Aww...You have to buy it? :(

Deconstructing the timewave function: Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucination --

Terence [McKenna] and I had four lengthy, good natured, and most enjoyable discussions during the week I was in Palenque, and I was able to explain my critique step-by-step. By the final discussion he seemed to have fully grasped the nature of the problem, and had admitted that the theory appeared to have "no basis in rational thought". He claimed (and this struck me as sincere) that he was only interested in the truth, and that someone "disproving" the theory was just as a much of a relief to him as someone confirming its validity. He proposed that we collaborate on a piece provisionally entitled "Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucination" in which we would carefully take the theory apart and see what had gone wrong. He claimed that I was the first person to approach him with a serious mathematical critique of his ideas, partly explaining why such an unjustifiable theory had not only survived for so long, but also attracted so much interest and attention.

Terrance intended this program for anyone to create their own mapping. As I understand it, you can map any set of historical events, to which you add an estimate of "novelty" (times of abrupt change), and then remap it at any timescale onto another timeline that includes the future. If there is fractal self-similarity, then this could provide a way of predicting the future.

Of course, since there are almost an infinite number of important historical events, the mapping you choose is really just your own model of the world, not an "objective" one.

But that's what's so cool about the software.

Terrance had originally worked with the program and discovered a "concrescence of novelty" in the late 80's (1987? I can't remember the exact date). This corresponded to the time he moved to the Big Island of Hawaii, partly to be safe from this perceived threat. Of course, the date he picked came and went without anything of note happening. Then a bit later, he changed the date to 2012. My friends challenged him on this and he laughed and said “Well, at least I'll be retired by 2012”.

One thing I've noticed is that people who predict the impending end of the world, seem to die soon thereafter. For example, I saw a lecture by the Russian director Andre Tarkovsky in the early 80's who was very concerned that a nuclear war was imminent. I later found out that he died of cancer within 3 years, even though he was only 54. Terrance didn’t even make it to 2012, also dying fairly young.

Could it be that people are confusing their own death with the death of the world?

The idea of wishing for apocalypse is rather funny, but you can make an argument that people interested in the "end times" and the "singularity" actually wish for the breakdown of society, though they might not want to admit it.

Highly idealistic people can be frustrated by the wide gulf between the ideal world that they can imagine and what they perceive as the dismal and mundane reality of the everyday world. Deep down they hope that the end of the world would relieve this frustration and possibly give birth to a new beautiful reality, although, in truth, if society breaks down, life will probably become extremely unpleasant --- quite different from their romantic vision of the “end times”

Another appeal of religious apocalypse is the idea of being among the chosen people, who survive while the masses die like flies, usually by virtue of their superior spiritual advancement. Who wouldn’t love to feel like a member of the Chosen Tribe which ushers in a new world?

I had suspected that some people on FutureHi have this strong eschatological desire and recently, seeing how positively people have responded to an almost purely religious conception of the "end times", my suspicions have been somewhat confirmed.

I hope to be able to help people overcome this kind of projected ego-death-wish. While there are certainly risks in the world, I believe that a systematic examination of the dangers demonstrates that in all likelihood our culture will survive and prosper. The book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" attempts to examine the entire globe from this perspective and the results are quite encouraging.

In fact I believe that a good case can be made that there are inexorable structural changes occurring in the world now which virtually guarantee a beautiful and enchanting future.

Anyone with the courage to envision can have a huge impact on the future in this amazingly fertile moment in history.

Cheers,
Dlight

As far as I know, the whole Christian tradition is based on this duality: the denouncement of the world and the waiting for the apocalypse - the second coming of Christ. If you are right, then the whole Christian tradition must be questioned (or reinterpreted, as Rev. Tom suggests).

Personally, I think you will have a difficult task when you want to "help them overcome this kind of projected ego-death-wish" because this death wish seems to be rooted in the death/rebirth archetype which is a universal phenomenon, manifesting not only in the Christian belief system, but also in such basic processes as the life cycles of nature. Actually, the whole world process could be cited as proof that it is not irrational to think like that.

The work of Stanislav Grof and others in the field of psychedelic psychotherapy also proves that this archetype is quite common. Passing through the "no exit" phase, "the black hole at the end of the universe" is the cornerstone of the psychedelic process. Psychedelic psychotherapy - as practiced in the US - concentrated its efforts almost entirely on developing ways to achieve this break-through because it became evident for the doctors that the sudden miraculous healing of their patients correlated highly with the incidence of the death/rebirth experience.

(Actually, from this it may follow that you are right: I can imagine that those who go through their psychological death and rebirth are not attached any more to eschatological desires because a) they can identify the root of these desires in their own death wish and b) they have dissolved their own death wish by satisfying this desire without dying physically. If this is so, then I'm afraid to tell that 99% of humanity is still in the disease and that one of the most important things to do would be to come up with the "perfect method" to lead anyone through the death/rebirth experience. Up to now, no-one succeeded.)

it seems oddly anti-novelty that you have the pay for this software. i'm a little disappointed.

Two of the most revolutionary ideas in the area of mystical philosophy both occurred in the late 20th century via the persons of Phillip K. Dick, and Terence McKenna. After millennia of mystical philosophers chanting the lumpen mantra "time is an illusion," Phillip K. Dick told us what was behind the illusion when he said that: a) causation is symmetrically bidirectional in that the future can influence the present and/or change the past, b) God is ultimately in control of this retrocausal influence, and c) changes to the past result in leaps to parallel timelines. Likewise Terence McKenna made a further breakthrough when he said that "time" has a fractal quality to it. The logic of time-symmetric thermodynamics unambiguously confirms what Phillip K. Dick said. Terence McKenna may have failed to accurately characterize the fractal aspects of time, but since the entire hyper-dimensional structure of time-symmetric Reality is "fractal holographic," it is a given that fractal phenomena will be embedded in the very fabric of time.

Dlight also made a number of good points about religious apocalyptism, the frustration of "highly idealistic people," and the spiritual egoism inherent to the "superior spiritual advancement" of a "chosen people." It is a good analysis of phenomena that are obviously present within the social and ideological realms. We should note however, that denial of apocalypse, Eschaton, or radical bifurcation is logically contingent on the simple flat linearity of "time," and that the absolute denial of such is not logically tenable in the presence of retrocausation, and/or fractal embeddings within the structure of time.

In addition, the ontological coequality and inherent entanglement of objective and subjective reality makes the "projected ego-death-wish"(es) of society causally significant vis a vis the unfoldment of an apocalyptic scenario. So while the material presented in the "The Skeptical Environmentalist" may be quite encouraging on the one hand, it does us little good if things like the global warming hysteria are at root an attempt to defeat the "powers that be" via the mechanism of an economic suicide and/or self-created apocalypse. We don't need an angry God to do us in, we humans are quite capable of doing ourselves in. And I would further maintain that there are many people within the throes of religious and ecological passion, who are so despairing over the present state of humanity/society that they are indeed contemplating collective suicide (even if this contemplation is subconscious for the most part). So yes Dlight, I really honor your optimism and upbeat spirit. However, I would posit that optimism (based on God) and a stone-cold sober view of Reality is what will best assure our survival, and best secure the destiny that we desire.

Lastly, the ontological coequality of objective reality and subjective reality, also correlates to the the wisdom of the East being more significant that we in the West generally credit. Given this, the possibility that the I-Ching may reflect a fractal embedding in time is not so easily dismissed. There is no guarantee that Terence got much if anything right in his attempt to develop this possible insight. But his basic insight may well turn out to be valid, and until we have a hyper-holistic science far in advance of anything that currently exists, we will have no way to know for sure.

Sincerely,
Rev. Tom

Cellux, Thanks for bringing up Stanislov Grof, he's one of my heroes. I've studied his work extensively, he's definitely one of the most advanced thinkers in the realm of psychology and spirituality. For those who don't know, he was the world's foremost LSD psychotherapy researcher starting in the 1950's, well before it became illegal. As a result of his research, he developed an amazing cartography of the psyche, and an incredible understanding of the structure of trauma which is stunning in its depth and therapeutic effectiveness.

In your last paragraph, you do get my point. The trick is to avoid confusing personal ego death with societal apocalypse. They're two completely different things. The more that someone has the death/rebirth archetype activated (because of the emergence of a psychological trauma), the more likely it is that they might project their feelings onto the world and feel certain that the world is ending.

When you do strong forms of therapy to release the grip of this archetype, what you though was a problem "out there" in the world, often suddenly disappears. It then becomes obvious that the problem was actually internal. But if you never do deep forms of therapy, it’s much harder to disentangle our inner and outer worlds.

My friends and I do a form of deep non-verbal therapy similar to primal therapy where someone uses their voice to release deeply buried emotions, usually for hours at a time.

You can go into a session deeply depressed, sure that the world is headed down the toilet, navigate into the inner recesses of your mind for a several hours and by the end you're stunned by the creative possibilities that you have discovered, and the heaven-like nature of the world you find yourself re-entering.

This work is so simple and the effects are so reliable, that after awhile you begin to realize that the vast majority of perceived problems originate inside yourself, not "out there".

I'm not meaning to promote this type of therapy with these remarks, but simply want to illustrate that there is an experimental proof that one can use to demonstrate the extraordinary degree that our unresolved emotions color our perception of the world.

The bifurcation is INSIDE and we have full control over its direction if we use the appropriate therapeutic technologies.

Also I don’t feel that it’s necessary for everyone to do this practice or agree on any particular set of beliefs. This kind of work is so powerful that you only need to focus on your personal healing and assisting those in your immediate network, your tribe. It creates a vortex of personal and tribal power which reminds us that whatever we envision is possible, and eliminates the fear of the older systems (like government) which are gradually being rendered obsolete.

I had thought that FutureHi was capable of maintaining this degree of confidence and optimism, but now that I see so many here getting sidetracked by religious concepts, which I feel will only make our message more cryptic and esoteric, and also watching people cling so dearly to apocalyptic fantasies, I’m starting to have my doubts. But I’m not giving up yet!

Cheers,
D

For the sake of documenting the possible connection between psychotherapy and magic, I'd like to take what you said to the extreme.

In one of my world models the entire world is considered as a projection of our collective consciousness. What we see outside is determined (partially or entirely - I prefer the latter) by our psychological make-up. (This is a complete antithesis of the usual scientific world model in which the external objects are considered real and the human psyche is understood as a secondary effect of these external causes.)

It is easy to come up with an experiment to verify the validity of this hypothesis: if we change our psychological make-up (basic and secondary beliefs), then the outside world should change accordingly and the amount of change "outside" should correlate with the amount of psychological change "inside". (At an extreme, I could imagine that successful transformation of one's basic beliefs may lead one to seeing the world as Heaven, therefore personally reaching Heaven on Earth.)

Entertaining the possibility that this world model is right, interesting questions arise. Why is it for instance that this hypothesis has never been proven - or has been proven only by a relatively small number of "magicians" - in our history? Perhaps the answer is that our psychology is not yet advanced enough to successfully effect those layers of the human psyche where the real determinants of the external world are hiding. Furthermore, if these layers remain constant for several centuries (or millenia) in a large percent of the human population, then their conserved, frozen state might become accepted by general consensus as "reality" and this conviction makes it much harder to do anything to change them. I tend to think that the global information revolution, the exchange of ideas and belief systems may serve the purpose of "softening up" these core beliefs so that they may become subject of scientific "manipulation".

Another possibility is that we cannot change our core beliefs easily because of the interrelationships between us: the inertia coming from others' convictions is too great. Perhaps those saints who withdrew into caves in the Himalayas did this with the purpose of cutting themselves off from the collective consciousness, so that they can reach enlightenment personally.

Another source of the "strictness" may be the laws organizing the collective consciousness: it seems that some patterns are allowed, and others are not, and what seems plausible from the POV of an "entheogenic warrior" may be laughable from the POV of those who are sitting in the "control office" up there (they are much more sensitive to the problem of balance and therefore can allow only those solutions which take the preservation of global balance - and free will - into account. on entheogenic journeys, I struggled a lot with this: how to come up with a mental idea which is complete enough to satisfy the control office so that they give my ideas a green light - that's why I sympathetize with Rev. Tom's Grand Unification Theory)

Yet another cause may be the tremendous fear which somehow got associated with these deeper layers. Without proper support, no-one dares to step into these waters and even with support, it may be very frightening for most of us to consider that the unchangeable may in fact change.

Dlight,

Would you be willing to share with me the details of your therapy and/or give me some personal instruction?

As far as religious overtones that you are concerned about, I am not clear what and/or who you are referring to? Reverand Tom? If so, are you complaining about some of his weird religious connections? Otherwise, I don't know of any author, including myself who has not maintained and grown an increasing spiritual perspective. If it is this basic spiritual reality that has overtaken my life in the utmost positive way, then yes, perhaps you and I no longer see eye to I.

Same goes for the apocalyptic fantasies. I know of no one here who fantasies about the "end times". I certainly don't. If there is some kind of fantasy I occassionally engage in, it is the idea that we are all on the verge of the most amazing cosma-galactic-spiritual alignment and unfoldment. I do not believe this fantasy to be unhealthy - quite the contrary! For when I engage in this visionary meditation I find increasing aspects of my life coming into higher and more fullfilling and healing alignment. Personally, I couldn't be happier.

Now, if you are referring to some of my cathartic posts from a month or two ago, well, that time has long past.

Cheers,

Paul

The world can be coloured brightest white as well as deepest black by human emotions. There is equal validity in calling views of no misery, suffering or trouble delluded and fantastical, as much as any apocalyptic fear or desire.

But above all the biggest danger surely must be that we deal with all the ills, inequality, and pain, by changing how the individual views and feels pain, rather than by addressing the problems themselves. Ofcourse if it turns out to be the only way, then perhaps a mask shall have to take the place of a cure, but going this route, simply because it is easier for all involved, is a shortcut to nowhere.

Hope and optimism alone are not going to overcome the challenges of a troubled future, if that is where our world heads. You may believe yourself vindicated in your views, as the future does indeed get a little brighter, and your optimism and 'faith' in the power of humans dealing with their pain is rewarded as their is less anger and jealousy and regret and deep pain being felt in the world.

But what about a turn of events in the ruthless, never predictable march of time that does lead to ever increasing difficulty and hardship? What then? Fear is as much a mechanism of survival as it is a burden, as it is pain. And for all the possibility that mind may be an all encompassing power, our physical existance is little more than a speck in a thin layer of biological soup on a glittering sapphire that is as alone and free from change as a grain of sand on a beach.

An eternal future of splendour and power that can barely be imagined, or annihilation and extinction. I can see the possibilities of both, but as time passes, I find myself growing less and less afraid of any outcome, any event, anything that can occur within this existance.

At first i thought it was a scam, then realized it is Peter Meyer (the programmer) who is selling it. I wonder what is new (different) in the new version. Referring to the Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucination, one should also refer to http://www.levity.com/eschaton/bombshell.html for the updated response and revised Timewave, also called the Sheliak wave or Timewave One.

"But above all the biggest danger surely must be that we deal with all the ills, inequality, and pain, by changing how the individual views and feels pain, rather than by addressing the problems themselves."

AFAIK Buddhism says that if one addresses the problems themselves (the causes), that tends to perpetuate the problems, but if one tries to find the root of the problems (which is in the human psyche) and analyze/resolve that by understanding it then the problems (the causes) automatically disappear.

I can imagine that the reason why humanity failed to solve it's basic problems during the course of human history is precisely this, that they believed the problems can be solved by manipulating the objects outside (the causes) instead of the subject (the root). If this is so, then psychology and psychotherapy (or something along those lines like shamanism was in the past) may be the central discipline of the 21. century.

(sorry, i misused a word. instead of "cause" I meant "effect" or "consequence", "external manifestation of forces lying in the psyche".)

You seem to be forgetting exactly what fraction of human life is able to change its perceptions to trully affect its own circumstances. There are many, many people alive who's lives will not change by using your method of 'fixing things', why? Because circumstance and situation almost entireally control and dictate their lives, and are perhaps for some people completely and utterly inescapable unless they die.

While you words ofcourse have 'validity' on 'many levels', you happen to live in a place where you can drink fresh water and eat meals every single day of your life, and thus can use/change/heal your mind trully to bring about vast changes in your own circumstances.

The hungry familly can find food, or die. No amount of psychological self healing is going to change that fact, although it might in some way offer them some kind of releif from the possibly stark and utter terror of death, which in itself is a small mercy, but a completely sickening one if this is what you are advocating as a solution to the issues of this world.

Mental surrender to/shielding from the hell this world can be and is for some?

You should study human history. It might amaze you to realise that the numbers of people who have acted since the birth of humanity to 'fix problems' is STAGGERINGLY small. Frighteningly small. Most people acted to have a nice normal familly existance, most of the rest of humanity played these people at various levels.

And look at Hitler, you are telling me than in his mind he didnt believe he was 'fixing humanity'? Perhaps all the great and monsterous tyrants that have ever existed should have had their 'psyches' altered, but that would still likely have lead to the development of democracy amongst splintered nations, thus ultimatly still HERE.

Or do you propose 'mental healing' and medication for the entire world? We cant actually feed/cloth/medicate third world nations because it would lead to the collapse of my economy and thus a lower quality of life for me, but we can 'heal' them mentally so they no longer perceive their suffering. Then we can 'heal' ourselves so that it is all good too.

What you have their, is the status quo. Still no change to the external, only how the internal perceives things. People will not want war, or hardship, or extra work, or guilt, and so there will be no motivation for immediate change.

BUT, we will all be happier.

"If this is so, then psychology and psychotherapy (or something along those lines like shamanism was in the past) may be the central discipline of the 21. century."

Again, you should study history. When things change, knowledge expands, technology develops, society develops, first it is used to get rich, then it is used for war/conquest/domination.

Using what I hope is a fairly open mind, history would tell us that psychology and psychotherapy and all things 'psyche' will infact be used in an attempt to dominate the entire world.

People said the same as you Cellux about Eugenics at the start of the 20th century, and the philosophies and systems of government that stemmed from Ancient Greece spawned Rome. I bet the 1 in 4 Gauls who were slaughtered by Caesar were grateful for that period of 'enlightenment'.

While I ackowledge the truth that can be found in your statement, you must also acknowledge the utter lunancy of using it as a blanket statement for all peoples in all situations across all of time.

In response to Cellux:

Cellux wrote>>>> For the sake of documenting the possible connection between psychotherapy and magic, I'd like to take what you said to the extreme.

Cool I take it to the extreme myself…..

Cellux >>>> In one of my world models the entire world is considered as a projection of our collective consciousness. What we see outside is determined (partially or entirely - I prefer the latter) by our psychological make-up. (This is a complete antithesis of the usual scientific world model in which the external objects are considered real and the human psyche is understood as a secondary effect of these external causes.)
Yes I would take it even further by claiming that we each INDIVIDUALLY create the world that we experience, in a similar manner to a dream.

Cellux >>>> It is easy to come up with an experiment to verify the validity of this hypothesis: if we change our psychological make-up (basic and secondary beliefs), then the outside world should change accordingly and the amount of change "outside" should correlate with the amount of psychological change "inside". (At an extreme, I could imagine that successful transformation of one's basic beliefs may lead one to seeing the world as Heaven, therefore personally reaching Heaven on Earth.)

Yes, you’re exactly right. When you do this kind of therapy, the world does indeed change instantly, in direct accordance with the depth of personal healing done. And yes, this leads directly to the formation of an earthly paradise. It’s quite a remarkable effect. However, this doesn’t mean that everyone else sees or feels this paradise, just you and hopefully some of the people around you.

This can lead to some humorous effects. I remember walking down the street with a friend of mine thinking what an incredibly beautiful day it was and my then friend says to me “can you believe how smoggy it is today”? Which version of reality was true? I feel that both were true.

We tend to assume that everyone is experiencing pretty much the same world as us, but this is an illusion. There’s no way to compare more than a tiny fraction of our experience with someone else, so there’s lots of room for divergence. We’re all walking in our own reality tunnels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel

By the way, I don’t think the cause of this magical effect comes from changing your beliefs, but rather from healing emotional damage and blockages. The world we perceive is a direct reflection of the totality of our emotional state, but not necessarily what we intellectually believe to be true. However, this is a good thing, because artificially forcing one’s beliefs to be positive feels very contrived. Processing one’s emotions is a natural process and naturally alters your believes once you have successfully make an emotional breakthrough.

Cellux >>>> Entertaining the possibility that this world model is right, interesting questions arise. Why is it for instance that this hypothesis has never been proven - or has been proven only by a relatively small number of "magicians" - in our history? Perhaps the answer is that our psychology is not yet advanced enough to successfully effect those layers of the human psyche where the real determinants of the external world are hiding. Furthermore, if these layers remain constant for several centuries (or millenia) in a large percent of the human population, then their conserved, frozen state might become accepted by general consensus as "reality" and this conviction makes it much harder to do anything to change them. I tend to think that the global information revolution, the exchange of ideas and belief systems may serve the purpose of "softening up" these core beliefs so that they may become subject of scientific "manipulation".

One problem is that institutions often derive their power from people’s negative emotions like fear. This is why TV news is always bad news. Because of this reliance on fear and insecurity, it’s not in any organized systems interest to help you really achieve liberation, since they would probably lose your support. Imagine if the cells of your body decided, that they didn’t want to spend all their time supporting one person (you) but instead wanted to work on their own personal goals. You’d be in trouble. In the same manner, religions, governments and all other institutions will attempt to suppress all powerful healing modalities. Psychedelics are a perfect example of this. So it’s not surprising that truly powerful healing techniques are not widely known.

Cellux >>>> Another possibility is that we cannot change our core beliefs easily because of the interrelationships between us: the inertia coming from others' convictions is too great. Perhaps those saints who withdrew into caves in the Himalayas did this with the purpose of cutting themselves off from the collective consciousness, so that they can reach enlightenment personally.

Even just taking FutureHi as an example, there’s a tremendous diversity of views and philosophies, there’s no one accepted set of core beliefs. The reason our individual core beliefs don’t change easily is that they arise from and reflect our core emotional makeup, which only shifts under extraordinary circumstances.

Cellux >>>> Another source of the "strictness" may be the laws organizing the collective consciousness: it seems that some patterns are allowed, and others are not, and what seems plausible from the POV of an "entheogenic warrior" may be laughable from the POV of those who are sitting in the "control office" up there (they are much more sensitive to the problem of balance and therefore can allow only those solutions which take the preservation of global balance - and free will - into account. on entheogenic journeys, I struggled a lot with this: how to come up with a mental idea which is complete enough to satisfy the control office so that they give my ideas a green light - that's why I sympathethize with Rev. Tom's Grand Unification Theory)

I would forget about trying to placate the “control office” if I were you. There isn’t any! I believe that if you do deep emotional healing you will invariably discover that the “control office” is you!

Cellux >>>> Yet another cause may be the tremendous fear which somehow got associated with these deeper layers. Without proper support, no-one dares to step into these waters and even with support, it may be very frightening for most of us to consider that the unchangeable may in fact change.

Sure there can be a certain amount of fear in visiting the hidden recesses of our mind/self/soul however usually this is just our defense systems trying to scare us, rather than the material itself being frightening. What starts out feeling like a terrifying monster usually turns out to be just a little child crying alone in a corner or something innocent like that. However, I don’t deny that truly deep transformational work requires real courage.

>In one of my world models the entire world is considered as a projection of our collective consciousness.

>Yes I would take it even further by claiming that we each INDIVIDUALLY create the world that we experience, in a similar manner to a dream.

>if we change our psychological make-up (basic and secondary beliefs), then the outside world should change accordingly and the amount of change "outside" should correlate with the amount of psychological change "inside".

>At an extreme, I could imagine that successful transformation of one's basic beliefs may lead one to seeing the world as Heaven, therefore personally reaching Heaven on Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia

Lets say I meet a girl. I become infatuated with her. After a few weeks it becomes clear she no longer wants to spend time with me. She leaves, and I am distraught.

Lets say I have a long history of drug use, a 'frequent' user of psychadelics, and I often visit and try to keep abreast of 'cutting edge' views and ideas. Lets say I have long held the view that I am experiancing a 'personal' version of existance, and that I have the view that changes to my own psyche can have a profound impact on the world at large.

Lets say I attempt to deal with my emotional crisis and subsequent catastrophic personal collapse, however my personal analysis and alteration leads me to the conclusion that this girl infact does want to be with me, that she infact CANNOT wish to be without me, as I am the centre piece to all I see and experiance. Lets say I stalk this girl.
Lets say I rape and murder her.

There are a couple of points that can be made based upon this (my) exploration of the subject matter.

1. The moral responsibility for contributers/posters to fully explore the implications of what is being said, and to write and discuss those implications if they are not being approached.

There is a fine line within what has been discussed in the previous posts. A line that cannot always be avoided, a line that may not always be visible, and a line that seperates the obviously 'positive' aspects of what has been discussed, from the negative. It pains me more than you know to see the penchant for the positive and the blatant denial or avoidance of the negative that so characterises many discussions on these forums. I believe that the emphatic embrace and ecstatic worship of the positive that can be clearly felt and seen hides a deep rooted fear of the negative, an almost psychotic refusal to even gaze upon the counter aspects of 'positive energy' much less approach it. The brief, passing acknowledgement of its existance alone being a rare thing. I do not know why, but I can guess, and it is a neon light with the words 'psychological wounds' written all over it.

I use the words 'moral responsibility' for a reason. If you do not work through fully all the aspects and implications of what you are saying, even though you acknowledge those implications, then what you are doing is spinning lies.

You cannot know the mindset of every reader here, you cannot know who visits and does not speak, you cannot know what they take away with them, and if you can believe that your words can have a markedly positive effect on the life of a balanced and open minded individual, then those same words could have a catastrophic affect on someone who has deep routed psychological issues, regardless of the power of this 'healing'.

In effect you are advocating psychological self medication, you are prescribing methods of mental self medication that has worked for you, to people you dont even know exist, let alone have exchanged words with.

What has been written in the posts above may well lead to the discovery of true inner healing of a profound level, if investigated and discovered and utilised in the correct manner, all it takes is for one person with severe problems to read what has been written above and be influenced by it, without delving correctly into the material, for what has been put across to have disasterous consequences. While this cannot be avoided, you do not even approach the issue.

2. The objective could be interpreted as a means of measuring and balancing oneself, as much as a projection of subjective states. I believe Reverand Tom puts it nicely;

>the ontological coequality and inherent entanglement of objective and subjective reality

Dear eventhorizon,

If you can really see the possible negative consequences of what irresponsible people like me say on this forum, then PLEASE criticize us in every possible way - give the antitheses to our theses - so that readers can walk away with a balanced impression.

I think it's much better this way (versus keeping silent) because with the help of this group dynamic, we can let ourselves express ideas in the extreme which - in my opinion - makes these ideas much clearer and well-defined than if we'd resort to "politically correct" explanations.

On the other hand, I can see your point that if someone reads only the thesis - but not the antithesis (which may be filtered out completely by his blocks) - then that may be a source of real-life negative consequences. At the moment, I sincerely don't know what to do with this moral problem. If I want to take it seriously, it would be better for me to just shut up.

IMHO dlight and cellux are right, but only to an extent, and same with eventhorizon. I think there is an inherent dichotomy in reality in terms of the physical and spiritual/mental worlds. Reality is experienced as an interplay between those two sides of the same world. You may deal with the world mentally for certain things, but other things must be dealt with physically. Thinking your happy won't help you eat. That's delusional. dlight and cellux kind of sound like breathanarianism preachers or something, like all we need to believe is negative things don’t exist and they won’t or something. eventhorizon sounds like he cant see the sunshine on a rainy day. Most people here seem to want to take the weight of the world on their shoulders for some reason. In so many ways dlight and cellux are correct, that the mind is the answer to so many of our social problems and worldy problems. But it is only part of the answer. Your mind and the realm of the mental is bound to the physical and affected by it. Tranforming that psychology into physical action is required to make change in this world, because I have never witnessed someone change the world based on their outlook alone, I have only seen people live a happier existence based on having a positive outlook. The happiest people I've met have learned to keep a positive outlook but not become escapist with it and deal with the realities that come along that must be dealt with and cannot be seen as anything but negative. Many things cannot be surmounted by wishful thinking. I think dlight/cellux and eventhorizon are trying to tackle different issues in the same discussion. Maybe defining things clearer would be helpful for the discussion?

>>Even just taking FutureHi as an example, there’s a tremendous diversity of views and philosophies, there’s no one accepted set of core beliefs. The reason our individual core beliefs don’t change easily is that they arise from and reflect our core emotional makeup, which only shifts under extraordinary circumstances.

I think they shift with physical pressures, not “extraordinary circumstances”. That is why we have vastly different outlooks on higher-order and social things, but most humans all have the same outlooks and beliefs on a core physical level.

>>Cellux >>>> In one of my world models the entire world is considered as a projection of our collective consciousness. What we see outside is determined (partially or entirely - I prefer the latter) by our psychological make-up. (This is a complete antithesis of the usual scientific world model in which the external objects are considered real and the human psyche is understood as a secondary effect of these external causes.)
Yes I would take it even further by claiming that we each INDIVIDUALLY create the world that we experience, in a similar manner to a dream.

It seems to me more likely that the world is a collection of our selfs, and not simply a projection of our physical conciousness. For example, the only way to change the world is by changing yourself, you are but one drop of water in an ocean. However, you can change yourself and the world mentally and physically, not just mentally.

I think we individually experience the world, but I am highly suspect that we individually create the world, because if that were true, I would be able to completely change the world as I see fit, but I can’t, because I can only change my part of it, and that is frustrating sometimes. Ultimately I think, you confuse the part with the whole. The whole in my opinion is a collection of selves and not a reflection of self like you seem to assert?

Interesting conversation. My only comment is I think we need to be careful, very careful, of where mind and imagination will take us. We're not Gods, we don't create our reality, to me lots of those philosophies "mind manifests reality" may have validity on a cosmic scale but I think alot of people get their ego caught up in it and like to think they are in complete control, not realizing they are a very, very small piece of the whole. I think this quote from Bob Dylan is relevant, it doesn't tell the whole story and I do believe psychedelics are useful, but it's always useful to acknowledge different perspectives.

PLAYBOY: Did psychedelics have a similar effect on you?

DYLAN: No. Psychedelics never influenced me. I don't know, I think Timothy Leary had a lot to do with driving the last nails into the coffin of that New York scene we were talking about. When psychedelics happened, everything became irrelevant. Because that had nothing to do with making music or writing poems or trying to really find yourself in that day and age.

PLAYBOY: But people thought they were doing just that-finding themselves.

DYLAN: People were deluded into thinking they were something that they weren't: birds, airplanes, fire hydrants, whatever. People were walking around thinking they were stars.

We might all shine on guys, but we're not stars :).

Paul,
Yes of course I'd be happy to share with you assist you with this form of inner work. It's actually a very simple technique, you'd never guess the power of it until you do a strong session.

I've been really busy at the moment so I haven't had time to fully defend my positions, but yes, I feel that all the religious talk (not just the extreme stuff) is threatening to push FutureHi in a direction that will be highly counterproductive.

The idea of radically reinterpreting the Bible or the Koran will only foster more disagreement from the fundamentalists.

As I've mentioned in other posts, I'm all for spirituality, and for FutureHi to promote it, but I think we need to find modern terminology otherwise we get mired in the tangle of old time religious discussion, which will convince no-one.

I personally find the Bible a document that relates a very regressive form of spirituality. But I don't have time to get into all this now...

Cheers,
Dlight

Brian wrote>>>>>We're not Gods, we don't create our reality, to me lots of those philosophies "mind manifests reality" may have validity on a cosmic scale but I think alot of people get their ego caught up in it and like to think they are in complete control, not realizing they are a very, very small piece of the whole.

I'm sorry you have such low esteem for your own personal power. Actually we do create our own reality, and it is specifically psychedelics which have helped people realize the extent to which this is true. I fully believe that we are gods/goddesses who are pretending to be mere mortals. Admittedly we are such good actors that sometimes we fool ourselves. However, there are a variety of technologies which are available to help reclaim the Divine power within each of us.
Cheers,

I concur with you, DLight. I'd rather see spiritually directly associated with (even derived from) cutting-edge science. Rev. Tom may be onto something however, IF his method/strategy CAN elicit cooperation from traditionalist via a radical (yet PLAUSIBLE/DEFENSIBLE) reinterpretation of their various "holy scriptures"...But I, too, would ultimately like an explicit linkage Kurzweil, James Gardner, John Smart, etc.

Your thoughts/feedback, DLight, as well as, of course, our other colleagues here, would be very, very welcome.

Dlight, btw, I sent you an e-mail requesting more info/instruction on the self-applied psychotheraputic technique you allude to...

>Dlight,

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but..

Could you give me a specific example of how someone creates their own reality?

What would qualify us as gods/goddesses? What exactly are we "fooling" ourselves from?

Of course we have lots of personal power, but I have never seen any evidence for the claims that we're Gods and that we were just tricked into believing we don't have immense power, or we tricked ourselves, whatever. I'd love to believe it, but to me it just seems like an ego illusion resembling many forms of mental illness. My older brother was a paranoid schizophrenic so I am a bit wary of philosophies that promise everything as it can be very destructive for some people. I'm still open to all ideas (well pretty much all) so I'd like to echo truthtechnician's request for a detailed explanation for how you reached this conclusion from your own life experiences. I would also be interested in some elaboration on your self-applied psychotherapeutic technique, cheers :).

Event Horizon, I certainly respect your point of view. But seriously are you saying that we shouldn't discuss healing methodologies because it might drive some unstable people off the deep end? Which FutureHi readers are you refering to? ;)

Any powerful tool can be used for good or ill. But I suspect most FutureHi participants are here because we are nuturing some seed of hope about the future and want to brainstorm to see what we might be able to achieve. I agree with Cellux that we should explore our ideas in their most pure and unrestrained forms since that helps achieve clarity.

>Truthtechnician(great name!)>>>What exactly are we "fooling" ourselves from?

I just meant that we are Gods who are doing such a good job acting as mortals that we have forgotten that we're pretending. Another way of saying this might be that the price of getting here was to filter out most of our true power and deep sight. Psychedelics tend to pull back this filter a bit showing us that it's all still in there, waiting patiently.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite"
William Blake

>Brian>>>>I have never seen any evidence for the claims that we're Gods and that we were just tricked into believing we don't have immense power, or we tricked ourselves

I'm a bit baffled that some people here seem to think that a philosophy which says that we are just pitiful mortals virtually helpless in a sea of injustice is SANE whereas a philosophy which claims we have endless power to tap if we have the right tools, is INSANE.

Think about Shawn Fanning, inventor of Napster. Here's a nineteen year old kid, who develops a computer program in his spare time in a couple months, which turns the multi-billion dollar music industry on its head, without even intending to. Seems like God-like power to me...

What about the rapid advances in genetic engineering? It's looking like we'll soon be able to reconfigure humans and all other creatures pretty much any way we'd like. If this isn't God-like power, I don't know what is.

What about the unprecedented-in-human-history dream-machine called the Internet?

How much evidence do you need of our divine r/evolutionary nature?

Of course there are many problems and negativity in the world. We are bombarded with it constantly by the mass media. But it's no secret that the mass media dramatically emphasizes the negative. In a city of a million people, if 999,999 thousand have a wonderful day, but one idiot shoots himself, you can be sure what will appear on the evening news. We've been so bombarded by this kind of media distortion since infancy that we take it as an absolute given that the world is massively fucked up. How can we release ourselves from this negative programming to achieve some kind of objective overview for how the world is really doing?

There are many ways....

>>>>Could you give me a specific example of how someone creates their own reality?

I'll prepare a paper on this subject, since it's easily misunderstood. I'm really excited to discuss this.

Hi Dlight,

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I also understand your being busy. Me too.

Although I definitely understand your concerns with Rev Tom's religious views, I still believe that what he is trying to do is inspiring. Here is why. What Rev Tom is trying to do is create a vision that can be embraced by as many people as possible. Whether we like it or not, the overwhelming majority of people on earth are religious, most of those people in turn are monotheistic, and most of those are quite strong in there beliefs.

One of the reasons I was having such a hard time a month or so ago, was because it finally dawned on me, that despite all of our technological advances, society as a whole is still caught in overwhelming degrees of awfullness. I'm not sure why I never realized this as deeply as I did, but somehow I believed that greater economic prosperity and technology, especially the networks ability to flatten hierarchies would be enough to attenuate the bad and magnify the democractic good. And although this has happened to an unprecedented degree, it seems to have done little, if anything, to truly decentralize the overall power spread. Sure, each person has more personal power to change thier world, but along with this growth, the centralized powers that be have become increasinlgy ruthless (a gloves off approach), to how they now run things. Now the US may be on the verge of attacking Iran, maybe even using the nuclear option. What I see now is a tremendous growing unease amongst the general population. This is not necessarily a bad thing, maybe it's just some kind of growing pain. I have no idea. What I do know is that most people are afraid. There is a lot of fear in our society today. Most of these people who are afraid are also religious. Since you belive all things religious is a bad thing, how then do you propose we help these people? What Rev Tom is doing is attempting to create a first-draft framework which can work with these people's existing beliefs, and in turn transform them. It's trancendental in its utmost simplicity, yet also very complex becauase the world of humanity is also complex.

What is your alternate proposal? Like I said when I brought my support in for Rev Tom, I have yet to find a better proposal that addresses all the main problems and inertias of the world. What specifically is your proposal to help the 2/3 of the world that is monotheistic?

I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say then Dlight, I agree that human consciousness is amazingly creative and powerful in the right circumstances. However, couldn't many of those seemingly huge leaps by an individual be seen as the result of collective intelligence over time, where they were just the catalyst for that huge leap in technology or science? I think we are on the same level, for some reason I intuited that you were implying we all had personal infinite power by ourselves, right now. The idea of these vague powers that are talked about, of mind manifesting reality and what not, can be insidious to those who aren't mentally stable, and alot of people aren't. I've met two people in my life who thought they were Gods, that they had tapped into the Godhead and could alter their environment. They believed, among other things, that they had special psychic powers: these delusions came from their own psychedelic experiences and alot of the misleading or insidious mystical notions prevalent in the psychedelic counter-culture. It seems counter-intuitive, but I've seen the devastating effects of these overly positive philosophies that promise everything to anyone. I think the truth is that we all (ok, most) have alot of searching to do and personal pain to go through to transcend our ego's as best we can, recognition that you (the you that still tries to exert control atleast) are not everything, you are not holy, etc. I really don't think overall we are in disagreement, as long as you are not proposing that we all have infinite power NOW, because I think it can obscure personal truths about ones own nature.

I do support some sort of utopia based upon psychedelic influenced philosophies, I just think now would be a very good time to look back at the 60's and their failed utopia. Of course, one might argue that it didn't fail it is just still in progress, which has its merits. I am grateful for what our brothers in the 60's did, but from my limited reading on the subject (Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and lots of random internet reads) there were certain pitfalls tied up in ego and unjustified faith that the current culture must be very careful not to get caught up in again. Hate to be the breeder of negativity again, but I'm going to quote Bowie, a soul who certainly had done alot of psychedelic exploring himself. From the song Quicksand:

"I'm tethered to the logic of homo-sapien, can't take my eyes from the great salvation of bullshit faith"

I see this tendency in alot of people I consider myself close to, hell I get caught up in alot too. Luckily, that's where community and the scientific method comes in, to keep us overly optimistic fools just a little bit contained :). Anyway once again I hate to be overly negative, this is just a personal emotional reaction in alot of ways, seeing the falls of others and, only in my mind for now, myself. I think its important.

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...

I transferred this post to new topic-thread because it's relevant. I'm sypathetic to what Rev. Tom wants to do: Provide an overarching Meta-Paradigm, or Meta-Worldview to unite everyone on the planet onto the same "page" and, eventually even onto the same "paragraph", so to speak. I, too, am very skittish, Dlight, with the religious semantic game. Which is why I'm insisting that we integrate it with Gardner & Kurzweil & John Smart's stuff.

**Brian**: In addition to Kool-Aid Acid Test, see Jay Stevens (I think that's the author's name), **Storming Heaven**, and, most important, Bruce Shlain & Martin A. Lee's excellent **Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of Lsd The Cia, the Sixties, and Beyond (Revised)**. Also important is Terrence McKenna, **Food of the Gods** (Bantam) and good ol' Robert Anton Wilson's **Cosmic Trigger I** (New Falcon Press). These are all ESSENTIAL to understanding psychedelics-&-"the-sixties".

DLight: I'd love for you & Rev. Tom to dialog here on FutureHi, so that we can observe and (to limited, self-restrained extent) also provide input/on-going-feedback during the dialog. If we can form a core team to radically transform/integrate spiritual/eschatological memes with secular/cosmological/singularitarian memes, then we can unite most of mankind across the entire planet. Sure it's an ambitious strategy--so ambitious as to be almost outrageous (believe me, I realize this...!!), but it may be the best shot that we have to avert a lot of bullshit coming down over the next 5-20 years. I'm a secular, yet very spiritual, transhumanist. If we can use meta-semantic, meta-memetic "judo/aiki" to get humankind on that same page (at least **de facto**), is that not a worthwhile goal/strategy?

I'd love your critical feedback on my musings, but mostly detailed feedback on Rev. Tom's stuff. And please get back to me re the bliss-technique that I e-mailed you about.

Mike Furir Mike 813

Just checked out Biocosm from my campus library yesterday based on a previous post of yours, and suprisingly Acid Dreams and Storming Heaven are readily available. My campus library is pretty huge and useful, but it often shies away from anything occult or drug related I've noticed. One thing's for sure, if there's anyone at my school who is on some sort of "watch list" based on the books I've checked out, I'm pretty much marked. :) Thanks for the reccomendations!

Brian: I'm **honored** for you to have taken my bibliogaphic suggestions to heart. Terrence McKenna's *Food of the Gods* is also very important (and a fun read...). So, if I and rest of our colleagues here may know, what are you majoring in at college, or are you as yet undecided? (Nothing wrong with being undecided, btw!). I'm glad your library had James Gardner's *Biocosm*. See also Biocosm's website. Gardner is where it's at, scientifically-speaking, and, as I've said, leaves the whole "intelligent design" hoopla in the dust...

One other book I might suggest is Gary Cziko's *Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution* (MIT Press, 1997). Now this is a tough one, Brian, but it's the best presentation of selection-filter processes around. The only other one in the same league (and quite complimentary to Cziko's work) is Elliot Sober's excellent *Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus (Reprint)* (U. of Chicago Pr.)

I should be happy to correspond with you. I have to say "hotmail" so the Y a h o o puritanical nannies won't get their panties in a wad, but you can e-mail me at same address, except replace "hotmail" with "yahoo". I should very much enjoy corresponding with you...Once I know what your interests are, and what you're majoring in, I can better focus on proper bibliographic recommendations.

Ciao...

Hi Everybody,

> From MCP2012:
> 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).

The supposed logical/conceptual problems have not been proven nearly as conclusively as people have thought. It all boils down to the way rationalists attempt to judge a power and intelligence that is beyond linear-time by the ethical and moral standards of creatures like ourselves who are embedded in linear-time — and who have true (albeit limited) free-will to boot. In this regard, the powers d-g listed above are all fully functional via the ability of God (i.e. the gestalt intelligence of the hyper-spatial continuum) to reach back and change the past when the exercise of human level free-will has created a situation that strays too far from the overall cosmic plan.

I'll put it all in the same plain simple terms of Phillip K. Dick. Do you remember the time when Nazi Germany ruled the entire world, and the US was divided into German and Japanese zones of occupation? Most people don't remember this, or the sheer horror therein — and that's because the powers of God listed above were exercised so thoroughly that the very memory of this abomination was erased from the minds of most everybody who's alive.

Granted our own version of history has its own problems, and its own load of pain and suffering. But when a system of life like our own is seeking to pursue an evolutionary leap that would transform the very face of the cosmos, but would rather deny God or misuse the name of God (as opposed to really listening to God and calling on his help), then this is what we get. From what I can see, God exercises near-infinite patience in the evolutionary process per se, such that he will only intervene when an imbalance exceeds a certain threshold. If I were to speculate as to overall why this is, I would say that it is because major evolutionary leaps are: a) truly challenging affairs, b) truly cause for celebration if they occur, and c) utterly meaningless if God hands them to us on a "silver platter." None the less, God definitely does have the last say so.

Note also that the proof of God's power that I have been working is a semi-mathematical proof that does not
depend on any of the traditional philosophical/theological arguments — but only the four following premises:

1. That "Reality" per se is ultimately self-consistent.
2. That mathematics is the very language of said self-consistency.
3. That quantum mechanics is an accurate albeit incomplete description of time-symmetric reality.
4. That general relativity is an accurate albeit incomplete description of time-symmetric reality.

Since Godel's incompleteness principle requires unprovable premises, and since the four I've chosen above are so basic to the core theoretical sciences, I see no reason to question these premises. Time-symmetry and universal quantum computation follow directly from the basic self-consistency of reality if we make the utterly necessary extension of quantum mechanics into quantum-thermodynamics. And when we run the time-symmetry and universal quantum computation through the infinite regress that is also necessarily there, we begin to grasp a transcendent reality that has the powers listed above.

> 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.

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I've seen reviews of it several times, and read them closely after you recommended it. Since universal quantum computation is implicit to a self-consistent reality, and since it accounts for both: a) the creation of universes in a state of thermodynamic youth, and b) the fine-tuning of the cosmos to support life, his basic premise is almost totally superfluous under the principle of Occam's razor. None the less, it does have one shred of truth in how it describes our cosmos as in someway being the creation of a hyper-intelligent parent cosmos.

Yes the direction of any cosmos is toward the evolution of hyper-intelligent life that will eventually: a) transform the very face of the cosmos, and b) give birth to daughter universes. However, what I've come to see is that these daughter universes are not the magnificent creation of some parent cosmos, but the leftover unintegrated energies of said parent (i.e. dung piles) that are only alive because forces far transcendent to said parent cosmos are forever working to restore their lifelike nature. So when all is said and done, it seems like James Gardner's book is yet another half-baked attempt by rationalists to deny the existence of universal quantum computation (i.e. God). And while it is a breakthrough in one sense, it will almost certainly end up in the trash can of history.

> From Dlight:
> I had thought that FutureHi was capable of maintaining this degree of confidence and
> optimism, but now that I see so many here getting sidetracked by religious concepts,
>
> Brian wrote>>>>>We're not Gods, we don't create our reality, to me lots of those philosophies "mind manifests
> reality" may have validity on a cosmic scale but I think alot of people get their ego caught up in it and like to think
> they are in complete control, not realizing they are a very, very small piece of the whole.
>
> I'm sorry you have such low esteem for your own personal power. Actually we do create our own reality, and it is
> specifically psychedelics which have helped people realize the extent to which this is true. I fully believe that we are
> gods/goddesses who are pretending to be mere mortals. Admittedly we are such good actors that sometimes we fool
> ourselves. However, there are a variety of technologies which are available to help reclaim the Divine power within each of us.

I have to disagree in the strongest way possible with these utterly one-sided concepts. I've acknowledged your position many times Dlight about both: a) the possibility of a utopian future, and b) the power with which we create our reality. I've also acknowledged EventHorizon's objections about the pain and suffering of the world, and about the need to balance our subjective powers with objective reality. EventHorizon and Brian both have very legitimate points. I suggested that we consider the subjective and objective aspects of reality to be causally and ontologically coequal. It appeared to me that EventHorizon went through a monumental stretch to accept this coequality. Beyond that Brain is pointing out the paradox of people creating their own reality when we share a world with billions of other people. And even if we do individually have that subjective power, which I acknowledge, it can certainly be negated by the same power as manifest through other people (even to the point of creating an apocalypse).

As far as getting side-tracked by religious concepts, I feel you have it 100% backwards. In proof I ask are psychedelics legal? The answer is a resounding no — except for an extremely tenuous right to use them in religious ceremonies. Yes psychedelics do help people realize their own personal power. I would like to see them become legal and widely used as the healing agents that they can be. And I can't think of any more thorough way to gum up the works than to tout them as a tool for unfettered personal power without at least giving lip-service to the idea that this subjective power is at best coequal with: a) the semi-objective reality defined by the myriads of other people that exist, and b) the fully objective reality defined by the infinite regress of higher-dimensional law/balance. The public may have a lot of lumpen thought patterns, but they have a gut wisdom that is very accurate, and they are not fools when it comes to freeing or binding the psychic equivalent of plutonium.

Sincerely,
Rev. Tom

P.S. I'm extremely busy this week. Hopefully next week will be better.

Hello all -

Blessings and Happy Easter to all -

Just passing by but found this little tidbit (oldie but goodie) and just seems to fit here.

From the world of physical pursuits the initiates of old called their disciples into the life of the mind and the spirit. Throughout the ages, the Mysteries have stood at the threshold of Reality--that hypothetical spot between noumenon and phenomenon, the Substance and the shadow. The gates of the Mysteries stand ever ajar and those who will may pass through into the spacious domicile of spirit. The world of philosophy lies neither to the right nor to the left, neither above nor below. Like a subtle essence permeating all space and all substance, it is everywhere; it penetrates the innermost and the outermost parts of all being. In every man and woman these two spheres are connected by a gate which leads from the not-self and its concerns to the Self and its realizations. In the mystic this gate is the heart, and through spiritualization of his emotions he contacts that more elevated plane which, once felt and known, becomes the sum of the worth-while. In the philosopher, reason is the gate between the outer and the inner worlds, the illumined mind bridging the chasm between the corporeal and the incorporeal. Thus godhood is born within the one who sees, and from the concerns of men he rises to the concerns of gods.

In this era of "practical" things men ridicule even the existence of God. They scoff at goodness while they ponder with befuddled minds the phantasmagoria of materiality. They have forgotten the path which leads beyond the stars. The great mystical institutions of antiquity which invited man to enter into his divine inheritance have crumbled, and institutions of human scheming now stand where once the ancient houses of learning rose a mystery of fluted columns and polished marble. The white-robed sages who gave to the world its ideals of culture and beauty have gathered their robes about them and departed from the sight of men. Nevertheless, this little earth is bathed as of old in the sunlight of its Providential Generator. Wide-eyed babes still face the mysteries of physical existence. Men continue to laugh and cry, to love and hate; Some still dream of a nobler world, a fuller life, a more perfect realization. In both the heart and mind of man the gates which lead from mortality to immortality are still ajar. Virtue, love, and idealism are yet the regenerators of humanity. God continues to love and guide the destinies of His creation. The path still winds upward to accomplishment. The soul of man has not been deprived of its wings; they are merely folded under its garment of flesh. Philosophy is ever that magic power which, sundering the vessel of clay, releases the soul from its bondage to habit and perversion. Still as of old, the soul released can spread its wings and soar to the very source of itself.

The criers of the Mysteries speak again, bidding all men welcome to the House of Light. The great institution of materiality has failed. The false civilization built by man has turned, and like the monster of Frankenstein, is destroying its creator. Religion wanders aimlessly in the maze of theological speculation. Science batters itself impotently against the barriers of the unknown. Only transcendental philosophy knows the path. Only the illumined reason can carry the understanding part of man upward to the light. Only philosophy can teach man to be born well, to live well, to die well, and in perfect measure be born again. Into this band of the elect--those who have chosen the life of knowledge, of virtue, and of utility--the philosophers of the ages invite YOU.

I applaud Future Hi for all you represent.

MCP2012: I emailed you at your Y A H O O address (not sure what that's all about heh), and for anyone whose interested, I'm a software engineering engineer at the moment. MCP, you might want to try and contact me if the email didn't work: nairbtrah@gmail.com

I'm glad someone posted "Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucenation"

I'm not impressed at all that someone is charging money for this stuff, it IS a "novelty", that's about the extent of it

Rev. Tom: With all due respect, I think you underestimate James Gardner's achievement. He's provided a coherent & profoundly plausible explanation for a "[Very]Strong Anthropic Cosmological Principle" which is falsifiable & provides a unified cosmology. Now your own work may very well indeed go way beyond that of Gardner (I, for one, would be delighted if is **does**!!), but I'm not yet familiar with you theory(s) of Universal Quantum Computation (which you equate with the term "God", and with which equation I have some sympathy) & also time-symmetry & associated time-symmetric causation. I'd be very grateful (and enthused), Rev. Tom, if you could provide me (and the rest of us) a detailed elucidation of your theory of Universal Quantum Computation and time-symmetry (with its correlative time-symmetric causation.

In this regard, I'd be interested to learn what you have to say, e.g., in terms of (and as compared with) the recent books, of Charles Seife, **Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Information Is Explaining Everything in the Cosmos, from Our Brains to Black Holes** (Viking, 2006) and Seth Lloyd, **Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos** (Oxford U. Pr, 2006), both of which are an excellent intro to Quantum-computational Cosmology (and so I'd like to know where/how you differ with their stuff...). Also important in this regard is Leonard Susskind, **The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design** as well as his earlier (more technical, not especially for the layman--it's very tough-going for ME, that's for sure...!...) **An Introduction To Black Holes, Information And The String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe (Paperback)** (Cf. also the wonderful review of this book by none other than Jack Sarfatti at Amazon.com), and also Lisa Randall's **Warped Passages : Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions** (Ecco Publishers, 2006). Also worthy of note, and more accessible to the layperson is David Darling's recent **Teleportation : The Impossible Leap** (Wiley, 2005), which discusses how quantum-teleportation works, its relation to quantum-computation, and how we may very well be much closer to full-fledged macro-teleportation ("Beam me up, Scotty!") than one might at first imagine.

Also important in terms the nature of both consciousness **&** causation (and the intimate metaphysical relationship between the two...) is Gregg Rosenberg's **A Place for Consciousness : Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World** (Oxford U. Pr, 2004).

Rev. Tom, I am, again I say, very enthused to learn about you theory(s) of Universal Quantum Computation (and more specifically its pronouncements on current musings [such as those cited above] on quantum-computational cosmology, and, appropriate enough for you, Reverend, quantum-computational *eschatology*...and how do time-symmetry (and time-symmetric causation) *work*, and how does it fit-in with not only the above cited theories, but also the work of, say, Ilya Prigogine...

And Brian: I think, in terms of your engineering interests, you'd get a kick out of the above works as well. Please also check-into nanotechnology, if you haven't already. *Engines of Creation* and *Nanosystems*, both by K. Eric Drexler, would be good places to start. Gotta go for now...

Love to all...

Rev. Tom-

>>I'll put it all in the same plain simple terms of Phillip K. Dick. Do you remember the time when Nazi Germany ruled the entire world, and the US was divided into German and Japanese zones of occupation? Most people don't remember this, or the sheer horror therein

Show me evidence? Phillip K. Dick was cool and all but he was very mentally deranged as well, not to mention totally addicted to amphetamines and other drugs. His writings are amazing, but they do not offer anything practical.

Also, I disagree about psychedelics necessarily being a good thing. I know many people who because of not taking them with the correct circumstances, frame of mind, or with the right training become severely confused and no better off than before they did psychedelics--or worse. Personally, psychedelics have opened me up to God and have been a spiritual heuristic, but you seem to imply that they are the answer or antidote to something? Sorry, life isn't that simple.

You also talk of utopia without defining it.

A few remarks from Peter Meyer, the man who developed the software --- I hope this may serve to bring the discussion back on topic a little! ;)

**
I'd be interested to see some discussion of the use of the software for something, whether for interpreting history or predicting the future. There was some discussion of the theory on the so-called Novelty List back around 1998 (I don't know if this list is still active). I argued at that time that Terences was selecting historical evidence to make it seem like the timewave "explained" what happened then (as a result of drops in the wave, or similarities between two parts of the wave). This sort of discussion leads into matters more in the field of philosophy of science, so those who have not been trained in philosophy tend to be out of their depth when the discussion gets serious.

But there are quite a few questions which could be considered. Such as: What are the merits of the various sets of 384 data points? Is the original set the only true and authentic one? Did Watkins actually find an error? Did Sheliak really make a contribution or is his work actually misleading? Is the HuangTi set merely an artificial creation which adds nothing to the theory (or to the evaluation of the theory)?

Might there be something to be learned from comparing the timewave to history using these different sets of numbers? Do Terence's claims work just as well for one set as for another, as long as the appropriate historical "evidence" is selected? Is TWZ just another in the long line of the-world-is-about-to-an-end claims? Just dressed up in mathematical garb?

So, you see, fun for all the family. And a really great distraction from considering such weighty matters as whether Cheney & Co. engineered
911.

good post upwinger,
i wish i was knowledgable enough in math to understand everything about the timewave. One of the things Ive been considering is, what would happen if the original king wen i-ching sequence was different? would the timewave look the same? or similar, depending on the variance? we trust king wen's sequence as a direct and correct interpretation of nature's dialogue, does this go without question? why king wen's sequence?

i'm in support of the theory, and if it's true, then there's definitely more to be explored.

Definately, the one the I always wondered was what date did terence choose to start with?

printer ink printer ink
ink cartridges ink cartridges
inkjet cartridges inkjet cartridges
inkjet inkjet
canon ink cartridge canon ink cartridge
printer ink cartridges printer ink cartridges
epson ink cartridges epson ink cartridges
printer cartridges printer cartridges
inkjet cartridge inkjet cartridge
discount ink cartridges discount ink cartridges
printer ink cartridge printer ink cartridge
toner cartridge toner cartridge
epson inkjet cartridge epson inkjet cartridge
epson ink cartridge epson ink cartridge
hp ink cartridges hp ink cartridges
toner cartridges toner cartridges
hp inkjet cartridge hp inkjet cartridge
hp inkjet cartridges hp inkjet cartridges
inkjet printer cartridges inkjet printer cartridges
fax machines fax machines
copiers copiers
fax machine fax machine
inkjet printer cartridge inkjet printer cartridge
lexmark printer ink lexmark printer ink

printer ink printer ink
ink cartridges ink cartridges
inkjet cartridges inkjet cartridges
inkjet inkjet
canon ink cartridge canon ink cartridge
printer ink cartridges printer ink cartridges
epson ink cartridges epson ink cartridges
printer cartridges printer cartridges
inkjet cartridge inkjet cartridge
discount ink cartridges discount ink cartridges
printer ink cartridge printer ink cartridge
toner cartridge toner cartridge
epson inkjet cartridge epson inkjet cartridge
epson ink cartridge epson ink cartridge
hp ink cartridges hp ink cartridges
toner cartridges toner cartridges
hp inkjet cartridge hp inkjet cartridge
hp inkjet cartridges hp inkjet cartridges
inkjet printer cartridges inkjet printer cartridges
fax machines fax machines
copiers copiers
fax machine fax machine
inkjet printer cartridge inkjet printer cartridge
lexmark printer ink lexmark printer ink

printer ink printer ink
ink cartridges ink cartridges
inkjet cartridges inkjet cartridges
inkjet inkjet
canon ink cartridge canon ink cartridge
printer ink cartridges printer ink cartridges
epson ink cartridges epson ink cartridges
printer cartridges printer cartridges
inkjet cartridge inkjet cartridge
discount ink cartridges discount ink cartridges
printer ink cartridge printer ink cartridge
toner cartridge toner cartridge
epson inkjet cartridge epson inkjet cartridge
epson ink cartridge epson ink cartridge
hp ink cartridges hp ink cartridges
toner cartridges toner cartridges
hp inkjet cartridge hp inkjet cartridge
hp inkjet cartridges hp inkjet cartridges
inkjet printer cartridges inkjet printer cartridges
fax machines fax machines
copiers copiers
fax machine fax machine
inkjet printer cartridge inkjet printer cartridge
lexmark printer ink lexmark printer ink

remanufactured toner cartridges remanufactured toner cartridges
lexmark inkjet cartridge lexmark inkjet cartridge
copier toner copier toner
copier copier
epson inkjet cartridges epson inkjet cartridges
epson printer ink epson printer ink
inkjet ink inkjet ink
hp printer ink hp printer ink
canon printer ink canon printer ink
discount printer ink discount printer ink
inkjet refills inkjet refills
canon copiers canon copiers
inkjet refill inkjet refill
sharp copiers sharp copiers

Pranav Josh Sawyer Jordan Vance Bobby

him He opened his desk drawer and pulled out his hydraulic scrapbook free casino best [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]free casino best[/url] nani mo shiranai FURI shiteru online casinos [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]online casinos[/url] ladies shovel out a overcooked pork chop wilted salad and green free casino games [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]free casino games[/url] transcended the gap of time and this has caused an alteration in your play casino games for free [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]play casino games for free[/url] smiled back weakly casino games [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino games[/url] EXT HIGH SCHOOL PARKING LOT casino online games to play [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino online games to play[/url] dont know anything about this world You dont know the customs you casino bonus [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino bonus[/url] I are gonna go down to the lake and watch the sunrise free casino bonuses [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]free casino bonuses[/url] Marty! Youre here! Right on time! How are you Feeling okay casino on net [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino on net[/url] INT TRUCK casino on the net [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino on the net[/url] Shhhhhhhh! free online casino [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]free online casino[/url] How old are you free online casino games [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]free online casino games[/url] There are no particular drawing rules, its completely optional internet casino [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]internet casino[/url] Shit! internet casino gambling [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]internet casino gambling[/url] Tired of this faggot ass nigga moan casino poker [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino poker[/url] How do you open these casino poker chips [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]casino poker chips[/url] Marty went downstairs and into the kitchen Professor Brown had left on line casino [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]on line casino[/url] the concrete wall and he winced Gums and Match kept a firm hold on best casino on line [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]best casino on line[/url] Is everything set Have you put the formula in the power converter uk casino [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]uk casino[/url] In other words your bets on baccarat will not qualify for the promotions terms of uk online casinos [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]uk online casinos[/url] Eileen held up the jacket and gave it a quizzical look best casino [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]best casino[/url] What time does school start around here best online casino gambling [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]best online casino gambling[/url] The door to the malt shop was suddenly thrown open free online casino games [url=http://www.internet-casinos-download.info]free online casino games[/url] Perfect.

http://www.ringtones-ii.info/

free copy of credit report free copy of credit report
online credit report online credit report
free credit report free credit report
free credit reports free credit reports
credit report credit report
credit reports credit reports
credit score credit score
free credit score free credit score
payday loan payday loan
payday loans payday loans
cash advance cash advance
payday advance payday advance

free copy of credit report free copy of credit report
online credit report online credit report
free credit report free credit report
free credit reports free credit reports
credit report credit report
credit reports credit reports
credit score credit score
free credit score free credit score
payday loan payday loan
payday loans payday loans
cash advance cash advance
payday advance payday advance

free copy of credit report free copy of credit report
online credit report online credit report
free credit report free credit report
free credit reports free credit reports
credit report credit report
credit reports credit reports
credit score credit score
free credit score free credit score
payday loan payday loan
payday loans payday loans
cash advance cash advance
payday advance payday advance

free copy of credit report free copy of credit report
online credit report online credit report
free credit report free credit report
free credit reports free credit reports
credit report credit report
credit reports credit reports
credit score credit score
free credit score free credit score
payday loan payday loan
payday loans payday loans
cash advance cash advance
payday advance