I'm about to tell you things that only one person out of tens of thousands knows about.
The problem is that if I just blurt them out, you'll think I must be joking. I have to approach these topics carefully from many different angles, and hope to not be quickly labeled and dismissed. I'm painting a picture that can't be understood until all the pieces are in place.
What I found is a model for understanding society's shift since the 1990's, which can be extrapolated into the future.
As an introduction here's an exchange I had with E. Michael Jones, whom I profile later:
PE: "Dr. Jones, perhaps the deep state is a fledgling life form... With a little understanding of its sometimes wayward behavior, perhaps it may become good enough for its (and ultimately our) survival, but regardless, it may be all that we have to work with. Might this even become what is referred to as the messiah in Christianity, or the messianic age in other religions?"
Jones: "The Deep State is the antichrist not the Messiah."
PE: "Seems society put off marriage waiting for its messiah... only to find itself accelerating into technological singularity (its biological clock running out), and having to settle instead for who is available (the deep state)."
In 2001 there was 9/11, and the word truther was coined. Does the word truther make you feel awkward? Why? How about the word atheist? My model doesn't take sides on these issues, and this blog is not about detailing truther events or religious legalism.
Both trutherism and atheism are about breaching privacy, and hence their awkwardness.
But privacy from what? Well, it turns out that each level of life is like a separate organism which requires some privacy from the other levels in order to function properly. Individuals need some alone time from their families, which in turn need some privacy from the communities (and/ or religion) they are part of. The local community needs some autonomy from the country, which in turn operates somewhat independently from global initiatives. This principle also works in the reverse, so that global planning needs some independence from countries, and on down to a family unit sometimes needing to act independently of any one member. Each level of life has its own needs for survival, and maintains some secrets that it doesn't share with the other levels.
The overall structure is like a huge computer program with various levels of subroutines, but with human emotion built into each level. It is emotion that makes the breaching of privacy between levels akin to touching a third rail.
Now add to this setup a timing mechanism based on the pace of innovation in technology. Unlike the linear pacing of a watch, technology's trajectory is exponential forcing change at an ever increasing pace, becoming faster than humans can handle. We will increasingly share our attributes with machines, and their attributes will be shared with us. Privacy concerns will fade as increasingly automated levels feed into some as yet undefined pools of consciousness; conditions approaching technological singularity.
If that's not enough to get your head spinning, grab something solid as I out five simple concepts whose literary meanings have been deliberately obfuscated: The Next World, Predestination, God, Christ, and Antichrist. These definitions were honed by discussions with believers, as well as with some of the most skeptical scientists out there, to the satisfaction of neither (well... not publicly, anyway).
Part One: My discussion with scientists...
...took place in the comment section of one of those perennial articles that relate religion and science in a fuzzy, politically correct way.
The first commentator (Com1) is a scientist who presented a stereotypical critical view of religion:
Com1: "Most Christian religions strike me as being selfish--not selfless. People work in them for their own, individual eternal salvation, no? 'Do good and you'll have a life in heaven.' The true selfless individual would say 'I'm doing something that will condemn me to eternal perdition, but I'll die knowing that I've done good for others.'
"Devise a test for the existence of a god/gods. If you can't, the implication is that god/gods, have no effect on our existence. One might as well believe in Russell's teapot. It's a waste of energy. The same for afterlife and reincarnation."
PE: Have you considered that the terms "afterlife", "reincarnation" and "the next world" are all metaphors for "the next generation of people"?
Com1: "It's strange we don't speak in the same terms when it comes to worms, bacteria, or viruses, isn't it? In view of that, the species with the greater potential for 'afterlife' are cockroaches, not humans."
PE: People get categorized as atheists, fundamentalists, and/ or put into various denominations. Each camp has rehearsed its arguments many times. Here's a fresh approach:
Is the world in the process of cobbling together a brain as part of its developmental biology? Perhaps it is a messy process that at times appears to be seeking our destruction, when in fact it may be a last ditch effort to align with developmental biology. The timing mechanism for this would be the exponential ramp in technology, and missing this developmental window would result in extinction or catastrophic destruction. The resulting brain need not be perfect-- it need only be "good enough" to enable survival. The brains of drunks treat their bodies very badly, but more enlightened brains treat their bodies very well. Do the cells (society) have any say as to which type of brain they (we) end up with? Even a functional drunk may be "good enough", although perhaps not in a way that the other cells in his body understand or appreciate.
The legalistic, dogmatic, symbol-based approach is in the process of crumbling, as technology goes exponential and there is an awakening in thought. Will this awakening be broad based; an attribute of an internet based world brain with the general population (as well as machines) as the nodes? I'm hopeful that we'll move past the oligarchical model that has kept people in ignorance for generations.
Com2: "I do find hope in statements like these from Pope Francis..."
[The Pope spoke out strongly against religious fundamentalism, as we discuss later.]
PE: Two different interpretations of the Pope's stance:
(1) Is he destroying the underpinnings of religion, including his own, to help pave the way for world government and a new type of world religion?
(2) Is he working to strip away abusive religious baggage, in order to elevate religion's traditional function as an advocate for the rights of systems of local population, including religious groups, families, individuals, and now also individual countries, in the face of an inherently divergent world agenda?
PE: religion is used mostly as a benefit to mankind:
(1) Numerous people, such as Professor James Tour, have spoken about how fundamentalist belief helped resolve their addiction. Sterling Allan, an admitted pedophile who was recently arrested, has blogged about using his own brand of fundamentalist belief in attempting to quell his addiction. Since everyone is a potential addict, many who have moved past fundamentalist belief don't want to spoil things for those who can still benefit from it.
(2) If religion is metaphor, try to figure out what is hidden and why. What privately known truths may not be useful or welcome in a public context? Can religion symbolically (gracefully) give words to such otherwise unspeakable science?
(3) As others here have mentioned, the public face of religion is often used for promoting harmony among people.
(4) If you think you are an atheist, try defining God to simply mean "the largest perspective", stripping away all the baggage. Voila! You now believe in God.
PE: The Bible writers were forced to disguise the meaning of Satan. A surface reading of the Bible would have one believe that everyone has the same perspective, with a single kindergarten-like standard of good vs. evil. That Satan, aka The World, is simply a group of evil people. But what the Bible writers really tried to leak out is that Satan represents the world as a whole; a different level of life with its own perspective, but if too many people were to figure that out the world's agenda would be placed unduly at risk.
The Bible writers were trying to advocate for the rights of local communities, families, and individuals to survive in the face of a sometimes divergent world agenda. Advocacy is by definition one-sided, and inherently leaves out half the story. So, just as opposing lawyers can be friends at the end of the day, clergy and civic leaders ultimately get along.
But make no mistake-- if the Bible was written crystal clear it would unduly threaten The World's agenda. Here's what's hidden: The World is focused on its own survival as a whole, and as a consequence, at times considers local populations expendable.
PE: Turn the microscope on the tensions between the world and more local levels of life, and things become ungraceful very quickly; the pain of which some compare to that of looking directly into the sun. I can appreciate the words of Hermann Hesse, when he suggested that only one person out of tens of thousands can master this area of study.
It's not the science that is difficult. Perspective is a scientific concept. What I term "God" simply means the largest perspective, or a much greater perspective than we currently have. If we had that perspective we could predict our earthly outcomes. We do have a large enough perspective to predict the odds of various outcomes in the development of, say, an individual caterpillar. But we do not have enough data to predict the outcome of civilization's development on planet Earth. For that we would have to have discovered numerous other inhabited planets, and compiled statistics about them.
Let's consider the caterpillar as a metaphor for Earth today, where the cells on the caterpillar are analogous to people on Earth. Isn't the normal path for the future of the caterpillar preordained? Perhaps a coalition of the willing ascends as a butterfly, leaving in its wake the rubble of caterpillar civilization left behind. As humans the prospect of something like that happening to us would be troubling... even more so if we ultimately can't control the script.
I do not envy leaders having to make tough decisions under difficult conditions. I prefer that people negotiate amicable settlements. But during major turning points the monsters tend to come out. Any one of us could face being forced into the role of hypocrite, to preserve a paycheck, pension, or otherwise… what a horrid thought.
Hostile confrontation will not work, but do these topics need to be avoided entirely by labeling them trutherism? Truthers are people trying to expose either political or religious myth, and it is often suggested that they are totally marginalized by society, putting their jobs and friendships at risk.
Let's just say there is an expectation of privacy by each level of life: the world, countries, religious groups, families, and individuals. It is dangerous* to threaten the agenda of the world as a life form, including its attempt to implement a world-brain; an agenda that may be imprinted by DNA and science.
A start might be to face the science, so at least we know what might be possible in the way of morality and grace. The human population is seven billion; a small number in our computer oriented world. There should be a way for everyone to be dealt a hand at the table.
*Later we'll discuss what the Pope refers to as absurd dichotomies... he also calls them dangerous and harmful.
Com3: "All metaphors and poetry, nothing concrete… seeing a line with God in it...
"You are saying 'Don't look at that'. Nope, you made your bed now lay in it! Religions allow good people to do and be evil. You have a very negative view of science."
PE: --- Free The Scientists ---
This is the only area of study where scientists stunt their development at an eighth grade level.
Com3 is right: Too much "metaphors and poetry, nothing concrete".
Com1 is right: "It's strange we don't speak in the same terms when it comes to worms, bacteria, or viruses."
...If we did, we might find that inherent in science there are times when our rights can become forfeited as part of a larger agenda. Grace (steering clear of these topics by labeling them trutherism) is allowing us to stay comfortably numb.
First we have to correctly term the area of study. Try this: "The nature of the world as a life form as it relates to the rights of local systems of population including individual countries, religious groups, families, and individuals".
Free exchange of information on the internet enables us to bust apart myths not only within religion but also regarding the war on terror; both intertwined in this area of study. The war mischaracterized as involving Muslims is instead a series of efforts directed against the sovereignties of all local populations, setting up world government. Scientifically, not unlike a developing human embryo forming its brain.
Does uncovering this science at the expense of grace create an atmosphere of pessimism? Well, one benefit of calling the largest perspective God is that it allows us to be optimistic about science's eventual outcome.
Com3: "I value life very highly. Valuing results in strong stance on issues and disagreements with people. You don't need God to value life. The real reason to value life was inside most people (except some sociopaths/psychopaths) all along in the form of instincts. By logical reasoning you can also find out cooperation has advantages and thus better survival for organisms working in groups. Don't forget you are a multicellular creature. The cells cooperate and some even die for keeping you alive. Unlike unicellular creatures. Science is descriptive. Science tells you how things work, not what you are suppose to do. Science is not like a religion, trying constantly tell you to obey a deity or follow rituals. If you need a goal why not place a high quality of life for yourself and your fellow humans as a goal? You can use science to try to figure out how to create utopia instead of dystopia. Set out to increase your quality of life by living harmoniously and peacefully. No outdated deity required!"
PE: How should people evaluate allowing artificial intelligence to make decisions regarding whether, who, and how many people to drone? Now, do you still think the topics we are discussing here are too abstract?
Com3: "Finally a concrete question about a real-world situation. I had to press the question. Only after pressing the question did you came with a concrete situation and problem to solve. You are probably from the USA so you guys should really either increase your hit rate of actual targets instead of civilians or just stop it already. Notice the independence from believing in particular God(s). If only the topics we are discussing involved those concrete questions from the start. What does your God say about that question? What decision should you make whether, who, and how many people to drone according to your God?"
PE: Com3 wrote: "...[drone] actual targets instead of civilians or just stop it already."
I'm glad one of your bedrock beliefs is that life is important; it's one of my beliefs as well.
What is the purpose of belief? Let's start with instinct, which all living beings share. Instinct tells, for example, a cat, what to do with its time. Humans augment their instinct using self-talk, providing standards upon which to weigh priorities in allocating the use of time.
But what if this self-talk has huge gaps in it? Such as... Why are we here? Instinctively we may know what to do with our time, but upon reflection we might not be so sure. Some answers are unknowable, even using science.
But this does not make all bedrock beliefs equal. Some beliefs are definitely better than others in that they are more aligned with the design... which affects the function of human society in the same way that DNA affects the course of cellular function. The design, whose probabilities (but not outcomes) are set in stone, is ultimately related to survival. While the design is clear in hindsight, it is difficult to determine going forward, especially for the long term. This is what is meant by "no one can see the face of God". Insights can be written down (some in the form of religious texts); a process which should involve occasional updates and revisions as new information becomes known.
Yes, life is important. It's not only aligned with the design, but also inherent to it.
Com3 wrote: "What decision should you make whether, who, and how many people to drone according to your God?"
God is a concept which simply means the largest perspective. If we had that perspective we could predict our earthly outcomes. The probabilities of various developmental outcomes are preset by DNA and science, and are not subject to capricious change by man or some external consciousness.
Mankind has free will/ agency to try all the various possible developmental paths. But if we veer too far from the statistically probable path, extinction or a catastrophic outcome will ensue. And the chance of that happening is also a part of those predetermined statistics that are unknown by us.
Our civilization appears to be at the developmental window in which to form its brain. One can feel the sense of urgency lest the window close too soon:
(1) The exponential ramp in technology is at the stage where it is already causing extreme dysfunction. A world-brain can better manage and harness technology to reduce risk of catastrophic events.
(2) We appear to be in the initial stages of operations, possibly aided or soon to be aided by integrated artificial intelligence networks, that have access to arsenals of EMP, nukes, drones, directed energy, and possibly bio-weapons. It's still unclear whether the worst of these weapons will be utilized. Unlike prior wars which were between countries, these operations are being directed by groups of people from many countries, and directed against the sovereignties of their own countries as well as those of all other countries of the world.
(3) It is also believed that many of the key systems and personnel in many countries have already been infiltrated. Swarms of foreigners have come into these countries, both overtly and covertly, and without clear explanation. Numerous respected patriotic military leaders have left, many for specious reasons. Disinformation abounds, and people at many levels are unsure of what is or is not real.
From the larger perspective, this can all be seen as science. Perhaps similar to how groups of neurons compete for control within a developing human embryo, and how hormones are released to trigger some of the cells to suicide. Eventually a victor emerges… The brain? The new world order? When catastrophic events happen, people often say "God must have a larger plan", and we can see how this applies metaphorically here.
The traditional values of local communities, families, and individuals, are being and will continue to be targeted, and their religions infiltrated to some extent. Typical of comments on the internet is this quote by Sterling Allan: "Pope Francis is a Marxist, Jesuit... All for New World Order tyranny". I would not characterize him that way. But it remains to be seen how much of religion's traditional role as an advocate for the rights of the family and other local populations will be preserved.
Com3: "Believing life is important is important for survival. Part of survival instinct for self preservation. Biology: evolutionary theory will tell you people who don't find life is important will lose competition versus people who do find life important. Same goes for finding offspring important."
PE: Com3, that could be a description of a brain-dead body on life support. The community of cells interact in harmony including generating offspring. But this system cannot easily change; not within its existing rules.
What’s lacking is a larger perspective operating outside existing rules, that can act expediently and intelligently, sometimes called…
The Nudge... an existing concept that I have further expanded:
Chaos is introduced. For example, muscle tissue is ripped during vigorous exercise, causing inflammation of the local population. Order then follows chaos; rebuilt, stronger muscles.
This agent for change must be secret and invincible. Otherwise, the local population will locate it and take away its power.
For the first time in history, invincibility for the top oligarchy/ cartels may be at hand, made possible by the exponential ramp in technology. What happens when a President orders that he be informed regarding UFOs, and the intelligence chief flat out refuses, adding that the President can do nothing about it? Dr. Steven Greer reported on that very situation. Now, I have no scientific reason to believe we have found evidence of UFOs, and it’s possible that the UFO scenario may have been put out there as disinformation, of which Dr. Greer may or may not be a part. But he does bring up a valid point about the nature of absolute power.
The newly formed world-brain may start out as a child or adolescent; sometimes acting wayward as it tests the limits of its newly discovered powers. It might try scratching itself, quelling irritating populations.
Com3: "No, being brain-dead is not having any survival mechanism. The brain is important, if the brain is gone the person is gone. Brain-dead people are not alive, anymore because the brain is not alive any more. The rest of their body could be considered alive but the person is gone. How do you make a distinction between what is alive and what is not? Do you consider an arm or leg on artificial heart, lungs, kidneys and other machinery alive? Where do you draw the line?"
PE: Tell me these cells are not alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
These are very aggressive immortal cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks in 1951, and are on “life support” in numerous labs throughout the world. They managed to escape their “world-brain” (control by Henrietta’s brain), and have immortality to boot. Many people would gladly take that deal: ditch control by oligarchs/ cartels, and never age*.
A five cell human fetus is alive. Like the cancer cells in the lab, it doesn’t have a brain and is on life support. The cells in each are alive, both individually and collectively (the cancer cells self organize to some extent, but nowhere near like how the fetus will). A brain-dead person on life support also has cells that are alive both individually and collectively; but the conscious brain, which thought it was the person, is dead. Perhaps the oligarchy/ cartels will one day think of themselves AS the world.
It’s difficult to be objective when considering differing perspectives. Perspective is the key to understanding morality, ethics, and the metaphors of the various religions.
*Has any of the research on these cancer cells been directed toward finding immortality for humans? Unlike these cells, which can both reproduce and never age individually, us humans are restricted to reproduction. Well, everyone can contribute to the next generation of people in one way or another; if not by DNA then by culture, and this is what religion means by the next world, literally the next generation of people. And the religious term eternal life simply means that this process can repeat itself, generation after generation, potentially forever. Religion without the excess baggage does not conflict with science.
Com3: "Welcome to the world of biology, fellow multicellular being. Here is another good one: Are viruses alive? Ah the wonderful world of biology, where life can sometimes be difficult to define. For medical purposes, professionals use a more useful metric called brain-dead to draw a well defined line in the sand with clear, unambiguous meanings.
"Those cells are alive all right. Just not in the same way as a whole person with a brain. Don't get too carried away on the similar concept employed through a different situation. (Be careful not to compare too much as to not end up comparing apple's and oranges.) This is also why laws about abortion put limits around when the nervous system and brain starts to develop. And might I add, can by using this metric thus also considered to be alive in the same way.
"You can remove the quotes, they are doing a disservice at describing the concept. Even these HeLa cells needed a lot of coaxing to stand on their own. The cells needed to be bread for surviving in a sterile petri dish. These cells also need to be provided with nutrients and an environment that doesn't kill them. Throwing them into a natural environment (say a pond) would most likely kill them. The HeLa cells survive because scientists have made environments specifically to be as hospitable as possible for those cells. Providing the cells with nutrients, keeping away numerous microorganisms that would prey on the HeLa cells in the wild. The cells are mass produced in a specially designed factory.
"The control of the brain and cooperation of cells allow multicellular organisms to do things beyond monocellularity. The organizational structure provides benefits, or else it wouldn't have evolved.
"The rest of your comment seems to be permeated with feel-good religious delusions about being immortal because small pieces of yourself can be alive. Don't count on it dude. If you die you stop existing, you don't live on in your offspring or cancer donations for medical research. Not a good example of independence from the rest of the human body. In fact it begs the opposite conclusion.
"Objectivity and reasonability is the way to make moral decisions."
PE: Being on life support or something similar is here now or on its way:
According to congressional testimony, an EMP event could make living in the United States unsustainable for 70 to 90 percent of the population. I mention this not because I anticipate an EMP event, but as an illustration of how dependent we have become on electricity for survival.
Com6 wrote: "...there is a political movement to go to a cashless society - sounds great but also gives the government total knowledge of every transaction and thus the ability to remove the ability of anyone to function (no bank account means you can't live)."
...representing a shift in the life form, from being individuals and families, to being the world-brain.
Com3 wrote: "The control of the brain and cooperation of cells allow multicellular organisms to do things beyond monocellularity. The organizational structure provides benefits, or else it wouldn't have evolved."
...Yes, that process is now underway with the world forming its brain.
Perhaps we'll see some transparency in this regard, making the truther label obsolete.
Com3: "Yes, good points except for your intro. Your electrical appliances not working isn't quite the same as your heart stopping or your brain. The EMP doesn't make your body stop working. Comparing apple's and oranges with the EMP scenario. Not the same kind of dependency."
After this exchange, a followup article appeared titled May The Force Be With Us! These scientists are still in denial of a developing global authority with its own perspective akin to a new life form. Any such elements are adamantly referred to as nefarious forces.
Part Two: Excerpts gathered from my profile page at Disqus:
1/28/15: The Bible As A Form Of Turtherism:
Ever wonder why a document as important as the Bible appears purposely written so that it is confusing? What if the Bible writers really wanted to be crystal clear in its presentation, but were not allowed to? Who would have been powerful enough to have hobbled them? The world... yes, The World, whom the Bible so demonizes.
I have a theory: The World looks at itself as one big computer program, with local communities, families, and individuals as subroutines existing at the whim and for the agenda of The World. The Bible writers were trying to advocate for the rights of local communities, families, and individuals to survive in the face of a sometimes divergent world agenda. It's not as if the Bible writers thought The World is wrong; The World has its advocates and the Bible writers wanted to provide advocacy for the rights of the other side. Just as opposing lawyers can be friends at the end of the day, clergy and civic leaders ultimately get along.
But make no mistake-- if the Bible was written crystal clear it would unduly threaten The World's agenda. Here's a hint: The World is content for the Bible to tell people that their reward is to live forever in heaven. What if the Bible writers intended a deeper meaning? ...that the next world is the next generation of people, and that eternity is generations after generations continuing to be formed forever... that communities, families and individuals should focus on perpetuating the DNA and/ or culture to ensure the existence of future generations... while The World is focused on its own survival as a whole, and at times, considers local populations expendable.
2/4/15: Agenda 21 and Rosa Koire’s Presentation:
Koire's presentation on Vimeo gives a factual view of Agenda 21 which everyone needs to view. It is not over the top like an Infowars piece that included "Death Camps" in its title. Koire points out that Agenda 21 looks for a "balance" between individual and communal rights, but actually infringes upon Constitutional rights of individuals so they are no longer inalienable rights.
Agenda 21 may well end up discarded, but world government is nevertheless being cobbled together at an ever accelerating pace. Like Koire, I don't like what I see happening, but our views may be overridden by science: Efficient systems have both a top down as well as a bottom up component. Top down provides expediency, while bottom up provides more degrees of freedom and innovation, and the system that ultimately survives will have a "balance" of the two. I put "balance" in quotes because, as Koire points out, things weigh down heavily in favor of the 'top down' side, whenever a "balance" between the two is attempted.
9/30/15: Regarding The Pope’s Comments During His Recent Visit, On The Crucifixion:
It is easy to become so caught up in belief as to overlook the literary meaning of the crucifixion story.
Previous religions* did not distinguish between the differing perspectives of the various levels of life: the world, the local community, the family, and the individual. The same narrative defined right and wrong as if there were no distinction between levels.
The crucifixion story introduced the concept of private vs. public. For example, what makes sense within the context of a family might not make sense from the world's perspective, so some aspects of the family's motivational beliefs might best be kept private. If these beliefs were to be proclaimed publicly, they might catch on to the extent that the world's narrative might be threatened. The crucifixion illustrates that while the world can and will take measures to protect its agenda, this does not invalidate the agendas of local communities, families and individuals. The world allows these agendas to be expressed publicly if they are hidden in metaphor-- being explicit can be risky. Note that the Bible itself is a public document; it is written in metaphor so as not to unduly threaten the world's agenda. Its hidden message is extracted and shared privately.
Getting caught up in belief in some ways can be a distraction, inadvertently favoring the world's agenda.
The Pope was not explicit in his remarks about the crucifixion during his recent visit in the USA. My guess is that in private he makes a lot of sense.
*This is not meant to advocate any one religion over any other. Metaphoric literary meaning transcends any cultural aspects of the texts, as well as cultural affiliations (if any) of the writers or readers.
2/19/15: Revelations Is Not About The End Of The World:
Revelations provides a vivid parable regarding the balance of power between the world and more local levels of population, and shows the type of thinking families and individuals need to enable eternal survival. Technology advanced very slowly in Bible days, and of course people from then could not foresee the exponential changes occurring now. We are coming upon a change as great as that of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly-- great to us, but to nature all very common and ordinary.
Revelations is not about this larger change that is occurring today. Yes there will be dislocations, some quite severe, and the lessons of Revelations will help some to survive the transition. But the exponential ramping of technology, unforeseeable to the Bible writers, is creating conditions where a centralized strengthening of the world's power can and will emerge…
...If for no other reason than to prevent “Hurtling Toward Oblivion”, the current trajectory of the world as described by Richard A. Swenson, M.D., in his book of the same title. He wrote:
“The world is always, and unavoidably, experiencing an increased profusion. With each new level of profusion we have much new positive but, unavoidably…much new negative. The growth of positive is rapid, approximating exponential growth. But the corresponding growth of negative is also alarmingly rapid… the accumulation of negative is [also] exponential.
"Once this quantum, this critical mass, of negative reaches a certain threshold of lethality, it will prove fatal for our world system. Under conditions of exponentiality, change can go from almost undetectable to overwhelming in the blink of an eye. No amount of positive can offset this negative and the impending lethality. We have no possible option but to continue in this fatal direction because of our total dependency on progress.”
Swenson thinks we can’t avoid total destruction; I disagree. It’s the starting of this destruction (or perhaps false flag and/ or hoax events* mimicking this destruction) that will allow strong central control in certain crucial areas. But the good side of technology will bring about far greater freedoms in many facets of daily living.
When Swenson talks about the bad side of exponential increase in technology, he is not primarily talking about anything evil. He thinks the added capabilities, volume and speed have outgrown what our world can handle. Think of how people plant computer viruses just for kicks and not trying to earn any money from it. With billions of people in the world and the type of technology being made available, we might find that some of the things being done for “kicks” could destroy the planet. These people might be more naive or thoughtless than evil.
*Note: I'm against false flag and hoax events. Shouldn’t there be honesty about the real reasons for the changes ahead… and wouldn't honesty be more effective?
7/19/16: Revelations Is About Survivability Of Local Communities, Families, and Individuals:
The “end of the world” in Revelations might actually be referring to the end of life (mortality) that happens for each person individually, and about what remains scientifically as a result of that life. The Bible writers decided it was more important to be graceful than explicit, however, with the unintended result that many people never discover the underlying message.
People die at different ages and for different reasons. Revelations filters out these differences by having mortality occur for everyone at the same time and due to the same event.
The Bible speaks in terms of “heaven” and the “narrow gate” leading thereto, but does not explicitly define these terms.
The scientific meaning of heaven, often referred to as the next world, is the next generation of people. People have differing circumstances and motivations in this regard. The Bible filters out these differences by suggesting heaven as a transition where a person’s conscious thoughts can continue as part of a blissful, incorporeal existence.
The narrow gate, which the Bible describes as leading to heaven based on belief in God/ goodness, is a little more complex scientifically to define. It is only narrow to the extent that this adds focus to one’s motivational belief. For example, consider three swimmers performing laps. The first imagines being chased by a shark (fear based, such as avoiding ending up in a lake of fire). The second imagines attainment of eternal life (reward based, such as entering heaven). The third focuses on swimming technique (science based). While each swimmer’s narrow focus differs, none is more right than the others. These are motivational beliefs and methods, and each person has his own motivational needs.
The gate itself is broad. Anyone and everyone can have an influence on the next generation of people, regardless of one’s age or personal circumstance. Wouldn’t it be useful in deciding how to occupy one’s time, to know that for all the things a person does in a lifetime all that remains is the next generation of people? ... and that everything else eventually turns to dust? … and to apply this knowledge going forward without focusing on the past or comparing/ judging another’s path?
It shouldn't be surprising that what the Bible describes as the world's end-time is instead metaphor for each person’s own “end-time” (mortality). The Bible concerns itself with families and individuals, preferring to leave matters of the world to Cesar.
2/22/15: More Regarding Dr. Swenson:
Swenson's position is based on science, not on religion. When his book appeared, he was invited to present before Congress and the Pentagon. This was prior to 9/11 and the "war on terror". About a year ago I emailed Dr. Swenson as follows: "I read your book, Hurtling Towards Oblivion, in the 1990's, and I believe it has had an impact on subsequent events."
Many people are at a loss trying to understand some of the bizarre changes in government since the 1990's. Dr. Swenson replied to my email as follows: "Profusion, the more and more of everything faster and faster, has, I believe, become a very significant problem. It is hyperexponential and is already causing widespread dysfunction. I am trying to write two books this year, and the second will be an update of Hurtling. It will be most likely be titled Profusion."
Dr. Swenson has impressive credentials. I haven't heard anything more about a book update, but it would be interesting to see whether he believes what appears to many as bizarre government policies, were influenced by the thesis he presented in the 1990's to the highest levels within government.
2/11/15: More On Recurring End Of The World Predictions:
The key factor is the exponential rate of change in the progress of technology. To illustrate the point, think of a 1920's house that has aluminum wiring, that is being used for an expanding home business. Over the years more and more electronics are moved into the house, and when asked whether an electrical overload may cause an explosion, the homeowner explains that this has been predicted many times but hasn't happened yet.
The nature of parabolas is that sudden change can occur at any time, like the snapping of a rubber band. Here are just two of numerous factors that when considered collectively make the end of the world a statistical near certainty, absent radical change: (1) Viruses can be created out of commercially available substances. It has been estimated that someone who has a masters degree in microbiology can spend about $10,000 to outfit a lab and purchase substances by mail order to create a virus that can destroy the world. Google: Is Microbiology a Dangerous Profession? (2) A lot of nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union has ended up in private hands. Google: Loose Nukes.
I have a theory that the "war on terror" is actually a pretense to gain the type of control needed to deal with these potentially world-ending issues that haven't caused "explosions" yet. (Well, Fukushima did explode.) Perhaps a better policy would be to just tell the public the truth (that parabolic growth in technology is the real issue), and let corrective measures start there. It may not be advisable or even possible to try to slow down technology, so use your imagination as to what will have to give.
A Scientist Responds:
“It's more that in that 1920s house people are continually looking at the bad joints and replacing bits and pieces with Copper as they get too hot. People are looking into the problems that are perceived in the world and fixing those that are deemed too dangerous.
“Continuing the analogy, the main danger would seem to come from any hidden wire-routings in the original layout that few if any know about and thus don't check on them.
“For the people playing with recombinant DNA, this is cheaper than you state and I read awhile back of a community in the USA where this was done by schoolkids. They had produced glow-in-the-dark bacteria and things like that. Accidents would seem to be likely, and we've seen with diseases like Ebola how difficult such things are to absolutely contain.
“Nuclear terrorism is going to have to rely on stealing stuff that is already made - it's difficult to refine things sufficiently at home and the engineering needs to be precise. There you'd be looking at rogue states being the main problem. North Korea, maybe Iran, and any crackpot régimes in the Middle East who wish to prove their cojones are bigger than others'.
“It seems to me that all technology is a double-edged sword. As fire can either burn your house down or cook your food and keep you pleasantly warm, most new technologies can be used for good or harm. We can't stop the advances (and I wouldn't want to) but discussions as to what's a good and bad use need to be had.
“With globalisation and the ease of sending anything bad all over the world in a day or so (imagine if Ebola were as transmissible as 'flu) we get scenarios like Stephen King's "The Stand". It would be useful to avoid that.
“The chances of such a catastrophe are maybe increasing but I doubt if there's any reliable way to put a figure on this. It's thus a useful thing to do to try to advance space colonisation so that at least some high-technology bases will remain to rebuild from if that happens. Meantime we rely on the much-maligned Powers That Be to catch any bad thing before it gets too big.”
4/16/15: The God Concept and Bibles:
I define the God concept as infinite perspective, which no person can possess enough of to be considered a heavenly father or mother in the flesh. The most one can claim is to be a student.
Bibles are literary works written by people. I look to Bibles for wisdom of the ages, but do not consider them the exclusive source of such wisdom. For example, I consider them a little heavy-handed with regard to capital punishment.
2/22/15: Intelligent Design And Predestination:
Looking at a seed we can predict how its future will unfold (and can be more specific if we test its DNA).
A predestined design eventually manifests that seeks to intelligently optimize survival. This fact need not imply anything about how such a design ultimately came about; something that is unknowable due to our limited perspective.
To help visualize scientific concepts which otherwise might be difficult to understand, metaphors are often used.
If we define God as the largest perspective, then we could metaphorically refer to the design as God's handiwork.
Let's take a snapshot of human society today and call that a "seed". Why couldn't our future development similarly be labeled predestination, and this development be considered intelligently designed? Wouldn't posing the issue as one of science vs. religion be a red-herring?
2/26/15: Literalism vs. Symbolism:
In his Introduction to Matrix 5, Val Valerian wrote: "...recently passed beings dawdling on the fourth density, still attached to earth programming, their former incarnations, and don't know there is anything beyond 'over there', which there is, of course. It's pretty much infinite. So are we."
Have you read enough of Valerian's writings to know whether he is being literal? Or is he being symbolic? I prefer the later: that it is aspects of DNA and culture that have the potential to become infinite.
2/22/15: Substituting Maps For Territories:
"The map is not the territory" -- remarked scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski.
We can look at reality as the territory, and the Bible as a map.
As an analogy, consider someone who brings a map for a visit to the Grand Canyon. During the day, the visitor studies the map while locked in his motel room. At night, the visitor leaves his motel and stumbles around the Grand Canyon trying to recall the map. Early the next day, he leaves for home nursing an injury from a minor fall. Upon returning home, he re-examines his map for enlightenment in finding answers. He finds this description on the map: "Bright Angel Point: This trail is steep in places, with drop-offs."
3/15/2015: Science vs. Metaphors:
It is extremely important to be able to distinguish between metaphors (however cool they may be) and scientific facts. For example, Charlie Brown's great pumpkin may have symbolic meaning, and it might be cool to stay up all night in the pumpkin patch waiting for its arrival, but this in itself is not science. Walking around substituting metaphor for fact is like stumbling around with a blindfold on. Instead, metaphors are useful in helping to visualize facts which are otherwise difficult to articulate.
Accepting metaphors as science would be akin to expecting characters in a TV sitcom to step out of the TV set and into your living room, and become literally yours to interact with. Focus on the greater message; not on the cut-out characters that have been created and are used as metaphor in helping to illustrate a point.
Astrology- Interesting, But Not Science:
At least with astrology one can hypothesize the effect gravity from celestial bodies might have upon the development of the human fetus. As anecdotal evidence regarding astrology, there is a free website in which to look up a person’s astrology chart. Click on "Birth Chart", and then enter birthday, time of birth (this can affect one's moon sign, which is an important part of one's horoscope) and Place of Birth. After people run this chart for themselves and people they know well, some people might find the anecdotal evidence compelling regarding astrology.
But anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Hypothesizing the effect of gravity on the unborn, I have thought about people who were born using IVF, in which they were frozen for several years (when they were only a 4 or 5 cell embryo), and astrology based on birth date still appears useful. But what about people born early or late?-- Wouldn't the major part of development of the fetus have already taken place and the person's tendencies already have been established if we are to go with the gravity hypothesis?
Bottom line: Do I believe in astrology? No, I will not believe it unless and until there has been independent, scientific verification.
6/13/15: Diversity Of Metaphors:
One interesting point about astrology, regardless of whether the overall concept has validity, is in its highlighting the fact of stark differences in the strengths and weaknesses, and therefore in the motivational needs of each person.
Consider two people at a store, each buying his favorite brand of bread. They disagree with each other on which is the better brand. When they get home, each proceeds to eat the wrapper and put the bread in the freezer.
The wrappers have radically different designs, but everyone’s bread is remarkably similar. The two shoppers are at the stage in their psychological development where they think the wrappers are the main part of the bread.
Neither shopper is more right than the other. How can this be when their viewpoints appear to contradict each other? Well, we're talking motivational beliefs here, and each person has his own motivational needs.
Here's an analogy based on Stephen Covey's teachings: Suppose you are accompanied by a friend when looking for your lost glasses. Would it make sense for your friend to lend you his glasses to aid in your search? After you found your glasses, would it make sense for you to lend your glasses to your friend so that he can see as well as you do using them?
While legalism is presented as uniform it is actually customized based upon one’s developmental needs relating to brain chemistry. Here we are talking about regulating the balance of euphoria and depression/ addiction (see discussion below).
3/19/15: Trutherism And Artificial Intelligence Scenario Software:
I often rely on trust regarding the truthfulness of the reporting of an event. Trust is a lesser standard than independent scientific verification; the later which I require for something that is claimed to be science.
It took decades of largely truthful reporting by the media for it to earn this trust. Interestingly, this trust is being quickly eroded by questionable reporting becoming increasingly evident these last several years. Not for coverage of events like the Pluto mission, but for coverage of terrorism (especially shootings) and divisive issues related to race, religion, and gender.
What's interesting is a possible connection to artificial intelligence. Various scripts organized by AI software and propagated by media may be being played out in the general population with all of us as participants. A Hollywood producer has created scenario generator software using AI which "generates 250 years of human thinking every 90 minutes, so you can be certain that you have considered all possible scenarios for a given situation." His company recently conducted a live experiment of the software at an event held by U.S. Special Operations Command.
4/2/15: More On The Upcoming Turning Point:
Here's a concept I've been struggling with: Has anyone ever seen a cell with more than one nucleus, or an organism with more than one brain? Is this executive function voted in by the surrounding tissue, or is it a "coalition of the willing" which harnesses the surrounding tissue in furtherance of its agenda? Is the world in the process of cobbling together a similar executive component-- a brain-- as part of its developmental biology? Perhaps it is a messy process that at times appears to be seeking our destruction, when in fact it may be a last ditch effort to align with developmental biology, absent which there would be total destruction. The resulting brain need not be perfect-- it need only be "good enough" to enable survival. The brains of drunks treat their bodies very badly, but more enlightened brains treat their bodies very well. Do the cells (society) have any say as to which type of brain they (we) end up with? Even a functional drunk may be "good enough", although perhaps not in a way that the other cells in his body understand or appreciate.
The legalistic, dogmatic, symbol-based approach is in the process of crumbling, as technology goes exponential and there is an awakening in thought. Will this awakening be broad based; an attribute of an internet based world brain with the general population as well as machines as the nodes? I'm hopeful that we'll move past the oligarchical model that has kept people in ignorance for generations.
5/7/15: Messianic Age and the New World Order:
The formation of society's brain has been and will be rejected until the time is right. All "false" brains preceding the real one are practice runs. Conditions were not ripe two thousand years ago for the creation of the world's brain. Pope Francis recently said that Jesus failed at the cross, but tracing this metaphor further we see that it was the World that had failed. It created a martyr that would propel a new religion further impeding the world-brain's formation efforts for generations to come.
A person’s efforts to impede a world brain presents an interesting paradox:
(1) Is he fighting to reject the current attempt to form the world's brain? The new brain has to be tested to see whether the time is ripe for its formation. Technology has to have progressed far enough along its parabolic curve, so that: (i) the technology creates such unstable conditions that the world cannot continue to exist without a brain, and (ii) the brain has sufficient technological superiority to defeat all attempts to unseat it.
(2) Is he fighting the world brain, to prevent its formation unless and until it has reached an accommodation with local populations? When the "true" world brain finally appears, attempts to unseat it will be futile, and people will come to accept this New World Order. But if this brain also achieves a fair relationship with local populations, it might also become what some might call the second coming of Jesus, or simply the Messianic Age.
These are highly charged battles furthering developmental biology, and in either role one can expect rejection (or worse). We are in the midst of a biological transition not unlike the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly.
Whether the current attempt will result in the creation of the true brain remains to be seen.
5/9/15: Setting Straight The World’s Priorities:
Who would these new priorities be directed towards?...
...governments, which exist today in name only, if they haven't already been toppled?
...groups of people, seen or unseen, into whose hands nuclear, bio-hazard, weather and earthquake, drone and DEW, and propaganda methods have fallen?
5/11/15: Breakaway Civilization:
We’ve been hearing about the upper 1/10th of the upper one percent of the population. Are these people breaking away from the rest of civilization?
If so, is this due to their failure to disclose knowledge of advanced technology/ aliens?...
"I should think that members of the breakaway civilization might despair of ever educating the rest of humanity on what is going on. Their own reality is probably so far beyond our own, they may rightfully ask, how can they bring us up to speed without causing a worldwide psychological meltdown?" (from Jim Nichols UFO Art)
...or is all this talk about extraterrestrials just a distraction, having nothing to do with what the breakaway civilization actually represents?
Here is the real question: What if the breakaway civilization ends up as the section of civilization that survives? Is encouraging the rest of us to "think in riddles" nature’s way of easing our transition as we face our destiny? I’m hopeful for something better, so long as religion continues to take the perspective of, and advocate for the survival of local communities, families, and individuals.
6/1/15: Prophesying The Future:
Speakers love symbols that allow them to have confidence... words like: - “repentance”, “turn away the Beast”, “get what we deserve”. But more useful for audiences is practical discussion, which unfortunately for speakers requires a more tentative approach.
No one has enough perspective to confidently foretell mankind's future development. All we can do is take tentative steps, learn from them, backup, and try again. From the largest perspective, which some refer to as God, all of these tentative steps are just chemical processes that propel mankind's developmental biology.
What standard do we apply in searching for the righteous developmental path? We are confusing two different standards: (1) A path that is in the best interests of the family and other local populations, vs. the world, and (2) Our predestined path as already set forth by DNA and science.
Some advocate turning away the Beast, which is how the Bible refers to the world. The Bible is an advocate for the interests of local populations such as the family, not for the world, so it leaves out half the picture.
A more balanced approach, which also includes the interests of the world, has been set forth by DNA and science. This path is based on statistical probabilities, allowing for some variation and even occasional mutation. Unfortunately, we do not have a large enough perspective to know what this path is. We can only make tentative steps, such as when we try aspects of Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Oligarchy, and Anarchy. We are constantly incorporating new information in our quest to align as best we can with this statistically preordained path. If our efforts are ultimately not good enough, extinction or catastrophic destruction for mankind looms.
We can get hints of what’s to come by looking at other examples in nature:
- Have you ever seen an animal without a brain, or a cell without a nucleus? Is it reasonable to think that Earth may be in the process of developing it's brain; that this is how a normal inhabited planet develops? Now we can put the Bible into proper context, as an advocate for the rights of the rest of the planet as it deals with this new brain a/k/a New World Order or Beast, as the Bible likes to call it. Repentance and Turning away the Beast simply mean focusing on more local concerns. and by doing so we will get what we deserve, ie: avoiding a prolonged (the Bible says 3½ year) battle as this new brain takes hold.
- Let's consider the caterpillar as a metaphor for Earth today, where the cells on the caterpillar are analogous to people on Earth. Isn't the normal path for the future of the caterpillar preordained? Perhaps a coalition of the willing ascends as a butterfly, leaving in its wake the rubble of caterpillar civilization left behind. As humans the prospect of something like that happening to us would be troubling... even more so since we ultimately can't control the script. Plausible, since increased technology has always brought about an increase in the number of war casualties. An early sign could be the increasing wealth disparity. What "news" would the coalition of the willing provide to the other cells in the caterpillar?... perhaps some distractions. How transparent would government be?... perhaps with visibility so low that even government itself would be highly compartmentalized. This scenario is just one possibility as no one can foretell the future, even though we are forced to guess. I'm hopeful for something better.
- What is the catalyst? The exponential ramp in technology. The seemingly bizarre policies now underway are part of a last ditch effort to avoid imminent extinction*. This effort forces us to discover our predestination at a pace faster than democracy can allow, unfortunately enabling the widespread corruption and misinformation we see.
The Bible with its confident pronouncements has been put into proper context. The more we learn… the more tentative is our approach. What's not tentative is the role of the Bible as an advocate for the family and local populations.
*Is Global Warming one of the issues? I don't know, but I still advocate for the transition from fossil fuel to green energy.
6/1/15 God And Free Will:
God is a concept which simply means the largest perspective. If we had that perspective we could predict our earthly outcomes. We do have a large enough perspective to predict the odds of various outcomes in the development of, say, an individual seedling. But we do not have enough data to predict the outcome of civilization's development on planet Earth. For that we would have to have discovered numerous other inhabited planets, and compiled statistics about them.
The probabilities of various developmental outcomes are preset by DNA and science, and are not subject to capricious change by man or some external consciousness.
Mankind has free will/ agency to try all the various possible developmental paths. But if we veer too far from the statistically probable path, extinction or a catastrophic outcome will ensue. And the chance of that happening is also a part of those predetermined statistics that are unknown by us.
5/20/15: Turning Away The Beast Through Repentance- A Noble Lie?
Tidying up the house before guests arrive. Painting a pretty canvas over an old messy one. These are not malicious lies since the intent is good and the cause is noble. I guess they could be called noble lies.
"A noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda." -- Wikipedia
How many people are aware that the definition of the term noble lie is associated with religion? Let's pick a religious belief to see if this definition fits: Some religious people believe that the Beast can be turned away through repentance.
“religious nature”? Yes.
"knowingly told by an elite"? Yes. While the purpose of the Bible is to advocate for the rights of local populations in the face of a divergent world agenda, the Bible has widespread public distribution which the world would not allow if on it's surface the Bible unduly threatened the world's agenda. The world is sometimes referred to as elites, but everyone takes the perspective of the world at one time or another. The Bible is written in metaphor to satisfy the world's perspective. The surface (legalistic) meaning of the Bible is largely consistent with the world's agenda, while the hidden meaning is consistent with the agendas of local populations, families, and individuals.
“Maintain social harmony"? Yes. In some ways, legalism, somewhat like thinking in riddles, is akin to ball games, TV, movies, and other distractions. While there can be therapeutic benefit, it is a little like stopping spiritual development at the eighth grade level-- becoming an expert in all the religious symbols used up to that level, similar to developing expertise in sports, TV or movie trivia. Like a kid contently playing wiffle ball; not worrying about issues like Fukushima, WW3, and genocide. In effect leaving further spiritual development and related science and logic to others who are sometimes represented as the top part of the pyramid.
“A myth or untruth"? Yes. I just don't see a correlation between people working at resolving their own shortcomings, a/k/a repentance, and the New World Order, a/k/a the Beast, being turned away.
People should, of course, give priority to more local concerns, in ways including repentance. But this will definitely not turn away the final cobbling together of earth's brain, a process already well underway. Focusing on family and local communities means averting or minimizing a battle of Armageddon. This is especially important today, since in this struggle (the family vs. the world) the world has an overwhelming and increasing technological advantage.
If this is the arrival of the true messianic age, then at some point everyone will know it and not try to defeat it. Previous attempts at establishing a world brain would have been premature, and labeling them Beasts and attempting to slay them was part of the Bible's prescription for vetting and testing. The world brain that succeeds will be invincible, but if it also achieves a workable balance between the perspective of the world and the perspective of local populations, it will no longer be considered a beast. It will instead represent the ushering in of the true messianic age, and...
...this will be something truly noble.
9/25/15: Dual definitions for the term Satan: (1) From the family's perspective, Satan is that part of the World's agenda that is adverse to the family's agenda. (2) From the world's perspective, Satan is any agenda that diverges from God (defined as the largest perspective). References to Satan in the following two items use the later definition:
Whether Forcing An Outcome Is The Program Of Satan Rather Than Of God:
Taking any path inherently utilizes at least some force, however tentatively it may be applied. Looking back we can judge whether the development was aligned with the largest perspective (God) or not (Satan).
Whether Satan’s Program Is About Tyranny And Not Freedom:
A balance between control and freedom is inherent in any path taken. Either extreme can cause misalignment with the largest perspective.
There is the story of a person who had married, had kids, divorced and re-married. When asked a few years later how things were going in his new relationship, he said things were different, not better. Trying to align with God is all about setting priorities: What about the kids? a.k.a. Greater Things?... The next world awaits. Everything else disappears.
Here's an analogy: The Titanic is going down. There is only room on the lifeboats for the kids. All of the adults return to the ship, and as the ship makes its final descent, they wave to the kids, hoping they have done a good enough job to enable the next world, literally the next generation of people. Serving in the role as parents comes to mind, but when one thinks about it all types of work that people do, whether as teachers, merchants, laborers, etc., impact the next generation of people in one way or another. Even just being a mentor or friend. And the hope that this process continues generation after generation is what eternal life literally means.
3/4/2015: Nuclear Family vs. Family of Humanity:
Another name for "the family of humanity" is "The World", and yes, religion does its part in helping to make the world a better place. But that is not the unique contribution of religion, which is its function as advocate for the family-- and not just for families collectively-- but for each family individually. Not only on the issue of family size (yes, there's that unspeakable science-- parabolic population growth), but also on commitment to strong family relationships enabling the kids to grow, thrive, and eventually start families of their own. This process is the real meaning of terms like reincarnation, afterlife, and resurrection; all else, borrowing from Dr. Judy Wood's terminology, "dustifies". Enabling and working with "the next world" leaves little room for addictions, and everyone regardless of family situation (ie: with or without children) can contribute to the next world (ie: the next generation) in one way or another.
There is much more to the Bible than its legalistic veneer. What the Bible describes as a battle between The World and God is more specifically a battle between The World and the family. The Bible's hidden meaning is that The World and the family inherently have different agendas, and that the family should persevere despite this challenge. The Crucifixion story is a metaphor for how local populations, including families, can survive through generations despite The World's overwhelming technological advantage in the implementation of its agenda. Dr. James Dobson aired a very popular religious radio show called Focus on the Family. Cal Thomas explained the meaning as: "Focus on the Family... not on The World". Legalistic religion looks at the Bible's legalistic cover story-- The World vs. God-- and overlooks the more specific hidden purpose for which the Bible exists in the first place.
3/5/15: Family Size:
Mormon history is interesting: polygamy + large family size = exponential expansion on steroids. What benefits survival for family lines can be detrimental for the world as a whole. In this case the world won out (banning polygamy), but each side had a legitimate case, and religion’s purpose may be to take the side of local populations (such as the family) rather than the world's perspective.
A Scientist Responds:
“I see a Darwinistic survival of religions that call for a lot of children - generally people stay with the religion they are brought up with and the values it espouses, so the more kids you have the faster the religion will spread. If the religion also mandates that people support those with the same religion that also improves survival rate. Mutual support is useful when an individual has a reversal of fortunes, whether this is extended family ties or based on a common religion.
“Although the world could support a lot more people than it currently does since modern technology has been steadily improving food production and storage and reducing waste of all types, an exponential growth of the human population will at some point become totally unsustainable. It makes sense to try to keep a higher standard of living for the majority and thus reduce the fecundity and maintain the population rather than increase it. A reduction of population by having fewer than 2 children per couple has its own problems too, in that there won't be enough people of working age to support the older population - this can work if the average is slightly less than 2 and continues for many generations, but an edict such as the Chinese method (one child per couple) has caused major problems.
“When left alone, a population expands until it runs out of resources and then there are famines and the population gets reduced. This can be seen in any natural system. The population size varies according to conditions - there isn't a set size for it and only over a long period can you approximate that the birth rate and death rate are about equal.
“Overall this is a complex ethical problem, but it looks to me that the best path is to stop having kids when you have enough to replace the parents. Any system that exhorts people to have more than that is basically assuming that the excess will die before having kids themselves, and with modern medicine that's not likely to happen.
“Still, it seems that most of our systems are based on the idea of continuous growth. It's not often we see business people state that they've reached the optimum size and will stay there, and that also applies to things like GDP figures where a stasis is seen as a major financial problem. Always inflation and growth. Whatever it is, people seem to want more. This might change in future with the increased automation of production and the majority of individuals realising they don't need more stuff than they've got or more than replacement-level of kids."
3/31/15: To A Person Going Through Tough Times:
[Note: On June 17, 2016 Sterling Allan received a sentence of 30 years to life, with earliest parole in 22 years. In the year prior he blogged: "I've been entertaining thoughts of not wanting to live." This is the same person who during his peak years of popularity interviewed inventors such as Mark LeClair (featured in my four cavitation articles on this blog). Allan showcased many such inventors on Gary Hendershot's Smart Scarecrow show. In the past year Allan became increasingly unglued as he struggled to cope with his severe addictions and his subsequently revealed shocking criminality. Authorities writing the charging document included as background Allan's belief in "free energy technologies" but also thought relevant to include his belief that "9-11 was an inside job".]
One's conscious brain functions as an executive that never gets to retire during a lifetime. But there is much more than just the conscious brain, as one's nervous system and subconscious will remind from time to time. At a minimum there is responsibility for the well being of the other trillions of inhabitants (cells) in one's body. Then there is one's place in the larger, outside world.
Still, each person is a volunteer, regardless of whether one gets paid or not or how much one gets paid. The world is a developing organism, with each person contributing where they can.
In a sense we are all clones of each other; everyone alive today has DNA derived from a single ancient common embryo, that over millennia has undergone divisions, generations, and slight mutations. In that sense, no one really dies. Life continues, whether it is the rest of humanity, or failing that, the consciousness of the universe. There is lots of redundancy. No one is indispensable-- no one possesses enough knowledge to have the largest perspective.
In seeking truth, life is often a humbling experience, and it is only through these "disappointing" attempts of many that in hindsight, an intelligent design emerges.
I am hopeful that the outcome will be "good enough", even if far from perfect. What this means simply is survival, for society, and for any one individual.
5/26/15: Demons Taking Up Permanent Residence:
Look at the parts of your brain as members of a community that will be living together for a lifetime. You don't want to brand any member a demon and lock him in the basement. He will be banging on the door, and plenty mad if he gets out, and when visitors stop by they will see your false self as you try to cover for the banging.
Instead, early on have a friendly discussion with the various parts of your brain. For example, tell the lust part of your brain that you appreciate its benign form, facilitating family formation and reproduction. Explain how acting out inappropriately and/ or at the wrong time, however, can ruin the chances of people being able to form a family, can break up an existing family, and violate another's rights. By treating that part of the brain as a valued and equal member, it will understand its proper role. [Back when I posted this advice it was apparently too little and too late for Sterling Allan.]
John Bradshaw wrote more about this in his book, "Healing The Shame That Binds You".
10/26/15: Truthers, Love, And Marginalization:
It is out of love that logical thinkers and legalistic believers can get along and learn from each other, despite having different beliefs. All people rely on bedrock belief at least to some extent in generating motivation. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect others to abandon their bedrock beliefs. It's like when the kids visit grandma and she tries to get them to agree to some arcane religious legalism, and her kids say "Grandma, we characterize it a different way, but we love you", and give her a big hug, and later Grandma and the kids are having a great time putting together puzzles.
Grandma and the kids interact with each other in a family context. Their private candid discussions in an atmosphere of love promotes growth. Contrast the situation where people interact publicly: Jeb Bush, speaking about truthers in a 9/11 context, said: "they are totally marginalized in our society". Should a preacher speaking at the pulpit disclose his private religious beliefs if that is going to upset his congregation? The risk is that he will be "totally marginalized" and lose his job.
4/17/15: Whether "getting people to turn to God" is a productive use of time and energy:
If people believe they know God, does this mean they really do? "It's life's illusions I recall; I really don't know life at all"
And what becomes of their plans, which they believe are aligned with God? "Men Plan, God Laughs"
So, perhaps the best advice is to: "Let Go and Let God"
5/3/15: Emotional Turbulence:
A cauldron of emotions, symbols and divides is inherent in life. Consider:
- Emotions: Does fact (science) mean anything without emotion to give it purpose?
- Politics: Is it better to have politics, which is messy, or its absence, which is anarchy?
Try this: Temporarily see everyone (including yourself) as an arrangement of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Now, what does it mean to be one's own writer, producer, and director of some interpersonal intrigue?
5/8/15: The Bible’s Harsh Language:
What if the cause is noble-- perpetuation of life through multiplying populations, spreading culture, or both? What if "judgement" and "eternal damnation" are simply motivational metaphors people create to help further the cause? The key is not to trap someone into believing something that is motivational to be literal, and to free anyone so imprisoned.
5/15/15 Truth vs. Metaphor:
Why don’t discussions use simple vocabulary that is free of word associations and baggage? ...and not claim metaphors to be the same as actual fact? Imagine if metaphors were only used (and clearly identifiable) as aids to understanding.
Do people obfuscate so as not to be Blinded By The Light? -- Here's Bruce Springsteen's take:
"Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun... But mama, that's where the fun is."
Well, in some ways Mama was right. In the book Siddhartha, about the Buddha, Herman Hesse wrote that only one person in tens of thousands can become enlightened enough, to where they can master this area of study.
5/30/15: Hypocrites and The Antichrist:
What's good at one level of life may be evil at another level of life, since each level (individual, family, world) has its own perspective. An individual wears different hats when juggling priorities between levels. Inherently, everybody must play the role of the hypocrite at one time or another. The Pope was advocating for the church level (group/ community) when he suggested there were no dichotomies between Christ (who actually represents the family level) and the church.
Christ represents the family's perspective, and the Antichrist represents the world's perspective. Both perspectives are legitimate, but where they clash* there is battle between them. Each side is entitled to have advocacy, and the ideal is to achieve some sort of balance between the two with no ultimate winner. The Bible was written as advocacy for the family camp; it is purposely one-sided... even though the Pope's public message must be that there are no dichotomies!
Why would someone who stands up for his own family, while also taking a position regarding the world, be a hypocrite at one time or another? Because each level of life has its own needs for survival, and those needs do not always align. For example, someone who is pro-choice when it comes to abortion may be pro-life when it comes to his own family. To avoid seeing themselves as hypocrites, some people decline to discuss religion or politics in public. Others are adept at shifting between levels... metaphorically represented by the "twins" as the symbol for the astrological sign of Gemini. They often use vocabulary that has dual meanings in order to separate what is public from what is private... to facilitate discussion, say, within a family, that may not be useful or welcome in a public context.
Here is something to ponder: What if hypocrisy is an attribute of being human, lest we start to resemble machines?
*family vs. the world is a subset of local populations generally vs. the world. A recent example is the issue of federalization of local sheriffs. Federalization, gun control, and abortion/ sexual preference rights are all part of the world's agenda.
2/14/15: Regarding The Article: Can Faith Rewire an Addict's Brain?:
"Research suggests that addicts may be prisoners of the left hemisphere of their brain, which tends to ruminate on problems such as social anxiety. But when their right brains are triggered by an intense emotional experience, unexpected solutions appear. Spiritual experience can be an important catalyst to this kind of brain rewiring.
“This extends beyond traditional definitions of faith, to also include those who: "seek a higher power and serve others... a deep sense of purpose, opportunities to provide help to other people, connections with others, and the chance to make a difference in the world. This reduces self-absorbed thinking... a root cause of addiction." (From Article)
Are there such things as Bible addictions? Dan Brown in his book The DiVinci Code talked about people searching for The Holy Grail. Is it: a place? a person? a tradition? a book or set of books? the contents of a box? a god-character that can or did speak words? a physical item such as Jesus' cup or platter? Many people refer to God as the ultimate holy grail, and that many of these places, things and concepts have symbolized or can symbolize God.
When I searched for the meaning of God, I thought about infinity. It is very difficult to try and picture infinity, but infinity does have a specific scientific meaning. Then I thought about perspective. We on earth have one perspective, but a hypothetical intelligent being who has been alive for a thousand years might have a much larger perspective. Then I thought about the largest (infinite?) perspective, and decided that this concept fits my definition of God. I like that this concept is unassuming (free of baggage which can lead to addictions) and does not conflict with science. This works for me, but I realize it's not suitable for everyone.
Where did everything come from in the first place? It would take the largest perspective to answer that question, and is a great example of what is included in the God concept.
5/31/15: Truthers And Belief:
James Tour shows that even as a scientist he benefits from belief.
At the most basic level everyone relies on bedrock beliefs whether they realize it or not. Some questions are unknowable scientifically, such as... Why are we here? So we come up with (or borrow from others) some foundations upon which all further thought relies.
Professor Tour takes belief beyond this, raising some issues:
(1) His belief is based on certain words, such as Christ. All words are symbols, pointing to something. In this case he is pointing to metaphor... a concept symbolized in the form of a person. Is he giving more importance to the specific words and metaphors he has chosen to use, than to the concepts he is using them to represent?
(2) No one, not even a scientist, has the time or curiosity to scientifically investigate all areas of belief. Some, however, may have the scientific curiosity to investigate areas such as developmental psychology as it relates to religion, and developmental biology as it relates to human culture.
(3) Belief operates from a more primitive area of the mind, and may be more powerful than scientific thinking in dealing with things like addictions and other forms of behavior. It might even be scientifically provable that the use of belief may be beneficial in these areas.
(4) It may be that Professor Tour now uses rational thinking, rather than belief, in dealing with behavior issues. This would be consistent with developmental psychology. He may still be giving testimony based upon belief, however, for the benefit of those who are at an earlier stage in their development. The best spiritual teachers try to further their student's spiritual development, although in an indirect way. There is a saying that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Once such a student is considered a "safe" person, more open discussion can then ensue privately.
Email from Professor Tour, 11/6/15:
"Thank you for sharing with me. Your thoughts are very deep and difficult for me to follow. I am much more simple minded than people think. But I appreciate people who can extend this into deeper realms. God bless, J Tour"
Professor Tour is able to separate his public life from his private life, in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of each. He uses carefully tailored language to successfully straddle the line between the two.
Less inspired "teachers", whether knowingly or unknowingly, have the effect of capping further development. Is it true that a good magician never gives away his magic? If a teacher gives away his magic, and in the process his student moves on, shouldn't that be good, even if for some teachers this might mean a drop in financial support?
6/13/15: The Bible and Streams of Consciousness:
The Bible can trigger streams of consciousness. It can serve as a prompt, supplying fresh symbols, vocabulary, and associations-- like eating a colorful mixed salad for nourishment..
A stream of consciousness is only a first step. It comes out raw, like a dream. It's fine in that form for say, finding a misplaced item. But how about when a decision is being made on whether someone should be executed?
Everyone knows what raw dreams are like, and yes, sometimes there is something useful. The brain accesses tons of files and extraneous papers fly everywhere. Filtering is required, and something like 99% of the output needs to be discarded, to find the one percent which may be useful. Even that one percent may end up useless; after all, no one has the largest perspective.
No one needs to see what gets filtered out and discarded. Surrendering to a raw dream, without filtering, is dangerous to oneself and to others.
6/16/15: A simplistic worldview:
The Bible was forced to disguise the meaning of Satan. A surface reading of the Bible would have one believe that everyone has the same perspective, with a single kindergarten-like standard of good vs. evil. That Satan, a//k/a the world, is simply a group of evil people. But the Bible writers really tried to leak out that Satan represents the world as a whole; a different level of life with its own perspective, but if too many people were to figure that out the world's agenda would be unduly at risk; something the world would not tolerate in a public document as widely read as the Bible.
While studying the phenomenon of legalism, I came across the writings of Sterling Allan, an ex-communicated Mormon (whose recent arrest is referenced elsewhere on this page). After over a year of countering Sterling's postings I developed much of the material for this part of my blog.
Sterling views society as if it were a perpetual kindergarten classroom, where...
(1) everyone has the same perspective, with no difference between private or public.
(2) everyone is the same age, with no awareness of mortality. If someone dies they just come back.
(3) life is a fun game, where each time you come back you get to decide in advance what your strengths and weaknesses will be.
(4) if you behave you can get supernatural powers such as teleportation.
(5) If you are bad your classmates can kill you, unless you repent first, and if you are just pretending to repent, your classmates won't be fooled. You still get to come back later choosing a different role...
Sterling believes there are people who are heavenly fathers (or mothers) in the flesh. He believes that under certain conditions, the sky can light up and Jesus will arrive to meet with them, after which they will have the perspective of God including special powers such as teleportation.
This form of legalism may seem extreme, but is not that different from common folklore.
Over time, developmental psychology should begin maturing one's thinking. An important part of this is the growing awareness of one's own mortality. This is beautifully illustrated in the children's book "The Giving Tree", which brings tears even to adults who read it.
7/4/15: Similarity Of Political And Spiritual Maturity:
The same factors that hold back one's political maturity also hold back spiritual maturity.
Here's a combination of two belief systems, one from mainstream media and one from a type of religious belief. See what they share in common:
"A Boeing 757 carrying 58 passengers and 6 crew members crashed into the Pentagon. Although all were killed in the crash, they were all able to be reborn. Before rebirth, each was able to choose the theme for a new life, as well as strengths and weaknesses."
Sterling Allan is a self-proclaimed believer/ 911 truther. He has taken a larger view on events like 9/11 than on things spiritual. Regarding his seeking spiritual guidance in trying to find his misplaced glasses, he wrote: "God cares about little things as much as the big, and is there for us. If you think that is ridiculous, then I feel sorry for you." I can see why someone might feel sorry for those who progress beyond their comfort zone. Developmental Psychology can be a very painful process. Sing along with Neil Young using these lyrics while listening to this Youtube.
Neil Young was wrong when he said: "You can't be twenty on Sugar Mountain." People lose their innocence, whether political or spiritual, at various ages. But he’s correct that it’s impossible to go back... one now becomes the magician.
2/28/15: Atheism vs. Belief:
Lawrence Krauss appears in some YouTube debates, and is famous for countering legalistic religious arguments. While he is technically correct in his reasoning, it would be interesting to talk with him privately about whether he has any scientific views which are too uncomfortable for him to discuss publicly... Privately known truths that may not be useful or welcome in a public context... And, whether religion can symbolically give words to such otherwise unspeakable science.
8/15/15: Unseen Role Of The Clergy:
Jonathan Cahn once said that there was a time in his spiritual development before he became a clergy when he tried out atheism.
The clergy's role is to attend the differing subjective needs of others. In order to do this effectively he needs to have broken through many levels of psychological development himself, including atheism. so that he can identify and relate to the level the other person is at.
When the clergy meets someone, he finds him covered with band-aids. Some of these band-aids are attached "Rock Solid", because if removed the person might become unglued. The person will go to any length to keep the band-aid in place, and the clergy will respect that need by not telling him everything he knows. He will only discuss selected topics, and in such a way as to not jar the coverings.
What are these band-aids covering? Well, science has its limitations. It can't ultimately tell us why we are doing this or that. It's not fun to walk around without confidence, so we unconsciously use scientific sounding reasoning and words, such as "evidence", when no science is actually involved, and use these to cover the void.
People use reasoning that fits their needs. Of course they believe their evidence is rock solid. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have that confident feeling that is necessary for getting on with life. Who says one’s coverings need to be removed? Only if and when the student is ready, should the teacher appear.
More On Losing One’s “Rock Solid” Confidence About The Nature Of Reality:
Imagine having a legalistic view that the world is headed towards doom, with the only survivors being those who adopt certain beliefs…
Then, this "rock solid" band-aid starts to come off. With just a slight nudge you'll be completely rid of this dangling band-aid; this pessimistic remnant. Temporarily you will be left naked*... and you'll know: Any coverings one puts on (and you'll need to put some back on) are a con, however noble the intent. Con is the abbreviation for confidence. Unlike cons (lies) that are not well-intentioned, noble lies serve a useful purpose and are inherent in motivating oneself and others. But ultimately they cannot be characterized as truth and should be discarded when no longer serving a noble or useful purpose.
That's the paradox we have to work with-- confidence is required to implement one's destiny, even though what we envision can only be based on tentative guesses (nothing rock solid). Ultimate truth is unknowable, but that is no reason for despair... Ultimate truth is left to God, defined as the largest perspective, which we are part of... And what is of God is by definition something to be optimistic about.
The clergy had tried atheism, by shedding the last of his own coverings. The resulting purposelessness was so painful that he decided to put a few back on. But his nakedness was still hurting others, so he covered himself more, at least when out in public.
I’m not sure what to make of Jonathan Cahn's public appearances. They are steeped in spiritual and political motivational beliefs, but sidestep critical topics. I wanted to hear details about his sojourn into atheism, but didn’t.
The issue is not one of honesty; he is being graceful. Whether his discussion is spiritual or political, the issue is the same: respecting and relating to members of the audience by meeting them at their most basic level. A clergy’s public sermons and writings are in no way a substitute for, and do not necessarily bear much relation to, his private teaching.
*There is a parallel here to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Being able to acquire knowledge was useful, but ultimately the question of why they were here was unknowable. Looking directly at the void left by science, where even bedrock falls away, has been compared to the pain of trying to look directly into the sun, of being blinded by the light. Adam and Eve quickly put on clothes (stories) they could wear (believe) as if it were science. Only one person out of tens of thousands can truly stand naked, and even he must wear clothes when out in public. (I prefer to stay clothed, even when home alone in my office.)
10/23/15: Legalism And Chemical Euphoria:
What do alcohol, drugs, sugar, and sex have in common? They all stimulate chemical euphoria in a certain part of the brain, and are frequently abused.
The chemical when naturally produced by the brain and properly moderated is not the problem. People use reason to harness this chemical to benefit the course of one's life and the larger society.
But for some the chemical dominates over reason. It is for these people that legalistic religion has been tailored. When one literally believes with their heart, this brings about the chemical euphoria, but without the side effects that abusive addictions have.
With maturity comes reason. Those who use reason still keep their eyes only half open so they can continue the culture of their youth, as well as maintain grace around legalistic adults. The legalism helps quell addictions, and everyone is a potential addict. But once one knows the purpose and proper management of euphoria, there is no turning back to legalism. Belief is a higher state than addiction, and knowing* is a higher state than legalistic belief.
*Knowing the nature of euphoria and not being governed by it. Knowing the nature of euphoria, however, does not include knowledge of the largest perspective-- stated in religious terms, no one can see the face of God.
4/1/16: Religion: Facilitating Knowledge vs. Polarizing People Into Phony Wars:
The Biblicism Institute commented on three PieEconomics quotes :
1) [PE:] “The next generation (which is what “the next world” literally means) isn’t as likely to treat metaphor as fact.”
[BI:] What the next generation will or will not do is up for debate. Jesus spoke in metaphors or parables and many did not understand then as many do not understand today. However, the Holy Spirit is guiding the world to a higher level of spiritual consciousness in Christ. Still, that doesn’t mean that everyone will acknowledge the truth. Only those chosen by God will be able to have their eyes fully open.
2) [PE:] “What many fail to realize is that the legalistic surface meaning of the Bible actually serves the world’s agenda, providing distraction while the new world order is put into place.”
[BI:] Whoa! Slow down your horses there, friend.
a. Legalistic? Is that in a pejorative sense? If so, wrong choice of word. There’s nothing “legalistic” about God’s commands. See Of Legalism and Christians.
b. There’s no such thing today as the world’s agenda. The agenda is God’s. Always has been. Always will be. Christ is on His throne controlling EVERYTHING. The world’s agenda if there is such a thing has always been to rebel against the agenda of God. Nothing new there either.
3) [PE:] “Is the world in the process of cobbling together a world-brain?”
[BI:] See, right there we have to ask this question. Sorry, but we can’t help it. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?:-) “The exponential ramp in technology” is because the Holy Spirit is catapulting the world forward by inspiring mankind to develop in ways it had not been able to do prior to the advent of Christ. In the end, everything will bring glory to God and the one whom He sent. JESUS. Thanks for reaching out.
Regarding the role of BI, let’s start with an analogy:
There are millions of type two diabetics in the world. Even though many could find a complete cure in their symptoms through diet alone, advocating for change in diet is often ineffective. Professor James Tour’s earlier quote may be apropos here: “Your thoughts are very deep and difficult for me to follow. I am much more simple minded than people think.” Religious paradigms such as that advocated by BI are simple to follow and do not require a burdensome amount of deep thinking. It is much easier to get people to take medicine (insulin) to manage their condition than to get them to change their diet.
But what happens if the advocacy goes further? What if diabetics, in motivating themselves and other diabetics to take insulin, start trying to motivate those using diet alone or even the general population to also take insulin? What if this leads to strife among the people?
After BI commented on my post, the next commenter went on to call the entire paradigm of a competing religion a lie.
I don't think that this is what BI intended; strife between groups.
The largest perspective is what God represents in all religions. No person has that perspective and that is why no one can see the face of God. The best we can do is create maps (Bibles), but the map is not the territory.
Calling competing religious paradigms lies is pejorative, given that seeking to see the face of God, even in the face of inherently falling short, is a noble endeavor.
And, creating strife plays into the hands of the top oligarchy/ cartels. Fermenting phony wars based on race, religion, or gender advances the move toward world government, which is contrary to the role of religion as an advocate for the rights of the family and other local populations.
Part Three: Vetting and Testing the Deep State- An Analysis of E. Michael Jones:
Darrell, in a comment below, mentioned the works of E. Michael Jones (EMJ). As is the case with Sterling Allan, there are fundamental premises for which I take issue, which nevertheless provide rich stimulus for ongoing analysis:
Look at the second oldest video on his YouTube channel. At about 8 minutes in, Jones presents this as a logical chain: rejector of Christ → rejector of rationality → rejector of practical reason → rejector of morality → rejector of the order of the universe [God] → rejector of the political order → a revolutionary. Wait, doesn’t Christ represent a rejector of the political order; a revolutionary? Isn’t the story itself a parable with a larger meaning: promotion of the family (the next world), which at times makes one a revolutionary to a political order that promotes a sometimes divergent global agenda?
Jones appears consumed by his religion’s cultural hooks, a form of salesmanship intended to keep (and in this case, also recruit) members. These hooks are inherent to all organized religions, which have to be run a little bit like businesses if they want to survive. Each religion has its own distinguishing legalism, and like with football, occasional bashing of competing teams. Actual religion, as practiced by families and individuals, has a higher calling. It avoids legalisms, labeling, and bashing of other's cultures.
Jones almost escapes the legalism when he discusses the Gospel of John, 1:1, which begins: “In the beginning was the Word”. He points out that the word “Word” is a translation from the Greek word logos, and that it is better translated as “the order of the universe” (similar to what I call the largest perspective) or God.
Elevating the word “Word” (a symbol created by people) to be synonymous with God (whom no one can see the face of) in the Bible’s translation has had the effect of promoting literal belief in Bible stories with all their cultural hooks, rather than promoting the timeless concepts they represent.
In recent years, leaders have attempted to make transparent and rise above the legalism and labeling inherent in their religions' organized forms. Within Jones' own religion, Catholicism, Pope Francis has been very progressive in this regard:
"Francis also spoke out strongly again against religious fundamentalism, saying that fundamentalism exists in all religions and should be combated with efforts at friendship. He said he prefers not to speak of having tolerance for other religious, but 'living together, friendship.' 'Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,' said the pontiff. 'We Catholics have some -- and not some, many -- who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.' 'They do evil' said the pope. 'I say this because it is my church.' 'We have to combat it,' he said. 'Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God. It is idolatry, like the idolatry of money.'"
Regarding belief, Jones categorizes (his term) people using religious labels. Belief is better characterized as motivational belief, and even better: motivational methods. What do these methods motivate? Dealing with setbacks and death, celebration of births, marriage and life, fundraising, and sometimes politics.
With regard to politics, Jones has not explored the possibility that globalism may be part of, in his terms, the order of the universe. The exponential ramp in technology logically enables absolute power (by a global authority). Sorry, don’t shoot the messenger. I don’t like it either.
For the most part, Jones has a good grasp on the truther events leading to globalism, but in other ways appears trapped in a script which promotes culture wars rather than religion's higher purpose.
Here are some comments I made to Dr. Jones and his YouTube community:
I began with a quote from a YouTube video: “When you keep in mind the technocracy, the concept of the technology, developers and the scientists, really being the ones who are going to be ruling the world here in the future… we all know what happens: with great power comes great responsibility, and you’ve got to be a little wary of someone trying to grab that much power.”
PE: Similar to early stages of brain formation in human embryo development?
Commentator: You say it like it's a good thing!
PE: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one would call this a good thing, but that doesn't mean it's not real. When bad things are happening, sometimes people say that perhaps God has a larger purpose. In this age of the internet, all possibilities should be discussed. Isn't religion's purpose to open minds, especially in the face of an increasingly restrictive world agenda?
PE: Lets consider some meaning behind metaphors: Christianity introduced the concept that the family and the world inherently have different perspectives. Christ represents the family's perspective. The crucifixion illustrates that while the world can and will take measures to protect its agenda, this does not invalidate the perspective of the family. John (in the New Testament) indicates that this new insight is an integral part of our attempt to understand the largest perspective (God). I don't think anyone would disagree with John. If they did, it would most likely be an issue of semantics, and in any event not an issue to fight about.
It's not just the world that forces Bibles to be written in metaphor. Obfuscation supports the cultural hooks keeping organized religions from becoming superfluous. Unfortunately, it is families and individuals who bear the brunt of culture wars which can result from the stories and characters of metaphors being taken literally.
PE: Here's an understanding common to the three major monotheistic religions: God is the largest (or infinite) perspective. Building upon that bedrock, timeless meanings can be extracted from the Bibles of those religions... or, would you rather wrap your identity in defending their literal words (stories and characters)?
PE: There's only one God, but multiple ways of seeking this truth based on each individual's unique motivational needs. Religion's purpose is to open a developmental journey, not to preclude new insight, since ultimately no one can see the face of God. Couching this in terms of identity hinders the quest.
PE: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." shows the Bible makes allowance for the world's perspective (Antichrist/ beast). It's not surprising that the Bible associates the family's (Christ's) perspective with God, since the Bible is advocacy for the family, and advocacy is by definition one-sided. Clearly both Christ and Antichrist are part of God's plan, since if the world goes down, so will the family-- both are joined at the hip. The interpretation has been to focus on the family, not on the world.
[There was discussion of whether people of various religious backgrounds (including pagan Romans) all worship the same God, with the only difference being their understanding of him. Some commented that non-Christians worship a different God.]
PE: Those pagan Romans are all of us. Everyone inherently takes different perspectives at one time or another, including those of the world, country, community and/ or religious affiliation, family, and individual. Whenever we take the perspective of a higher level of life we play the role of the Antichrist relative to the lower included levels. This means everyone is a hypocrite at one time or another. A person sometimes finds himself taking a different position on the same issue depending on which level he is currently taking the perspective of. Generally, we are graceful about this and refrain from putting someone on the spot.
Yes, even the organized church and the family have perspectives that are not totally aligned. The Pope was advocating for the church level (group/ community) when he suggested there were no dichotomies between Christ (who actually represents the family level) and the church. Since he even brought up the issue, my guess is that he privately wants the real truth to get out, even though his public message must be that there are no dichotomies! Consider how many times this Pope "misspeaks" and the Vatican has to "correct" his message.
As with many of Dr. Jones' videos, the comment section becomes angry. Jones defines a group of people based on Jewish identity. Rather than discuss actual conditions leading to development of the deep state, he looks for ad hominem connections.
Commentator: I've heard people say the New Testament of the Bible is anti-Semitic. Do you believe that?
Dr. Jones: No. It's anti-Jewish.
PE: It is not anti-Jewish. The New Testament provides advocacy for families and individuals in the face of a sometimes divergent world agenda. You'd expect some new insights after 3,000 years of Old Testament. Even today people are learning new things about the design, which btw applies to all cultures.
The world is forming its brain, which for the first time in history can harness ever advancing technology to become permanently entrenched. The design, which originates from something larger than the machinations of any specific individuals or cultures, is carried out by a coalition of the willing and able.
Dr. Jones, have you asked for a private audience with the Pope? In fifteen minutes of private discussion, you'll have your answers. Unless, per the lead to one of your recent videos, you want answers [but] you can't handle the truth. Are you oblivious to the implications of exponential technology? Do you at least see it as part of the design?
Dr. Jones: Yes and no.
PE: Dr. Jones sees this in terms of clubs, putting him at odds with those [of a different club, or no club] preparing for the next world, literally the next generation. Everyone can have a positive influence on the next generation; no membership required. Timeless Bible metaphors are lost when stories become literal and fodder for identity politics.
Dr. Jones: Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by clubs. Like Groucho Marx, I would never join a club which accepted me as one of its members.
PE: Organized religions and political parties are clubs in that there are memberships, and differ in many respects from the actual religion and politics of families and individuals. Jones prejudges all people within Judiasm as rejecting the order of the universe [God] and having a revolutionary spirit leading to such things as development of the deep state. He presumes to tell them they are not even Jewish, within the meaning of pre-Christ religion.
Jones exempts those who where born Jewish, but have since accepted Christ. For those he does not exempt, he tells his audience sicut judaeis non: not to harm them, their property, or interfere with their religious worship... a hollow caveat given the propensity for incitement of mob mentality he must be aware of by the comments to his videos. Since at least the 1960's those forming world government have been beyond the reach of mobs. Instead, the mobs (on the internet but potentially more) go after people who are no different than themselves-- including truthers, who are part of all faiths including Judaism.
The top-down politics and labeling that Dr. Jones refers to (and himself engages in) has nothing to do with actual religion which individuals and families discuss around the kitchen table. There is literary meaning (timeless concepts) and identity (art, song, kinship, spirituality) which populations share and learn from together. One would think that with the amount of time he has spent among families of different cultures, he would see that the meaning behind the religions are the same.
PE: Dr. Jones evoking 'The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street' right on cue. Identity race/ gender/ religion provocation leading 'them to descend into paranoia and panic. They also discuss their intention to use this strategy to conquer Earth, one neighborhood at a time.' (Wikipedia)
It is well worth watching that Twilight Zone episode. Rod Serling has aliens in a spaceship as the ones provoking the public, but it's clear he is talking about earthling leaders/ provocateurs when he ends with... "and the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone."
Part Four: A Crumpled Manuscript Found Discarded At The Dump:
Writing about these topics got off to a difficult start. It was like trying to nail jelly onto a tree. After a few weeks some core concepts were articulated, but anyone I showed them to appeared scandalized. It took an hour or so to setup as an Amazon E-Book. The 29 page book begins with someone finding a discarded crumpled manuscript on the ground at the dump... a fitting destination for unspeakable concepts. I've since expanded on those concepts, with this blog, and am trying to be more politically correct (well, at least a little).
Here's some fascinating e-mail regarding my initial writings:
Scientist One, 5/21/14 :
"I definitely owe it you to at least to discuss your ideas about trutherism etc. with you. I confess I was a little afraid of doing this before, because I was afraid it might turn out that we disagree on some things, and I didn't want to jeopardize our good relationship... However, probably I shouldn't have worried about that. I think we can probably disagree about some things and still be friends.
"It seemed from your article on trutherism that you subscribe to the theory that 911 was actually done on purpose by the federal government in order to start a war. But I wasn't completely sure whether you did believe this or were only analyzing the fact that some other people believe it. So, that was why I asked you for a definition of trutherism. However, I am pretty sure I would never accept this theory about 911. However, your idea of trutherism might encompass some other things that I might be more receptive to than the 911 theory.
"I just read 'Truthers and the Singularity' a couple of times - I think it's not the same essay I read before. I think I might be starting to get the idea - but I still wish I had a definition of 'trutherism' - I think because it's hard to work out exactly what your attitude is toward the people you identify as 'truthers.' However, I will read it a few more times.
"I happen to have studied biochemistry quite a bit. I think aging is partly and perhaps even chiefly due to DNA damage, which our cells can fix or control to some extent, but not completely, so it isn't likely that we could ever stop the aging process, although we can slow it down in various ways. I think as we get older, most of us get less interested in living forever..."
[Later the same day...]
"Actually I think I mis-remembered something - I don't think the essay I read before mentioned 9/11, but I was under the impression at the time that trutherism referred to 9/11 so I was trying to figure out from your essay whether you agreed with the 9//11 theory, but I couldn't work it out.
"...I'm not sure whether Spock is the right character [to present as an example of a truther]."
Truthers don't know how to stay "dressed". (I'm not talking about clothes, here.) When I'm out in public I like to be dressed. Even when I'm home alone in my office, I like to be dressed. The only further hint I can provide on this point is to re-read the reasons why trutherism can be at odds with the human condition.
Spock is not the best fit as a truther. They were never really able to make Spock "Spock" because Star Trek is a TV show and all TV shows, since they are public, are by definition "of the world". All religious programming is also "of the world". The meaning behind religion is discussed privately in homes.
I treat all bibles as literary works. Do you know which character represents the original truther? No need to share your answer; as I say, I like to stay dressed.
Scientist One, 5/22/14:
"It seems you prefer to be somewhat mysterious about your actual beliefs - however, [in my Peter Falk voice:] would you mind if I ask you just a couple of questions, Sir? Can a person qualify as a "truther" even if his special belief is actually false? Can a person qualify as a "truther" even if his special belief is actually true?"
A truther's suspicion can be true or false. In researching a murder, Columbo made a list of perhaps twenty suspicions. He was more than happy to be able to cross another suspicion off of his list. But his research was always about the facts. He would never say something like: "I am pretty sure I would never accept this theory" or "too many people would have to have been involved". Imagine if Columbo knocked on someone's door, asked a few questions, and was told "you are just a conspiracy theorist".
That said, look at the larger context of what is occurring: What if the real threat is to the continued existence of society as a whole... not from terror caused by a lone gunman; the later which results in increased police powers to deal with the larger threat to society's very existence. Perhaps people have an unconscious symbiotic understanding of this, rendering moot the efforts of today's truthers.
Scientist Two, 6/16/14:
[Regarding the struggle between the world and more local levels of life:]
"To the virus on the petri dish it is reasonable to desire escape and evolve. To the controller of the experiment it is not."
Scientist Three, 5/22/14:
"... lies and hoaxes as two categories of our existing societal guidelines that do not serve us the truth... These are deliberate, but they also seamlessly blend into mere illusions which are inadvertent. Sometimes the lies and hoaxes start out as myths and superstitions and then they are played upon for their social momentum that provides stealth to the intentions to deceive, to protect the way things are or the way things the spin doctors want them to go...
"...We do not know everything and we come to greater understanding through stories, metaphors, similes, and other abstract ideas that attempt to bridge the gap between personal comprehension and a huge universe of possibilities and actualities. Spock wisely knows that people need motivation and meaning to the ideas that can be presented to them.
"As for the science behind magic, remember Arthur C. Clarke stated a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Science runs the show, but people are swayed by the magic, the perception of what is happening.
"As for coaches walking off the field to direct the game from there, we have that parallel, that metaphor, in science today. What is taught in universities is often from people who “fell off the field,” who did not get picked up by industry because they weren’t as bright, so they went back to school to teach what they were parroted when they were students. The innovators were snatched up by industry, if industry would recognize them. Sadly for many of the innovators, their bosses have agendas and still don’t let them really innovate.
"Life certainly is about the journey, not the destination; otherwise, there’d be little of any meaning in the majority of one’s lifetime. Life is a process of becoming, not just a state of being. 'And they lived happily thereafter' is rarely the human experience, in which this trite story ending speaks of a life of stasis, not dynamic involvement. Fearful people seem to want to sit in the roller coaster car at rest than to take the ride.
"As for enactment of severe measures that are faster than democracy can handle, a sociology study showed this. Some university found when local populations reached a threshold of 100,000 people, local government changed its nature. It became inefficient to do things the way people intend government to do them, and government leaders had to revert to corruption, 'under the table' management techniques to get things done.
"People’s individual attempts, of those in positions of influence and power, can get lost in what is best for the world and we then have chaotic manipulation to re-establish the new norm. This will be seen by some or many as manipulation and power struggles for the benefits of a few... Disruptive technologies fit this very well.
"It certainly is difficult to know how current challenges will work themselves out... I certainly don’t want to see machines take over human life. I... recall Mark Twain’s comment, “My life has been just chock-full of catastrophes – most of which never actually happened.” Anyway, I don’t see how the man-versus-machine balance becomes a singularity.
"...modern technology, of communications and transportation in particular, is good... all of these things making the world a smaller place and showing our connection that has not been readily seen in the past. It certainly will make us face our “stuff” a lot faster! The illusions will have to fall; we cannot stay in denial as easily...
"Yes, many, many people are not even noticing what’s going on... Spin doctors and manipulators who leverage their version of the world make the situation all the more perplexing. Still, those who have a firm grasp of the truth, no matter how small, must persist in letting that truth be known by more people – the truther role is needed by a world of people who feel very dizzy..."
Is it hard for an author to be objective and hold back passions? Technicians objectively analyze as football players struggle and compete. Scientists objectively view the struggle of cells which morph caterpillars into butterflies. But it is difficult to be objective regarding the world's struggles... when we are the participants.
Scientist Four, 10/25/14:
"The book didn't really deliver on what I would have liked to know, which is whether the Truther movement has any set organisation and agenda or whether it is just a term applied as a way of putting a lot of individuals into a pigeonhole and giving them a label. A lot of the people I know are pretty individual thinkers and I'd have problems grouping them into any one pigeonhole. Problem is, of course, that if there's a structure and agenda then it can be easily dismissed as just another crazy religion-type craze.
"For Vernor Vinge, try "Rainbows End" for a pretty good prediction of life in the fairly near future. All his books will make you think, though the others are somewhat further future or other worlds and we won't (most probably) see those happen. One other book that maybe has some of the germs of the Truther ideas, if I understand those correctly, is "The world of null-A" by A.E.Van Vogt. Very old book.
"Overall, it didn't take that long to read and I felt there wasn't enough substance in it. Maybe also you made a bit too much of Joe Biden's precise words - probably written by a professional speech-writer and can thus be read several ways depending upon the hearer's preconceptions. The book neither gave enough depth or pointers to "dig here" for the important points. More of an initial sketch than a finished painting."
Should trutherism be described as a "religion-type craze"?
The word crazy has two definitions:
(1) Crazy: mentally deranged. The world labels truthers as crazy, in order to make examples out of them. Private truth is well hidden from public discussion. It is perfectly acceptable (even beneficial) to stumble upon these truths privately. It is in the world's interest, however, that these truths be kept private, so as not to interfere with the public agenda. Perhaps this suppression involves some form of unconscious symbiotic understanding, and not necessarily conspiracy.
(2) Crazy: extremely enthusiastic. People can become very excited upon learning certain truths. Sometimes the same words can have both a public meaning, and a different (although not necessarily inconsistent) private meaning. When someone first becomes aware that there are dualities of meanings, it can be helpful if there are other people around who are already aware of private truth; perhaps to counsel them not to become too publicly excited and to think twice before going public with what they have learned. These private truths may not be useful or welcome in a public context.
When a number of people start publicly outing these private beliefs this might be looked at as a craze. In addition to political truthers who publicly discuss events such as 9/11, there are religious truthers who pubicly discusses the private meaning of religion. However, people caught up in a "religious craze" most likely are not aware of the private meaning of religion, and are simply fervent followers of well known religious dogma.
Technology enables abundance, but paradoxically can cause job loss/ downsizing to the extent that this abundance is not affordable by many, or sometimes a majority of people. But there’s reason for optimism. At some point with enough abundance, we’ll design a more equitable economic system, and conflict based on scarcity will be rendered obsolete. But who is we? There's a saying in bridge: the one who knows, goes. Do the ones who know, and then go, become the life form... with how free and open the internet remains serving as an early indicator of how broad based this world-brain will be?
Technology enables absolute power, but as world government gains its confidence, it may make things like hoaxes and false flags become a thing of the past. Absolute power also includes the power to allow transparency.
From God's perspective, Earth may be behaving as any occasionally wayward teenager might, as part of its normal development. The next developmental turn may be unrecognizable today as we accelerate towards technological Singularity. Take time to disengage; look after family, health. Enjoy simple things. Stay tuned, this could be fun.