatural** (read all of these books, Rev. Tom, especially McKenna's & Hancock's, if you haven't already) and, in so doing, utterly TRANSFORM the FORMER (i.e., recall, conventional eschatology) ***for the good***. Can we do this? I think Rev. Tom, if only pragmatically, may be right: We may not have a choice. But I think it's doable.

Also, in terms of reaching-out-to & helping to transform Roman Catholics, don't forget Teilhard de Chardin's stuff, especially *The Phenomenon of Man*--a wonderful book.

And I think we may indeed be able to support the following meme-commitments:

1. Hyper-holistic communication/empowerment.
2. The healthy integration of religious and ecological passion.
3. Support for entheogens in a healthy spiritual context.
4. A language for communicating the reality of radical bifurcation.

And, finally, as far as politics goes, please check out each & all of the following:

1. Hayek's *Law, Legislation & Liberty* (3 vols.)
2. Kelso & Adler, *Capitalist Manifesto*
3. James Albus, *People's Capitalism*
4. Randy Barnett, *Restoring the Lost Constitution*
5. Pete Hendrickson, *Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America* (available at www.LostHorizons.com)

I look forward with great anticipation & enthusiasm to feedback from Rev. Tom, Paul, EventHorizon, **et al**...Gotta go for now...

Let's rock & roll, boys & girls...

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 2, 2006 03:52 PM

Two things:

I find the categorization to be interesting, but question the overall lumping of Christianity together - what about the Gnostics? They are vastly different in approach to Constantine Christianity, and consider this world to be a fallen, poor copy created by the Luciferic forces, recently strengthened by the Ahrimaic forces through electricity/computers/the internet. They consider the Divine spark, contained within each of us, to be the only link to the true Kingdom of Heaven.

Second thing - I am struggling to understand why you posit the Jewish faith in this context, as the only religious stream to be brought forward and merged into the new frameworks. What about esoteric Sufism? Or Gnosis? Why hang on to one of the old, while discarding the rest?

Any clarity would be appreciated.
Thanks,
- ashanti

Posted by: ashanti at April 3, 2006 04:41 AM

From a man, that I think was one of the greatest spiritualists of our time – Phillip K. Dick –
“Well, as I said earlier, an author of a work supposed fiction might write the truth and not know it. To quote Xenophanes another pre-Socratic: "Even if a man should chance to speak the most complete truth, yet he himself does not know it; all things are wrapped in appearances" (Fragment 34). And Heraclitus added to this: "The nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself" (Fragment 54). W. S. Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan, put it: "Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream." The point of all that is that we cannot trust our senses and probably not even our a priori reasoning. As to our senses, I understand that people who have been blind from birth and are suddenly given sight are amazed to discover that objects appear to get smaller and smaller as they get farther away. Logically, there is no reason for this. We, of course, have come to accept this, because we are use to it. We see objects get smaller, but we know that in actuality they remain the same size. So even the common everyday pragmatic person utilizes a certain amount of sophisticated discounting of what his eyes and ears tell him.

Little of what Heraclitus wrote has survived, and what we do have is obscure, but Fragment 54 is lucid and important: "Latent structure is master of obvious structure." This means that Heraclitus believed that a veil lay over the true landscape. He also may have suspected that time was somehow not what it seemed, because in Fragment 52 he said: "Time is a child at play, playing draughts; a child's is the kingdom." This is indeed cryptic. But he also said, in Fragment 18: "If one does not expect it, one will not find out the unexpected; it is not to be tracked down and no path leads us to it." Edward Hussey, in his scholarly book The Pre-Socratics, says:

If Heraclitus is to be so insistent on the lack of understanding shown by most men, it would seem only reasonable that he should offer further instructions for penetrating to the truth. The talk of riddle-guessing suggests that some kind of revelation, beyond human control, is necessary... The true wisdom, as has been seen, is closely associated with God, which suggests further that in advancing wisdom a man becomes like, or a part of, God.
This quote is not from a religious book or a book on theology; it is an analysis of the earliest philosophers by a Lecturer in Ancient Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Hussey makes it clear that to these early philosophers there was no distinction between philosophy and religion. The first great quantum leap in Greek theology was by Xenophanes of Colophon, born in the mid-sixth century B.C. Xenophanes, without resorting to any authority expect that of his own mind, says:
One god there is, in no way like mortal creatures either in bodily form or in the thought of his mind. The whole of him sees, the whole of him thinks, the whole of him hears. He stays always motionless in the same place; it is not fitting that he should move about now this way, now that.
This is a subtle and advanced concept of God, evidently without precedent among the Greek thinkers. "The arguments of Parmenides seemed to show that all reality must indeed be a mind," Hussey writes, "or an object of thought in a mind." Regarding Heraclitus specifically, he says, "In Heraclitus it is difficult to tell how far the designs in God's mind are distinguished from the execution in the world, or indeed how far God's mind is distinguished from the world." The further leap by Anaxagoras has always fascinated me. "Anaxagoras had been driven to a theory of the microstructure of matter which made it, to some extent, mysterious to human reason." Anaxagoras believed that everything was determined by Mind. These were not childish thinkers, nor primitives. They debated serious issues and studied one another's views with deft insight. It was not until the time of Aristotle that their views got reduced to what we can neatly -- but wrongly -- classify as crude. The summation of much pre-Socratic theology and philosophy can be stated as follows: The kosmos is not as it appears to be, and what it probably is, at its deepest level, is exactly that which the human being is at his deepest level -- call it mind or soul, it is something unitary which lives and thinks, and only appears to be plural and material. Much of this view reaches us through the Logos doctrine regarding Christ. The Logos was both that which thought, and the thing which it thought: thinker and thought together. The universe, then, is thinker and thought, and since we are part of it, we as humans are, in the final analysis, thoughts of and thinkers of those thoughts.
Thus if God thinks about Rome circa A.D. 50, then Rome circa A.D. 50 is. The universe is not a windup clock and God the hand that winds it. The universe is not a battery-powered watch and God the battery. Spinoza believed that the universe is the body of God extensive in space. But long before Spinoza -- two thousand years before him -- Xenophanes had said, "Effortlessly, he wields all things by the thought of his mind" (Fragment 25).

If any of you have read my novel Ubik, you know that the mysterious entity or mind or force called Ubik starts out as a series of cheap and vulgar commercials and winds up saying:

I am Ubik. Before the universe was I am. I made the suns. I made the worlds. I created the lives and the places they inhabit; I move them here, I put them there. They go as I say, they do as I tell them. I am the word and my name is never spoken, the name which no one knows. I am called Ubik but that is not my name. I am. I shall always be.
It is obvious from this who and what Ubik is; it specifically says that it is the word, which is to say, the Logos. In the German translation, there is one of the most wonderful lapses of correct understanding that I have ever come across; God help us if the man who translated my novel Ubik into German were to do a translation from the koine Greek into German of the New Testament. He did all right until he got to the sentence "I am the word." That puzzled him. What can the author mean by that? he must have asked himself, obviously never having come across the Logos doctrine. So he did as good a job of translation as possible. In the German edition, the Absolute Entity which made the suns, made the worlds, created the lives and the places they inhabit, says of itself:
I am the brand name.
Had he translated the Gospel according to Saint John, I suppose it would have come out as:
When all things began, the brand name already was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand name was.
It would seem that I not only bring you greetings from Disneyland but from Mortimer Snerd. Such is the fate of an author who hoped to include theological themes in his writing. "The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." So it goes with noble ambitions. Let's hope God has a sense of humor.
Or should I say, Let's hope the brand name has a sense of humor.

As I said to you earlier, my two preoccupations in my writing are "What is reality?" and "What is the authentic human?" I'm sure you can see by now that I have not been able to answer the first question. I have an abiding intuition that somehow the world of the Bible is a literally real but veiled landscape, never changing, hidden from our sight, but available to us by revelation. That is all I can come up with -- a mixture of mystical experience, reasoning, and faith. I would like to say something about the traits of the authentic human, though; in this quest I have had more plausible answers.

The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not.

The power of spurious realities battering at us today -- these deliberately manufactured fakes never penetrate to the heart of true human beings. I watch the children watching TV and at first I am afraid of what they are being taught, and then I realize, They can't be corrupted or destroyed. They watch, they listen, they understand, and, then, where and when it is necessary, they reject. There is something enormously powerful in a child's ability to withstand the fraudulent. A child has the clearest eye, the steadiest hand. The hucksters, the promoters, are appealing for the allegiance of these small people in vain. True, the cereal companies may be able to market huge quantities of junk breakfasts; the hamburger and hot dog chains may sell endless numbers of unreal fast-food items to the children, but the deep heart beats firmly, unreached and unreasoned with. A child of today can detect a lie quicker than the wisest adult of two decades ago. When I want to know what is true, I ask my children. They do not ask me; I turn to them.

One day while my son Christopher, who is four, was playing in front of me and his mother, we two adults began discussing the figure of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Christopher turned toward us for an instant and said, "I am a fisherman. I fish for fish." He was playing with a metal lantern which someone had given me, which I had nevel used... and suddenly I realized that the lantern was shaped like a fish. I wonder what thoughts were being placed in my little boy's soul at that moment -- and not placed there by cereal merchants or candy peddlers. "I am a fisherman. I fish for fish." Christopher, at four, had found the sign I did not find until I was forty-five years old.

Time is speeding up. And to what end? Maybe we were told that two thousand years ago. Or maybe it wasn't really that long ago; maybe it is a delusion that so much time has passed. Maybe it was a week ago, or even earlier today. Perhaps time is not only speeding up; perhaps, in addition, it is going to end.

And if it does, the rides at Disneyland are never going to be the same again. Because when time ends, the birds and hippos and lions and deer at Disneyland will no longer be simulations, and, for the first time, a real bird will sing. “

Thank you.

Posted by: Connie at April 3, 2006 05:16 AM

Yeah, Phil Dick's a **trip**...Rev. Tom: you may e-mail me, if you wish, at mcp2012 'at' Y a h o o.com (had to spell it out with those spaces so that the Y a h o o goody-goody demons wouldn't balk...) We can then exchange ph#s; I'd like to speak with you about the project(s).

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 3, 2006 10:14 AM

Four Quick Notes regarding: a) religious pragmatism, b) Gnosticism, c) the role of Judaism, and d) a "show of hands."

1. Regarding MCP2012's agreement that we should approach religion and scripture pragmatically:

I would like to clarify for everybody that religious pragmatism has two inter-related aspects: a) relating to the many millions of people both Christian and Muslim who would otherwise pose a dangerous threat, and b) integrating the gems of truth within their scriptures. Since the unintegrated religious passion of these people is of such obvious danger, the value of item ‘a' is self-evident. The value of item ‘b' springs from the fact that transcendent intelligence really does exist, and that this gestalt universal intelligence uses its hyper-synchronistic power to encode into the monotheistic scriptures the exact pieces of information that we will need to redirect/realign the religious passion of religious fundamentalists, and turn it into a driving force in support of collective enlightenment/apotheosis.

Since the monotheistic scriptures derive in large part from the inspired speeches, entheogenic visions, intra and inter cultural power struggles, and other meanderings of history, it can be difficult to appreciate the true depth of wisdom therein. If we are under the assumption that individual mystical enlightenment and/or "rational logic" reveal everything needed for the unfolding of collective enlightenment/apotheosis, then scripture would be redundant at best. But mystical enlightenment and "rational logic" are both grossly deficient in that they both, in general, deny the reality of true, collective, embodied enlightenment (albeit in equal but opposite ways). Given this, the only way for this crucial information to make it into human culture (without "God" violating the free-will of humans) is for transcendent intelligence to encode it into the passionately embraced scriptures of humanity via hyper-synchronistic means. And as such, Connie's quote of Phillip K. Dick's quote of Xenophanes ("Even if a man should chance to speak the most complete truth, yet he himself does not know it; all things are wrapped in appearances") tells the actual truth of the situation vis a vis the monotheistic scriptures.

In the end we have four coequal means of knowing reality, four coequal areas of mastery, and four coequal gems of truth:

Coequal Means of Knowing Reality:

1. Eco-Pagan: Communication with Nature Spirits.
2. Mystical Pantheism: Meditation and Mindfulness.
3. Monotheistic: The Study of Scripture.
4. Rationalistic Materialism: Logic and Experiment.

Coequal Areas of Mastery:

1. Eco-Pagan: Ecological Integration and Shamanic Pharmacology.
2. Mystical Pantheism: Physical, Mental, and Emotional Self-Mastery.
3. Monotheistic: The Mastery of Self-Replicating Ideology/Meme Sets.
4. Rationalistic Materialism: The Mastery of Industry and Technology.

Coequal Gems of Truth:

1. Eco-Pagan: The Respect of Nature and Embrace of Embodied Life.
2. Mystical Pantheism: The Importance of Silence and Purification.
3. Monotheistic: Appreciating the Reality and Challenge of the Eschaton.
4. Rationalistic Materialism: The Scientific Method.

In the end, we need to embrace all four coequally — for if we do not, we will: a) be playing with less than a full deck, and b) inexorably alienate large portions of the population, and c) give these alienated people the perfect excuse to reject the aspects of knowing, mastery, and truth that other people hold. By contrast, if we include the monotheistic perspective within the full four-fold symmetry — we will be empowered to radically reinterpret the truth of these scriptures, and by this means:

1. Scripturally affirm the cosmic destiny, and direct religious passion away from Armageddon into support of said destiny.
2. Scripturally affirm the use of entheogens in spiritual ritual, and utterly negate all scriptural arguments to the contrary.
3. Trump the issues of abortion and homosexuality by showing that the historic Christian faith is specifically to blame for these phenomena.
4. Show how Muslims can let go of the concept "dhimmi" (i.e. the subjugation of non-Muslims) while at the same time allowing them to "save face."

I know some people think my religious ideas are bizarre. Personally, I think the idea that
we can secure a utopian future without playing these four "trump cards" is sheer lunacy.

2. Regarding Ashanti's question about Gnosticism:

As I see it, the early Christians were originally entheogen using "Gnostics," but of a preternaturally balanced nature who were committed to the full healing and upliftment of the material world as per the core philosophy of Jewish culture. Indeed, some writers have argued that Jeshua, was crucified in large part because he shared the cannabis-based anointing oil and other entheogens with the public far too widely and openly. After the close of the early Christian era (i.e. 70 AD) Christianity rapidly bifurcated into the Gnostics who totally succumbed to mystical escapism/fatalism (i.e. Luciferian delusion), and a shadow Christianity that used placebo sacraments. There is an explanation as to why it bifurcated at this point in history, but it is too involved to go into at this moment. Suffice to say that the shadow version of Christianity merged with the Roman government (under the Emperors Constantine and Justinian), and that the two found common cause in utterly exterminating the Gnostics — to thus clear the way for the eventual emergence of modern scientific materialism, and the Ahrimanic spirit therein.

3. Regarding question of Ashanti and others about the role Judaism:

I offer an eight part answer:

1. Because no religion on the planet has a core philosophy that is more aligned to the dawning of true, collective, embodied enlightenment (and the concomitant unfoldment of a cosmic destiny) than Judaism. And while many Jews are currently agnostics or atheists, I have good reason to believe that the whole of Judaism can be woken up from that state fairly quickly.

2. Because entheogens, communalism, and healthy stewardship, the core aspects of collective enlightenment at the social and ecological levels, are deeply woven into the history and heritage of the Jewish people — and because the Jewish people as a whole are very rapidly reembracing the truth of the Divine Feminine that would allow these heritages to be recovered and integrated.

3. Because the Jews specifically see themselves as the torch-bearers for planetary redemption, and because they themselves have (far above and beyond any other people) put their very lifeblood into the maturing of Western culture. Indeed the Jewish people, a mere 0.25% of the world population have earned/won 22% of all Nobel prizes, not because they are smarter, but because they did the work (indeed they are over-represented by a factor of 88:1).

4. Because the Jewish people have been and are at the very center of banking and commerce. And while many look at this as evil, the emergence of modern banking and commerce has supported the entire fabric of Western culture at both the physical level and the spiritual level — and because their role therein offers us a means of access that would be otherwise impossible.

5. Because the Jewish people collectively have the only large decentralized body of cash that could possibly support the coherent decentralized global-brain that MCP2012 and myself are talking about. There are other ultra-rich entities that we could eventually cut win-win deals with, but we can't possibly expect the Chinese government to support this in its early stages, nor the ultra-rich hard-core atheists that are scattered throughout Western culture.

6. Because the Jews have by far the most to lose in regard to: a) the nation of Israel vis a vis the danger posed by Middle East turmoil, b) their immense savings vis a vis the danger posed by the possibility of catastrophic banking failure, c) their centuries of work in the areas of science and commerce vis a vis the danger posed by eco-fanaticism, and d) their religious and political freedom vis a vis the danger posed by run-amok Christian fundamentalism.

7. Because hyper-holistic analysis posits the Jewish people, as a whole, as being analogous to an "unfertilized" but now mature "egg" within the fertility cycle of Mother Earth — with modern industrial culture being analogous to the fertile uterine lining at the moment of peak fertility.

8. Because the history of the Jewish people (both directly, and indirectly through their role in the development of Western culture) recapitulates the life of Jesus Christ at a detailed level (as per my upcoming file), even to the point of being "crucified" in the holocaust, and "rising from the dead" three years later with the re-creation of the state of Israel. As such it is legitimate to collectively view this nation/religion, as the feminine reflection of Jesus Christ.

From any and all traditional viewpoints, the role of Judaism may seem bizarre. But when we understand that the inclusive, expansive, visionary, hyper-holistic qualities of "psychedelic futurism" carry the Spirit of Jesus Christ/The Enlightened Lord Brahma in its most refined sense, and view modern Judaism as the perfected Feminine reflection of this enlightenment — then it all fits together very nicely (if not erotically/ecstatically). Indeed, this initial union (i.e. Saraswati and Brahma) is what will clear the way for the much deeper union of total collective enlightenment (i.e. Vishnu) and money/capitalism (i.e. Lakshmi) that will unfold in the decades and centuries to come.

And while esoteric Sufism and other teachings have a lot to offer in their areas of specialty, they don't even come close to fitting the above eight items. Indeed, many of these eight items are fulfilled only by Judaism, while by contrast, most other groups fulfill only one or two of these items at best, and even then in only a partial incomplete way.

4. "A Show of Hands:"

I'd like to ask for a show of hands from those who agree with the idea of religious pragmatism (and the hyper-holistic communication therein), and specifically agree that we should use this pragmatism as a means to accomplish the various pragmatic goals that MCP2012 and I have outlined.

I'd also like to ask for a second show of hands from those who are interested in being actively involved in the proposed think-tank.

Sincerely
Reverend Tom

Posted by: Reverend Tom at April 4, 2006 10:29 AM

Count me (of course)--provisionally, tentatively--**IN**. I'm still a bit skittish about the whole religion thing, but the Jewish people are, for the most part, good, well-intentioned people. As I've emphasized before, I think it's imperative that we eventually pull-off a "hard"-translation (almost the same as a "reduction," though I don't view it as at all problematically "reductive"--as in the "nothing-butism" that Arthur Koestler rightly railed against) of most if not all religious memes into hard-science neuro-physical, neuro-pharmachological, entheogenic terms/memes.

It's going be a chore...I also would like us to actually make entreaties toward Mike Anissimov's group (not necessarily to JOIN our Think Tank **per se**), but to reach out to them as respected (even beloved!) fellow-travellers and colleagues. We may be able to, e.g., hold joint-conference, joint-convocations, etc. And this holds true for virtually every other transhumanist group. What I'm advising, iow, is that we "ECUMENTICALLY" reach-out to the "atheists" "physicalists", etc., since I myself am (almost) one of them, and certainly sympathize with many (if not most) of their memes. I just take them a bit further--all the way into Saul-Paul Sirag's monistic/dualist "physicalism" which nonetheless makes plenty of room for consciousness & spirituality!!! So I'd like to ecumenically "turn-on" the (but note the scare-quotes) "physicalists" and "materialists" to hard-core, hard-translation entheogenic memes, neurophysical hyperspatial memes, etc. etc. I should think this should be able to be incorporated into part of "our program..." And another thing...I want us to be able to reach out to Paul Kurtz, Mike Shearmer, et al, in the hard-core materialist/humanist camp. As you can tell I am, indeed, VERY ECUMENICAL!!

And a fairly-good, fairly-lucrative salary for a change--getting paid well to do this labor-of-love--would be (more-or-less literally!) a god-send!

Let's see some more posts with either questions (severe, brutal, take-no-prisoners questions) and/or suggestions...

Love always,

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 4, 2006 02:37 PM

Last two posts were excellant.

Rev. Tom your analysis and presentation of the Coequal means of Knowing Reality, Areas of Mastery, and Gems of Truth was brilliant.
I find myself reading just that passage alone and thinking about the ethics of living, quest for truth, means of survival and development. Within it you find the driving forces of all the actions of our entire history, bar none in my opinion. Reality, mastery, truth. This is the 'big picture' right here, and for all the fact it might be incomplete (probably due to the fact its a one paragraph basis, and not a leather bound novel) am I the only one here who feels that right there, in those few lines, there is the foundation for a new philosophy?

And this is my question to you, Rev. Tom.

You speak at length about Brahmic, Shivic forces, and much much more. Both metaphorically, and also I get the feeling, absolutely. Your point about the Ahrimanic spirit of modern scientific materialism was well received by me. This leads me to two points I wish to make/ask.

1. Taking the Ahrimanic spirit as an example, do you see this as a way of articulating a point, using both deep philosophical implications and obviously spiritual/religious overtones (both of which I am a poor but learning student of) about both human and physical (not ruling out spiritual/religious/conscious related implications in my usage of this word) nature, or do you see irrefutable and undeniable evidence of these entities existing as a unified 'godhead' alongside whatever others may exist (dependant on views) and acting to drive all things alongside, perhaps even above, physical laws.

I articulate poorly, forgive me. I will try to clarify.

My view is that these 'entities' were names given to philosophically identified current or forces within nature, of which nature itself was and is still unidentified. Meaning that their role and place and power and true nature was and is still unknown, but their implications on the world as we witness it, existance as we see it, was contemplated and written and though about.

Conversely the view could be held that these entities transcend nature itself, physical laws, dimensions etc. as opposed to being parts within and of, in essance AS Gods. Leading to, in my view, an instantly corrupted vision if one is looking for 'anything'.

To quote someone whos name I have shamefully forgotton, 'if we are to begin to look for the truth of anything, we must first admit to ourselves we know nothing'.

My second point, and forgive me if this seems arrogant, is that this is not my language. I am 22 years old. I have a lot of catching up to do. I fully intend to, and there seems little more 'point' to existance than experiance and knowledge, but the fact remains I am not an experianced and learned student of history, theology, philosophy, physics and metaphysics, etc. etc. and so on. I am going to struggle to catch onto the finer meanings of much of your work untill such time as I do read/come across in my life those experiances and that knowledge, if you elaborate using things I simply dont 'catch the drift of'.

Now that sucks for me. But there was actually a point to this. I am here of my own accord, fully embracing many of the core veiws (I think) of this site and this community, my interests and motivations and views absolutely collide with those of many peoples here, in that in some ways they are identical but from different directions, and my interests, no my very core, is this 'quest' these ideas, this vision, this existance.

How many people around the world are going to empathise with your views? They, me, will need to understand your views fully. Can you wait untill people like me live your life, or a life of similar learning, for you to be able to approach them? What about those people who do not wish to be approached by you, in any form, do not wished to be approached by anyone, except those who adhere strictly to the same dogma? You might say that im putting forward the idea of their being a 'language barrier'. And these works here need to in someway, eventually maybe, reach all people.

In essance I am saying, perhaps due alone to my own ignorance, that what you wrote above that I have spoken on, is the first trully and absolutely inspirational and definative philosophy of the trully modern day I have read from you. And as such I feel that above and beyond pandering to the 'inconvienences' of modern political/spiritual/religious/economic/etc. whatevers that exist TODAY, that this view of reality, mastery, truth could honestly form the foundation for a work on the human species and existance itself for the perhaps infinate tomorrows.

And to finish my initial question, if I can. You put forward many views of a related, linked, system of spiritual, scientific, religious viewpoints.
I am wondering, based upon your honestly brilliant description of the Coequal means of Knowing Reality, Areas of Mastery, and Gems of Truth, if your viewpoint is philosophical END RESULT of that afore mentioned core, or the tools with which you begin to build upon that core, as I feel for me, and perhaps many others, your answer to this question will determine how we receive or 'show hands' to your indeed awsome work.

Regards Eventhorizen.

And MCP2012. Thank you for echoing in part a bit how I 'feel' towards this current proliferation of ideas and work, as well as writing this :

"Count me (of course)--provisionally, tentatively--**IN**. I'm still a bit skittish about the whole religion thing, but the Jewish people are, for the most part, good, well-intentioned people. As I've emphasized before, I think it's imperative that we eventually pull-off a "hard"-translation (almost the same as a "reduction," though I don't view it as at all problematically "reductive"--as in the "nothing-butism" that Arthur Koestler rightly railed against) of most if not all religious memes into hard-science neuro-physical, neuro-pharmachological, entheogenic terms/memes.

It's going be a chore"

Its going to be awsome, invigorating, decisive, definative, eternal, inspirational, and there is nothing else worth doing.

Posted by: eventhorizen at April 4, 2006 06:13 PM

EventHorizon,

Great questions. I'll get back to you after a good night's sleep.

MCP2012,

I wanted to acknowledge the detailed reading list that you posted. Out of all the things that you listed, I've only read "Food of the Gods."
Once I get caught up a bit on my writing, I'll dive into some of the things you suggested.

> As you can tell I am, indeed, VERY ECUMENICAL!

We are in total sync on this. In fact, I'm starting to call the hyper-holism "hyper-ecumenism" to better convey its ecumenical quality. My feeling is that there are hordes of people who are waiting to rally toward an enlightened hyper-holistic/ecumenical center. The cultural sea change will be a soft-translation for people in the right space, and a very "hard" translation for those who are stubborn.

> I'm still a bit skittish about the whole religion thing

I sort of resonate. Indeed, I'm sending a summary of my "theology" to the archbishop that ordained me that includes entheogenic sacraments, the eschatology of radical bifurcation, hyper-ecumenism, etc. — and asking for his endorsement. My feeling (hope) is that he's far too enlightened to say no.

Re: The Enlightenment of Religion:

For anyone doubting the possibility that religion can be enlightened, check out the book "Love Without End." It's about a record of the conversation a famous portrait painter had with Jeshua/Jesus when he appeared for four months to have his portrait painted. Yeah, yeah, anyone can have a visit from Jesus — but the light in this book is an order of magnitude above anything else one might find in a religious and/or new age bookstore. In fact, it was so bright that this woman is now a full-fledged Bishop (albeit in a very enlightened lineage of Bishops).

Reverend Tom

Posted by: Reverend Tom at April 4, 2006 07:07 PM

Rev. Tom & EventHorizon: Once again, I'm deeply honored for the mention, and, indeed, for having had any influence on your own ruminations.

Paul: What's up?! You're probably busy at the moment. But we (certainly I) miss your running commentary. Hope you-&-family are doing swimmingly.

EventHorizon: Had no idea you're only 22. I thought you were an old bloke like me (wink)! You're pretty well-informed, and certainly thoughtful & impassioned in a rather sophisticated way (or perhaps I should phrase it, to a pleasantly-surprising degree) for someone so young. I'm, of course, very glad you've stuck with us. Your posts always were (and shall be) appreciated by me, as well as others I'm sure.

This is a fascinating, exilarating project we may yet be embarking-on. Hopefully, if Rev. Tom's experiment(s) goes well, we can soon begin broaching--& eventually ironing-out--the details.

Gotta go for now; may post a bit more later tonight or tomorrow.

Be sure to regularly check-out Ray Kurzweil's site for posts from Gardner, Dave Brin, Josh Hall, and many others. The meme-integration/reconciliation has already begun (nascently), and we can help it along...Keep hope & optimism alive, folks...things a lookin' good...

Live long & prosper...

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 4, 2006 09:53 PM

To see what I mean check-out this post and its accompanying comments: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0638.html Innovation is accelerating/converging toward the Singularity. We might see it as soon as 6 years from now. Good ol' Terrence, rest [and eventually reanimate!] his soul, may turn out to be right-on target, date-wise...Interesting...

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 4, 2006 10:04 PM

Thanks very much for answering my questions, Rev Tom. The logic behind your proposals is flawless. In terms of "show of hands", I am out of my league here, and do not believe I will have much of value to offer/contribute since all these ideas are very new to me. Living in South Africa is not really conducive to cutting edge thinking in areas like these. We're mostly trying to just survive the day. But I watch with interest. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

- ashanti

Posted by: ashanti at April 4, 2006 10:09 PM

After following this discussion for a while, I made an attempt to read Rev. Tom's Collective Empowerment PDF from beginning to end with a determined effort to understand it. Based on his posts, I thought that this might be a work which is really worth the effort. I hoped that through his writing I will comprehend his vision and in the end I will also be able to explain it in my own words.

Unfortunately, I did not succeed. The essay seems to be a VERY dense mix of inner visions and revelations which I could not grasp in its entirety. However, my feelings tell me that this material is much better balanced than anything I have ever met/read in my life (on purpose, as its goal is to balance the four paradigms/elements which are by their nature unbalanced and should be so). If only it would be a bit more accessible. :-)

Anyway, I keep digging. Sooner or later I might get it. And then... enlightenment? (perhaps, if this material really leads down to the rabbit hole as it seems to :-)

Posted by: cellux at April 5, 2006 06:42 AM

Well I think that is where the benefit of a think tank comes in. To clarify and modify the vision.

Posted by: Brian at April 5, 2006 08:24 PM

So what's next? How do we properly begin?

Posted by: Upwinger at April 6, 2006 11:25 AM

Brian & Upwinger (especially YOU, Upwinger [wink]): 'bout time you guys chimed-in. I'm still curious as to where Paul is--takin' care o' business, I expect! Paul, we love ya, Kid-O! Would love more input from you on this project at your earliest convenience...

As to your question, Upwinger, Rev. Tom & I are scheduled to have a telephonic brainstorming session in about an hour...I'm sure Rev. Tom (and/or Paul, when he resurfaces...) will announce some stuff soon. We're gonna take it, not (necessarily) so much "slowly" (trust me, guys & gals, no one wants to get this gig on the road more than moi, and the sooner the better...), but ***methodically***. We're gonna make sure that all the proper "t's" are crossed and "i's" dotted, as well as the relevant ducks in a row, so this thing'll launch properly and be sustained/sustainable properly...stay tuned. And, of course, btw, anyone can contact Rev. Tom on their own initiative: He's an amiable, bright fellow, house-trained and **everythin'**...doesn't even *bite* (unless called-for...) WINK!

Love always...

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 6, 2006 05:04 PM

Upwinger,

I'll make a post over the weekend about some possible ways we could get this think-tank off the ground.

----------------------

Cellux,

About the web-site: http://www.thenewcall.org

> they have a forum for the inner circle, to which I could not subscribe because their leader wrote me that
> based on the contents of my communication I did not seem to be mature enough to join. how unfortunate

The place looks very enlightened on the surface. But when I examined their web-site, I found this:

The physical plane of the Earth in the future will be barren of biological life-forms, rather like the other planets in our solar system are today, for the life-streams on these other globes have long ago ascended into higher dimensions. For example, the whole race on Venus went to 4D millions of years ago.

This is Luciferian delusion at its absolute worst. This little belief system might seem innocuous, were it not for the fact that the law of "equal but opposite reaction" applies to the spiritual realm too. As a result, every person who succumbs to this type of escapist claptrap will be balanced in society by a hard-nosed atheist whose only ambitions are money, power, and control. So I would say that we are all quite fortunate that they didn't let you join the inner circle. And on another page of their web-site, I found:

The third brotherhood went to the West and established what is today called 'The Western Occult Tradition'. This has manifested most recently in the work of the Theosophical Society, Djwhal Khul's teachings through Alice Bailey, the Agni Yoga of the Roerichs and, of course, the pure Gnosis. This aspect was the highest-level presentation of Truth to humanity. It is this tradition, handed down through the ages by initiates of the planetary Christ Hierarchy in secret, and just today the seed is about to bloom and give rise to an even higher presentation of the Universal Wisdom.

Strange how this same group of names keeps turning up in and around these utterly deluded teachings.

> After following this discussion for a while, I made an attempt to read Rev. Tom's Collective Empowerment PDF from beginning to end
> with a determined effort to understand it. Based on his posts, I thought that this might be a work which is really worth the effort. I hoped that
> through his writing I will comprehend his vision and in the end I will also be able to explain it in my own words.
>
> Unfortunately, I did not succeed. The essay seems to be a VERY dense mix of inner visions and revelations which I could not grasp in its entirety.
> However, my feelings tell me that this material is much better balanced than anything I have ever met/read in my life (on purpose, as its goal is to
> balance the four paradigms/elements which are by their nature unbalanced and should be so). If only it would be a bit more accessible. :-)

I would suggest starting with the most basic aspects of my vision, and meditating on these. I am sorry that I have not been able to convey it to you better, but I am having more success conveying it over the Internet than I expected. In the end, our minds are not nearly as independent as we think (especially when entheogens are tightly restricted), but are highly influenced by the subtle energy fields of society. And since this vision is so radical, this influence does pose a temporary challenge. I strongly suspect that this vision will be much more easily conveyed when intentional communities start embodying said vision in a coherent way, and offering rituals that support it at the energetic level. See my answer to EventHorizon for more.

----------------------

EventHorizon,

> You speak at length about Brahmic, Shivic forces, and much much more. Both metaphorically, and also I get the feeling, absolutely. Your
> point about the Ahrimanic spirit of modern scientific materialism was well received by me. This leads me to two points I wish to make/ask.
>
> 1. Taking the Ahrimanic spirit as an example, do you see this as a way of articulating a point, using both deep philosophical implications and....
>
> My view is that these 'entities' were names given to philosophically identified current or forces within nature, of which nature
> itself was and is still unidentified. Meaning that their role and place and power and true nature was and is still unknown, but their
> implications on the world as we witness it, existance as we see it, was contemplated and written and though about.
>
> Conversely the view could be held that these entities transcend nature itself, physical laws, dimensions etc. as opposed to being
> parts within and of, in essance AS Gods. Leading to, in my view, an instantly corrupted vision if one is looking for 'anything'.

The Vedic sages experienced these "entities" in their subjective mystical experiences. They thought they were looking at gods. As far as I can tell they were looking at archetypal forces within the very fabric of human culture. There insights are ultimately as crucial as the material science, but are every bit as distorted/deluded as scientific-materialism is. The Vedic sages never saw the archetypal spirit of their own religion, nor that of scientific-materialism. As far as I can tell, Rudolph Steiner was the first person to see clearly into this area when he formulated his ideas about the equal but opposite natures of Lucifer and Ahriman. After lengthy reflection, I've concluded that "Lucifer" is nothing more, nor less, than raw higher-dimensional chaos, and Ahriman is the high-dimensional black-hole that said chaos collapses into (with both forces being deeply entangled with the structure of human culture vis a vis Hinduism and Scientific-Materialism).

> My second point, and forgive me if this seems arrogant, is that this is not my language. I am 22 years old. I have a lot of
> catching up to do. I fully intend to, and there seems little more 'point' to existance than experiance and knowledge, but the
> fact remains I am not an experianced and learned student of history, theology, philosophy, physics and metaphysics, etc.
> etc. and so on. I am going to struggle to catch onto the finer meanings of much of your work untill such time as I do read/
> come across in my life those experiances and that knowledge, if you elaborate using things I simply dont 'catch the drift of'.

You are catching on quite quickly, and I must complement you on your open-mindedness. Indeed, many people
my age (49) are closed to new ideas and new philosophies, so your youth may be quite fortunate. (In fact, I've
heard that close-mindedness is actually one of the main causes of death at the spiritual level, and I tend to agree.)

> How many people around the world are going to empathise with your views? They, me, will need to understand your views fully. Can you
> wait untill people like me live your life, or a life of similar learning, for you to be able to approach them?

When the energy of this transformed way of life begins cohering, people will pick it up easier and easier. Beyond that, the ideas of hyper-ecumenism and holographic libertarianism have a lot of power. It may seem unthinkable now, but in any truly healthy scenario, it will only be a matter of time before the basics of these are taught in school from the very youngest ages.

> What about those people who do not wish to be approached by you, in any form, do not wished to be approached
> by anyone, except those who adhere strictly to the same dogma? You might say that im putting forward the idea of
> their being a 'language barrier'. And these works here need to in someway, eventually maybe, reach all people.
>
> ...that this view of reality, mastery, truth could honestly form the foundation for a work
> on the human species and existance itself for the perhaps infinate tomorrows.

This is a very serious issue. To some extent, hyper-ecumenism will overcome these language barriers, for it specifically engages the "language" that people use, and honors both the truth tests that people will demand, and the gems of truth that they hold. Beyond that, the most critical issue will be to cultivate every ally that we can who will support our demands for "religious" and entheogenic freedom, and absolutely not take no for an answer. If we can accomplish that, this bridging/unifying work will eventually become available to, and sought after, by the majority of people — both in its intellectual form, and in its deeper energetic form as it becomes embodied in the intentional communities of the future.

> I am wondering, based upon your honestly brilliant description of the Coequal means of Knowing Reality,
> Areas of Mastery, and Gems of Truth, if your viewpoint is philosophical END RESULT of that afore
> mentioned core, or the tools with which you begin to build upon that core

The universe has infinite ontological depth. What we have is a foundation/core for moving on to the next higher level of evolution. As time goes by, it is inevitable that we and our descendants will build an immense edifice upon this core. And as the eons unfold, our descendants will begin struggling with the fact that this entire edifice has a Hegelian antithesis that will need to be integrated pursuant to an even high-level of evolution. And since God/Allah is utterly beyond all finite levels of dimensionality, there will never be a true "END RESULT," just the ever-increasing vibrancy and majesty that will occur as evolution unfolds into the infinite depth of Embodied Life.

Sincerely,
Reverend Tom

P.S. Paul's indisposed with the "moving blues." I'm sure he surface shortly.

Posted by: Reverend Tom at April 6, 2006 05:28 PM

Very interesting last paragraph. I'm not sure if my questions will pull this post off-topic, apologies if it does.

I might be opening myself up for some tremendous flak, but you claim:

>The universe has infinite ontological depth.

To which I ask, does it? In order for it to have infinate ontological depth there must be present something that is infinate, otherwise you are 'multiplying' the finite, which can lead to 'very large numbers' but never infinity. Even if you look at things like ecology from the level of chemistry you cannot reach infinity.

Which leaves in my mind only two options, infinity in consciousness, and infinity in physical structure/processes. While arguements could be made for both, infinity in physical structure/process, or infinity in consciousness, counter arguements could be made that infinity does not actually exist beyond a concept. Even if it does exist as a concept, that concept itself is a single 'thing' and so you will never reach infinate ontological depth unless infinity is present 'somewhere'. You could claim quantum mechanics could provide this, but again it could be claimed that quantum mechanics can only produce the finite. I can understand why you make that claim, but I personally am 'not sure' if it is true.

Also, aside from the depth and complexity of existance which your statement is clearly intended to portray, there is also the possible implication that all things are infinate. Infact your statement could read that 'existance' is infinate. Now while I have not followed your path, I have done enough 'meditation' to know that an infinate existance is a thing with utterly immense/fundamental/staggering implications, to the entire question of existance itself.

This may not be the place for such a discussion though.

>What we have is a foundation/core for moving on to the next higher level of evolution.

Absolutely and trully. Inspite of all opposition and/or disagreement with the hows and the whys, this is the complete core of the race as a whole. Whether we extinguish slowly all other life on this planet or not, things/us are, have and always will change. We can give the rudder to 'fate', or we can step up and take control of it. Infact here we are, having been given this chance to actually determine our own fates. To craft that which is around us, to craft ourselves, and to direct the future. Has it not been the point of every form of society that has ever existed, from the lowest animallian societies, to anticipate the future, to deal with future trouble? It seems to me that you can link fish that shoal to good old Julius Caesar, the attempt to anticipate the future, actions in the face of the future. Though the motives and the knowledge and the vision change and are distorted and different, the core remains the same. Here we are, we can craft our dreams, we can bring substance to that hazy foggy view of far downstream. But dont kid yourself, the world we create in ignorance or intelligence WILL be the world we evolve in. We will change to our surroundings as our surroundings change, this is truth.

>And as the eons unfold, our descendants will begin struggling with the fact that this entire edifice has a Hegelian antithesis
>that will need to be integrated pursuant to an even high-level of evolution.

Thanks for that, I spent a couple of hours reading about this concept, and Hegel. Ill be getting some of his books.

>And since God/Allah is utterly beyond all finite levels of dimensionality, there will never be a true "END RESULT,"
>just the ever-increasing vibrancy and majesty that will occur as evolution unfolds into the infinite depth of Embodied Life.

I do not discount the possibility of God/Allah, I do not reject much of the gnostic views (I may be wrong in interpreting them), I do not deny the idea that God/Allah may exist due to their existance as concepts, I have been down that road slightly in my own thinking before coming across that view, but the fact is I have not 'found' God, though I have not lost Him either. God to me remains an unanswered question, tied into the unanswered question of existance and so on. I have held the view for a while now that anyone who tells me they have found God, or an answer to existance, is someone who has given up the question. If you say to me 'look out, and think on the puzzle, is that not evidence enough for God' I cant argue you are wrong, but you cant argue you are right either. Thats my view. I am not sceptical of Gods existance, I am sceptical of people knowing He exists.

Posted by: eventhorizen at April 8, 2006 12:08 AM

Thinking about God is problematic because God "is" beyond the dualistic logic we apply when we think. Actually, it would be more correct to say that God does NOT exist, because existence can be attributed only to things of the world and God is beyond the world.

Even when science will understand the entire universe and we can claim that there is nothing else left to be discovered and understood, God will still be invisible.

Posted by: cellux at April 8, 2006 01:16 AM

On the other hand, I accept it as fact (although I cannot explain it) that God can manifest in worldly phenomena. According to my experience, the way this works is that an object in the world - like a tree or a human being - perceived through the human senses seems to acquire "heavenly" qualities (by "heavenly" I mean qualities like perfection, harmony, beauty, completeness, sacredness, etc.) It is as if God would enter into our sensing process and make us see the world through "heavenly eyes".

The experience of God comes indirectly, by reflecting on the perfect attributes of the perceived phenomena. This reflection has such a power that it can somehow "melt" the heart (dissolve the blocks which keep us in the usual mode of fear-based denial) and that makes the experience of God possible.

Posted by: cellux at April 8, 2006 02:02 AM

So someone comes up with a conceptual answer to all your questions that cannot be challenged, and you 'know' it is the truth.

You know Cellux, I too experiance 'God' in my life, when I see certain things, or think certain things.
But that does not stop me standing up to Him and questioning Him.

But you dont even say 'consider God in your questioning, in your life', you tell me irrefutably that God is the base truth.

You cant know. Thats my point. Yet you claim you do.

I am not denying God. You are denying the possibility of other options. I am not subject to fear based denial, quite the contrary, my lack of understanding and lack of 'answers' has not driven me into the arms of some entity 99% of mankind does not even comprehend the implications of.

>Even when science will understand the entire universe and we can claim that there is nothing else left to be discovered and understood,
>God will still be invisible.

If the entire Universe/Existance is understood then God will not be invisible. Thats kind of the point.

The problem I have is with people not understanding, and then refusing to analyse the implications of not understanding, and using it as absolute proof of the existance or non-existance of God. (existance and non-existance, sounds like something I wrote about in the forums that no-one was interested in).

If existance is understood, the valid point could be made that God is a non-entity, has no influence, has no bearing. The valid point could be made that the question is STILL relevant. But the statements that there is or is not a God are not relevant. They come from the inability to formulate arguements or contemplate the question, combined with personal issues.

>On the other hand, I accept it as fact (although I cannot explain it) that God can manifest in worldly phenomena.

You accept it as fact because you believe it to be fact, because you want it to be fact. That is why you accept it as fact, when in the truest sense of the word it is not fact, it is a disputable unproveable point of view. That it is fact to you, that it is proof to you means what? Each of us is aware of the 'issues' and influences that can be and are present in internal dialogue.

The whole concept of God has become tainted by the continual demands of 'those who believe' that God cannot be subject in any way to any kind of inquiry and thought process. Which means ultimatly that God/Allah must be REMOVED from discussions such as these, untill such time as we DO know and understand all of Existance, and can then return, if we wish, to that question. Because currently God is simply a matter of FAITH nothing more, and as such has no place in discussions such as these, as demanded by your own arguements.

The simple fact that you wont consider God, that you wont entertain the idea of 'personal ignorance or proof of God', that you wont consider God when God appears in an honest manner, as an actual entity or the construct of a mind, means that anywhere God appears in these discussions, in any discussion, the entire discussion is destroyed as a process of observance of options, of observance of possibilities, of observance of potential influences/outcomes.

To rephrase, when you witness the emergance of philosophical options, and one of those options is God, it is clear that for no logical reason other than personal belief, all other options are going to rejected. This means that discussions containing the concept God cannot proceed in a mature or intelligent manner.

Therefore, and I address this to Rev. Tom. I implore you to remove God from your works.

Posted by: eventhorizen at April 8, 2006 10:41 AM

"God" may be difficult to eliminate from Rev. Tom's strategy. However, if we can redefine God in an evoutionary panentheistic sense (which I think may be doable--so doable as to create even a "detente" with secular humanist/atheists [with whom I'm very sympathetic, btw])...That is God is Mind, when Mind as evolved to encompass the entire Multiverse/MetaCosmos, i.e., when a Meta-Cosmic MIND has reached full fruition (which itself, as Rev. Tom suggests, may itself be a sort of asymptote...)

GOD is what MIND is/becomes when it evolves/develops beyond **human** comprehension. MIND is about to launch out into the Multiverse--and transform it completely.

***WE*** are the catalysts...(it's a thankless job...but someone's gotta do it...[wink])

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 8, 2006 03:41 PM

When I'm talking about God, I intend to share a personal revelation of mine. I do this because the discovery of God was the greatest and most inspiring thing that happened in the 30 years of my life and I feel obliged to share my feelings, gratitude and awe regarding this discovery in every way imaginable. I believe that this is not a vain attempt because of another deep conviction: that the core of my subjective God-experience is common in all humanity. And I dare to intersperse my entirely subjective rants on God with rational (or seemingly rational :-) arguments because I believe that the way we experience God through the heart is an antithesis to the rational, mind-focused discussion you are interested in and I feel that at least a mention of the heart- and faith-based, intuitive way is necessary to keep the balance.

> You cant know. Thats my point. Yet you claim you do.

How about this statement: I subjectively know (1. believe, have faith in) that God is the base truth, but I objectively do not know (2. cannot prove, cannot argue for or against) this. If I understand correctly, your problem is that in a discussion which is based on the second meaning of "know" there is no place for "knowledge" of the first kind because such mixing "destroys" the possibilities of advancing the thought processes associated with the second kind of "knowing". With this I sort of agree, with one comment: if the participants of such a discussion are aware of God but choose not to mention Him in the discussion in order to keep the mental process clean, that's much better (actually that's the best way to do science in my opinion) than if they are unaware or even deny God's "existence". The reason I think this is again a personal belief that if those who participate in a mental process believe in God (in the background) then this will have a hidden beneficial influence on the decisions they make at every step of the thought process and this will help them find the Truth. Explaining it from another angle: the faith in God can give an "energy boost" to the thought process and can make it cut through not only the difficult problems but even the inevitable paradoxes at the end of the thought train, with which the exclusively mentally focused attitude cannot do anything and therefore usually does not even recognize them as what they are: gateways/portals opening to the Ineffable.

> I am not denying God. You are denying the possibility of other options.

In my point of view God is not one of the options but that which makes the options possible. Therefore for me there is nothing to accept and nothing to deny, regarding God. I think the problem is again the intermix of the two meanings of "know". If I said "God exists" with the second kind of "know", then I would be a fundamentalist who would possibly even wage war in protection of this belief and whom you'd be right to reject.

> If the entire Universe/Existance is understood then God will not be invisible. Thats kind of the point.

God is a subjective experience which cannot be objectively validated. That's why I say what I say. Atheists will always exist, because they are needed to keep the balance.

Posted by: cellux at April 8, 2006 05:25 PM

I can't emphasize enough the supreme importance of James Gardner's excellent book, *BIOCOSM*. It leaves "intelligent design" in the dust. It provides the background/backdrop for any evolutionary/developmental panentheism. John Smart, as I've mentioned before, plumps for a version of what he calls deism. I'm sympathetic to his argument/position, but think that panentheism captures the basic metaphysics a bit better. This might even be a panentheism that "atheists" such as George Smith, Mike Martin, Quentin Smith, *et al* could, if not fully embrace themselves, then at least accept a *friendly*, mexican-standoff *detente* with respect toward. (And, again, let me reiterate the tremendous respect I have for those three guys and their work--very important & worth reading...!!)

Gardner's *BIOCOSM* is the perfect companion read for Kurzweil's *Singularity is Near*...

FNORD! (wink)

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 8, 2006 06:12 PM

EventHorizon, Cellux, MCP2012,

This is a good discussion, re the existence of God, and it is very closely related to EventHorizon's question about the infinite ontological depth of Reality. This infinite depth is directly implied by the fact Hegelian principles apply to the formal functioning of causation in a time-symmetric reality. It can not be formally proven however, because one can always declare Reality to be inconsistent with itself. I even encountered one atheistic fundamentalist who was so utterly opposed to the idea of God, that he said he would deny the self-consistency of Reality itself rather than admit to the existence of anything even remotely like God. If a person wants to deny the self-consistency of Reality, that is his prerogative, but common experience tells us that we will not survive long in this world if we do not heed the this self-consistency.

Assuming we do agree that Reality is self-consistent, then at the far side of the infinite regress that must necessarily exist, is the panentheistic God that MCP2012 mentioned. And although the proof is to involved too go into here, if we assume that Reality is self-consistent, it can be shown that an utterly beneficent gestalt intelligence permeates the multiverse as a whole, and that this intelligence possesses the eight divine qualities that might typically be attributed to the God of religious monotheism, i.e: a) self-generation, b) eternalness, c) ontological supremacy, d) omnipresence, e) omniscience, f) omnipotence, g) omni-beneficence, and h) "near-infinite patience."

EventHorizon, I can understand that the words God and Allah come with a lot of baggage, and as such I can understand the point of dumping these words, especially when they are used as a lumpen tool for the truncating of discussion. The elimination of the words, however, does not eliminate the gestalt panentheistic intelligence that must necessarily exist within a self-consistent Reality. And if we do not replace the word, we will not be playing with a full deck, since the word "God" does indeed represent this intelligence. And since we will have to relate to the religious monotheists in any effective quest to heal/improve this world, it seems like a poor use of our energy to redefine the word God, when we already have the much larger task of radically redefining their religious doctrine. I do however appreciate your concerns about the baggage attached to these words.

Cellux, you made a real good point too about the difference between subjective knowing, and objective knowing. One of the basic principles of hyper-ecumenism is that we must honor both forms of knowing, within their proper bounds. Likewise we need to be aware that they each fall short in a specific way. The subjective knowing that one can feel to the core of one's being always runs the risk of being deluded in some way, such that one might become utterly captive to said delusion. By contrast, objective knowing can never be absolute, for it will always be based on some kind of premises or axioms which are utterly unprovable (as per Godel). In this regard, I feel the best course of action is to play one form of knowing off against the other, and by this means make slow but steady progress into the infinite ontological depth of Reality.

Sincerely,
Rev. Tom

P.S. I'm a bit behind in my work. I'll get back to the think-tank stuff next week

Posted by: Reverend Tom at April 8, 2006 06:35 PM

Rev. Tom (and Cellux & EventHorizon): We can posit an intelligence which permeates hyperspacetime. I think Saul-Paul Sirag's work supports this. However, there ARE nonetheless severe **logical** (i.e., conceptually-*inherent*) *problems* with "d) omnipresence, e) omniscience, f) omnipotence, g) omni-beneficence", as has been demonstrated more-or-less conclusively by philosopher Michael Martin in his **Atheism: A Philosophical Justification** (Temple Univ. Pr., 1992) and in Michael Martin (Editor)& Ricki Monnier (Editor), **The Impossibility of God** (Prometheus Books, December 2003).

My panentheistic theology is very ***naturalistic***, evolutionary, and developmental. It has similarities to Tipler's stuff (see his **Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead**), but is MOST in-line, again, with James Gardner's truly outstanding **BIOCOSM**, as well as the work of John Smart, at his webstie www.singularitywatch.com & www.accelerationwatch.com (same website, two different names).

In linear time--and this is akin to Terrence McKenna's stuff as well--MIND is manifesting more & more in not only this particular Minkowskian spacetime, but in **ALL** the spacetime continua of the MULTIVERSE. Humankind plays a crucial, pivotal role is the life-cycle (replication) of, not only the Cosmos, but the MetaCosmos, i.e., that n-dimensional hyperspatial matrix which is permeated by ***evolving*** consciousness/intelligence/mind. And this is not just "New Age" puff & blather. This is **cutting-edge** quantum-cosmology. While I'm sure we can reconcile our differences (which may to some extent be mere superficial semantics), and while we're NO-DOUBT **kindred spirits**, it may still be that Rev. Tom & I are of slightly different positions regarding even a revamping of theology, much less conventional theology.

The interesting thing about Rev. Tom, however, is that he is very well-versed (I dare say, in most respects, much, much better than I!!) in science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)and scientific method. Which is why I strongly recommend, Rev. Tom, that you read & integrate into your thoughts, the work of James Gardner's **BIOCOSM**, as well as that of John Smart's work at accelerationwatch.com.

The reason I call my position "Taoist evolutionary panentheism" is that, like Pannenberg (and perhaps Hartshorne to some extent), I see hyperspatial "G.O.D." (from Gary Schwartz, but I modify it thus: "Guiding, Ordering, Developmental" Cosmic Protocols) protocols as that which is evolving so as to culminate in a Cosmic, indeed MetaCosmic, MIND of almost incomprehensible power-&-depth--"God" (but note the scare-quotes) by any other name. But it is LIFE and (currently human) MIND that, via **technology**, eventually exquisitely *ephemeral* technology, that will instantiate this God-like, MetaCosmic MIND. AND ***WE***, DEAR COLLEAGUES, ARE THE CATALYSTS NOW FOR THIS PROCESS...SO LET US BEGIN...

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 8, 2006 07:36 PM

Also importnat, if one is to play the "Christ" semantic game (and I use the term "game" not perjoratively, but merely descriptively in combo Wittgensteinian/Bernean/VonNeuman-Morganstern sense...) is Jim Marion's important & interesting book, **Putting on the Mind of Christ: The Inner Work of Christian Spirituality** (Hampton Roads Pub Co Inc, October 2002). It may be a bit too "Catholic-y" for some folks' taste, but it does have so interesting stuff--especially, again, if one is going to play the "Christ" semantic game...

Posted by: MCP2012 at April 8, 2006 07:50 PM

catalogood

Posted by: Gvadelup at April 14, 2006 05:37 AM

Nice site...look now

Posted by: Ferrer at April 14, 2006 06:04 AM

amiloride-5ity.blogspot.com

Posted by: Flek at April 16, 2006 08:53 AM