benblog

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

UPDATE: 03-14-06

It's been a rather trying week this week. I drank about a fifth of rum every night for four days straight, and I'd had thirds of a fifth of tequilla the two nights before. But as of Saturday things have been looking up. I am beginning to get back into the swing of things with being Osiris as a Spring deity, the madman who lights his lamp in the morning. The holidays, like Groundhog Day, the Day of the Dead, Easter, etc. are important. They have significant, traditional, rural origins in the most ancient of pastoral cultures that have been conquered by western civilisation. As such they pertain to the growing seasons for agricultural crops. For example, when the groundhog sees its shadow for two or three years in a row, there is bound to be a drought come Easter. Of course, the crop calendars are offset from the calnedars we use in western civilisation. For example, college spring break does not happen to exactly overlap with any of the significant folk holidays, even Valentine's Day.

It is therefore important to follow the constellations that rise and set first in the mornings and in the evenings on particular days to keep track of the so-called "cosmic" forces. The ebb and flow of the red tides drawn by the blood moon Kali, the cycles of sunspots and "mini ice-ages," the rising and falling onland of different strands of crops, these are all the same. Underlying them all is the pull of gravity, the external surface of the continuum, time-space. This draws us inward toward the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy just like a positive to a negative magnet. The karma in our souls is like the spark of an electron as it travels along these warping, toroidal magnetic field lines. Our bodies, the atoms of them, the cosmic dust we coagulate entropically, flit about along these gravitic field lines like flakes of iron filing in the field around an electrically charged magnet.

I have been thinking that the set of one generation causes the setting of the next generation, while the setting of one generation causes the set of the next, where set refers to state of mind, and setting refers to the environmental surroundings we perceive through the five senses. It is as though the planter who sows when the groundhog sees its shadow the second year will harvest crops in the drought the following year. This is because the thoughts occupying the minds of one generation are a combination of those taught to them by their parents and what they desire to leave behind for their children. For example, right this very second here in America, there is a plot being perpetrated by some politicians in the "neo-con" party to foment great expectations for the immanentising of the eschaton, that is, the "end of the world." They have the elder generation's mastery of high finance manipulation (laissez-faire capitalisme) and they use that money to encourage and support the policy of one nation amongst a region against its own neighboring nations. By funding Israel in its land-locked grudge match against the neighboring Palestinian people, the neo-cons are continuing an old Nazi contingency plan for the infiltration of Zionism. They have made the Israeli army dependent on American corporate contracts, funded militarily by the Pentagon, whose budget has grown enourmously over-inflated within the halls of government. Not only this, the neo-conservatives, the self-denying "right-wing conspiracy," the Klan members' descendents who entered politics, etc. have put Israel in a tight spot by imposing American military bases in some of Israel's neighboring nations. It is believed that the neo-cons funnel oil from the Shieks of the region to sell as gasoline in America, where the oil and energy companies then use the money they make from increasing gas prices to glut fund the pentagon, which then reciprocally militarises the non-aligned nations the intelligence community deems "uncooperative" to this strategy. Of course, China, Cuba and Israel are on the side of America, however the "uncooperative" North Koreans, Vietnamese, Syrians, Iranians, Afghanis and Iraqis in the "islamo-fascist" "axis of evil," may as well be dead already according to the predictions made for post-Cold War era "trends" in International Affairs quarterly journal, the official newsletter of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations, since the Korean conflict in the fifties. It is likely these strategies for world domination were grafted directly over into the United States from Third Reich era Germany, however we see the same basic trends between the aggrarian praetorians and the militarised plebians immediately prior to Julius Caesar's crossing the Rubicon. Hell, the concept of Fasicism was familiar even to Alexis DeToqueville, the French ambassador during the American revolutionary war, even if not by that name.

Of course, so long as one has enough personal freedom there is no reason they should even care about any of this. For as much as the future of one generation has been foreseen by the last, the fate of each generation is determined entirely by the next. If the youth choose to rebel, then all will soon enough be lost into the hands of those who would destory it.

There are those who purport the virtues in property and the "justice" upheld by society. I am not among them. There are those who prommote others be denied the right to own and protect property. There are even those who promulgate what they fully understand to be injustice against the rights, and eventually even the selves, of their fellow humans. I am not among either of these types of group either. I am a pacifist, I believe communication can free those who are suffering, and that it is the right, and to some lesser extent, the responsibility of those who are already free from suffering to liberate through free communication those who come to them and are suffering. But to do anything more than this, to do anything less than this, is folly, a fool's errand. To fight another is to fight the self. When one wins against another, one loses to themselves.

There are plenty of unenlightened people, by that criteria, and then there is the question among the enlightened as to what to do with the unenlightened, the chattle, the sub-humans. Of course, as long as there are these lesser mortals, there will remain competition between the enlightened as to whether to kill all the unenlightened or to try to enlighten them. This depends on the different definitions the enlightened give the unenlightened, and eventually how they label one another as unenlightened for sharing what they perceive are the views or traits of those whom they themselves consdier unenlightened.

Of course, in my view, as someone who does consider themself enlightened, there is no need to even acknowledge the existence of the unenlightened. By this philosophy, if someone comes to me for enlightenment, and is dissatisfied, they might return like kind as they perceive they have received. Therefore, I test this philosophy by the fruits it bears over time. This means it is a living, breathing philosophy rather than an edifice whose aesthetic's longevity is eroded over time. And thus, if someone is dissatisfied by it, they can end its life, but not the durations of its generations, and it cannot be torn down anymore than it has been built upon from without.

Such and such and so and so, you shall know a man's future from his present works.

This is simple math.

So, too, by knowing tachyons exist above light-speed, we can say things ourselves about what it is like outside of entropic time, but this does not make us the Creator. Deeds cannot accomplish that.

That is more complex math.

Both of these are math. Why? Because they are both True. But why do we call one "simple" and the other "complex"? It is because the one pertains to the laws of men, and the other to the Law of God. What is the difference of God and man?

There is no known-of afterlife for man. Man believes he achieves his afterlife according to his deeds while alive here on earth. Of course, for God all there is is the afterlife, and he lives Within and Through us, but with many such subtle differences between Himself and us.

For example, we know that life begins, but we cannot agree when. This is because we associate life with the energy-field inherent in the body. This is why we say someone can be brain-dead and yet still physically alive, and why we mark time of death as the time at which heart activity has irrevocably ceased. The energy-field we associate with the body is not the same as the self that Buddhists preach liberation from. This is a misunderstanding between the east and the west, over the difference between body and mind. All these are examples of the difference between man and God.

Because we associate the end of life with the ceasing of the heart, and the heart does not draw air from the lungs to oxygenate its blood, and thus feed air into the brain, until a new-born baby is slapped, then can a baby be still-born? Yes, but until it is birthed, cut free by the umbilical chord of the placental afterbirth, and draws its first breath, it is not a separate organism from the mother. Thus it is no more responsible for its own existence than it was for the water-breaking immediately preceding its birth. Even the water of a still-born baby breaks. However can a baby that dies in the womb not be said to have ever lived at all? No, again we associate life with the prescence of the energy field of the body. Do not the eggs and sperm themselves possess such inherent gnomonic energy fields unique even from the parent? Yes, and again these do possess an energy field, but we do not say they possess their own bodies, especially not, as we may define life already, as independent organisms from the organs of their parent. Sperm and eggs both die within hours of leaving the body, unless they attach to each other. This is the same as if you removed a caterpillar mid-metamorphosis into a butterfly from the chrysalis of its cocoon. Thus we can say that, even though the cocoon need not be alive, the caterpillar/butterfly is alive only insofar as it is nonethless only an organ contained within the body of the cocoon. Thus we can also say that, if a mother dies, an unborn foetus can remain "alive" within the womb for some hours, but must be removed to be "born."

All of this helps us greatly in how to define "life," and to say definitively when it begins. Does it begin with breathing air? No. Does it begin with the umbilical chord being cut? No. Does it begin with birth? No. Does it begin with the formation of the foetus from zygote in the womb? No. Does it begin with conception, the union of egg and sperm? No. Does it begin within the gamete parent cells themselves? No. So when DOES "life" begin? Life began for humanity when we became separated from God. Therefore life begins for each of us as an individual when God goes from moving Through us to moving Within us, and only God Himself determines at what point that event begins. For example, the enlightened often tend to view the chattle or the unenlightened as having not yet begun "life."

Why does life not begin at conception? The same reason it does not begin at the formation of the foetus from the zygote. Simply because it cannot begin at both. It is clear that somewhere during the cellular process of meiosis that occurs in the exponetial growth patterns of both human stem-cells and in plants, so-called "life" (as we know it) begins. But we cannot say where or when this occurs. For example, it occurs separately and at a different time for each of the human body's physical organs to come online in the foetus, but we cannot say that "life" in the foetus begins specifically with the activation of one certain organ, since we seem to be capable of surviving the removal of almost all of them, and the rest that we could not we can replace with synthetic replicas to perform the same function and still continue to survive. Therefore at no one specific time between conception and the fertilised zygote tissue become foetal can we exlusively say that yes, "life" is already occuring.

This is because of our strict adherance to the definition of "life" as the energy field inhabiting the body. We struggle and struggle to define the beginning of "life" as the beginning of the inhabitation of the individual body of its unique energy field. But we cannot define our body as individual or our energy field as unique as having begun at the same exact time. For some perhaps their energy field becomes unique at the point the zygote cells become a foetus. Perhaps for others their energy field becomes unique as early as conception. And perhaps for some that time will never come.

So, we must change our defintion of what constitutes "life." For example, my own definition of life is more than merely: "the duration which an energy field inhabits a body." This would imply that the sun is alive, and all the stars, and the galaxies, and the entire universe itself, but this would imply a greater universe, and if we scale down the other way, at what microscopic level do we cease to define what we find there as "energy"? Nor can we limit the definition to species, human no more or less so than mineral, as "living" bodies.

It seems, epistemologically, "life" eludes definition by all those who possess it, since man's mind sits atop all other species than dolphins, with whom we are unable to effectively communicate, and we remain unable to even define what makes any one of us different from a mangy dog, let alone from the unliving matter-energy of which we are made and which surrounds us.

For example: if something was never "alive" how can we consider it "dead"? Therefore what is the difference between the human body, made of the ashes given off by a star, and the star itself? If we cannot call the star "alive" when it is made of gas and fusion, then how can we call the human body "alive" when it is only made of energy and ash? And if there is no difference, then either both must be alive or both must be dead. Because the star can never be said to be "alive" even though it too comes into existence and passes from it as a star, then the human body, which is said to be either "alive" or "dead," can not be any exception to the rule of the stars that says beginning and ending of existence does not alone constitute "life," and can therefore be neither "alive" nor "dead," simply because it has a begining and end of its existence as such.

So, we cannot say that "life" is something inherent to the human body alone. But if we include the soul, the aura, the unique energy field that inhabits that body, then we must also include the sun, and all the stars and galaxies, and also all energy down to the smallest of quanta, photons, and then we can no longer make any differentiation in terms of our individual "life" between man and God.

Thus, what difference is there between the kingdom of earth and the Kingdom of Heaven? Well, quite alot actually, for simply look all around and compare that to the nicest world you could possibly imagine. So how can we define this difference, the difference between life and death itself, between man and God? We cannot. We believe only God can rightly do so.

However this does not stop mankind from trying. Perhaps it is simply that the unenlightened are inspired to do so, while the enlightened see all attempts at such as distraction from the True Path to Selflessness. But then, we are back to the world of differences again already. And as long as there is either alone there can never be both, and as long as there can never be both, there can neither be either at all.

If we accept All is God, we cannot accept that all is death. To say all is death is to imply the difference between what is all and what is nothing, and the difference between what is alive and what is dead. This is the opposite thing as saying that there is no difference, that all is one, and that this one is neither living nor dead, no more so than nothingness itself can have existence. To say that God is death is to sever the self from God, rather than to dissolve into His prescence. Therefore we cannot say that all is not alive, because God is all and more.

Now, do we say that God is alive? Do we say that our definition of "life" (the energy field inhabiting the body) extends to the whole universe itself, and can we say that God, the life-energy field of the body that is the entire universe itself, can actually inhabit a human body? Is this body to be alone among us, or can we say the same is true of us all? Is this not then equally true of all "living" things such as minerals, or the seeds of a plant, or an unborn animal, or the soul of someone whose body is dead?

So, if we say that all these things are equally alive, we can also say then that God, being all of these things and more, is also alive. This is because so long as the brain of God that is our universe has energy in it, the energy is coming from the heart of God within that which is beyond our universe, and as long as there is activity in our universe there is energy coming from God's living heart beyond. This is how we know that God is alive. Because the energy within our universe comes from beyond our universe, and this is like the heart transferring energy into the brain through pumping into it oxygenated blood. Of course, the heart and the lungs may indeed be replaced in the human body, and the heart may even be replaced by a machine, but the lungs can only be transplanted from another living body yet.

So why do we say there is One God? One body with many organs is like One God in many bodies. So how can we say there could be more than one God? For if God is not beyond time itself, and does change over time, then He can grow weak and infirm, and come to require a replacement of lung, of heart, or God forbid, brain! If He required a new lung, then, like the air He would breath, there would be Other Gods Beyond Him. This hypothesis is as old as Sumeria. Older even than the Nation of Israel. If God required a new brain, we would not even need to know about it. My brain could be transplanted into my wife's head and within itself would not even be aware at first of the difference in its immediate surrounding environment. Likewise, our universe, like the ego of our local God, can easily be transplanted from one Heavenly body to another. To some extent the wandering of the mind is even necessarily natural.

No, we say there is One God because we know that there is a source for the living energy that penetrates our local universe from beyond. This source is equivalent to the heart in the human body. However, just as with the heart in the human body, can the One True God be replaced by a machine? No, because even the energy beyond our universe is only like an organ of the body of God.

Now we can finally return with understanding to why we must observe the cycles of time, both in the heavens above us, and in the hills around. It is because time is this energy. This is why we call "life" the unique energy field inhabiting the body, and we say that, although God is alive and man is alive, that God and man are different. It is because time is greater than man and less than God.

Therefore, no one single person can be the entire mind of the universe itself. This is because and/or why our brains are bicameral. This is what causes our brain to differ from itself, as our mind differs from itself over time. That is our stream of consciousness that God steps in, or does not. And that is why some of us are enlightened and some are not, in the same way that man is different from God.

The goal of existence is to make these two one. This is why we believe to allow the fontenelle to open, we must activate the three eyes that see as one. Through the three in one eye, we shall see all of that which is and our brains will elongate our very skulls themselves. This is the truth.

-JBG

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

UPDATE: 03-28-06

"Mad as a March-Hare."

Indeed, I Am.

Thinking I, a mere neophyte, could master prediction of the erattic patterns of local and regional growing cycles.

Posh! Folly!

I had observation, but no understanding. The five senses without Wisdom, the sixth sense.

So I suffer the consequences as dictated by Time.

This comes in the form of thirty dollars disappearing from my savings, and thirty dollars (last month it was sixty, but February was shorter) from my Social Security money.

The truth is I don't think my mom is taking this money. Sometimes I get angry at her for no real reason, just to see if she gets overtly defensive, but all this has succeded in doing is causing her more stress, and the result of this is her taking it out on me at random, and getting angry at me for no real reason in return. This sucks.

I tend to believe that the money is disappearing from this reality through a wormhole inside the envelope I keep it in and entering a phenomenologically parallel reality. Somebody somewhere is finding my money in their pocket every time it disappears. I know that much. How it gets there I think is something cats and dogs know alot more about, or even a ninja creeping about between the shadows. It is clear to me that there are probabalistic splits between branches of reality as it changes over time. Thus, in an alternate reality, I can say with all assurance that the tragedy of 9-11 never happened. In the reality I am in now, however, I can say some small things, such as that sometimes my money disappears into nowehere. This is of little consequence though, it's really only tax-payers' money anyway.

I have also considered the notion of it disappearing during a psychogenic fugue state, when one part of my personality is responsible for my memories that another part of my personality cannot access. This is basically the same as MPD, although it may be a very low level MPD, such as experienced from the one or two natural traumas that could occur during a child's lifetime. I believe, however, that I personally suffer from an advanced state of MPD, wherein I literally change personalities altogether from one moment to the next. This type of MPD is initially identifiable by behaviorist psychology only as a mood disorder. However, as the moods seem to change more rapidly, so-called rapid cycling, manic-depression leads eventually to a psychotic break, which usually occurs to a late-diagnosis sufferer of mental illness during their thirties. Following this break, which is for most socially dysfunctional people fatal, the patient can then be identified as suffering from the mental illness, and treated for it. The diagnostic results of this treatment have predominantly proven to be that a patient suffering from advanced MPD is so as a result of prolonged induced childhood trauma.

So, basically, in my mind, the fact that my money is disappearing can only be attributable to either the fact that I exist in more than one different, parallel reality, and/or that I was exposed to prolonged induced childhood trauma.

Now, you may be able to see why your money, as a tax payer, is going into my envelope (regardless of who else's pockets). I am mentally disabled. Some people in my situation, physically, prefer to be called "differently abled." I see this as an optimistic misrepresentation. Consider someone who is missing both legs, so they learn to work their gas and brake pedals with their hands. This is being "differently abled." Consider the mental equivalent of this: Albert Pike had a steel rod punch a hole through his head and survived, proof of so-called neuro-genesis, or the brain healing itself. This is being "differently abled." Now, consider a junky, or consider someone on dialasis, or someone a hundred years ago dying of tuberculosis because of industrial pollution. Now, is what they need, to stay alive, to express their minds, worth any less to society than that of the handicapped driver, or than the mortally wounded who are destined by chance to survive? So, we feed this flock of the terminally "disabled." I am among this group of people.

Drug industries have labeled us "the consumers." So, organisations like NAMI offer "consumer" support groups, such as peer to peer and family to family councilling, police and community outreach programmes (teaching de-escalation), and regional and national government lobbying. It is important to embrace the ways society sees us, and would label us, and define us as being "different" from the "norm." It is important because we need to accept and heal stigmata rather than violently deny or enforce them. Once upon a time I used to be very offended when people called me "insane." Now I see each time as a vindication. Yes, that person is agreeing with my diagnosis. They are expressing their recognition in their own vernacular of the same thing as my diagnosis means in scientific euphamisims to any doctor who sees my patient file. This justifies, in my mind, the fact that I am forced (or blessed) to receive money, even if it be at the expense of tax-paying workers.

I do not feel as though I live off the fat off the land. I do not believe I am part of the problem because of prior-life karma or pre-ordained choice. I do admit, though rarely enough may I do so freely, that I AM indeed part of the class of social-problems. Only liberal-minded, potentially political active people even study this class in college. I took it, so I am liberal. I also took a much more popular class at a much more prestigious college called "persuasion." In that class I was the only student to know that Touch Me was off the Soft Parade album by the Doors. Shortly afterwards I was forced to drop the class after the drop date. I lost alot of money. Therefore, I at least attempted to be Praetorian and conservative, but failed.

I think all this pretty well sums up my college career, which was essentially the beginning of my full-fledged sleep disorder, which persists to this very moment in time.

You can see why I feel more than merely uniquely qualified to make commentary from within the situation on the devastating social problems caused by those who practise persuasion. I can say that, from within the class of social problems, may I speak to you with persuasion now, when I say, "I am with the invaders, no use trying to hide that." As part of the social classes, I am liberal by default but conservative by birth. I was born into a wealthy republican family. However my father was so only by one generation while my mother was on both sides of her parents' families' trees. I, as the first child, take after my father. But I, as the only child, cling to my mother.

This streak of "occult" insanity persists in both of my parents' family trees, although, like with wealth, it has been in my mother's familiy longer than my father's. My grand mother on my mom's side, Beatrice Bulger ("Ditty"), was a bastrad child born out of wedlock between her mother, Beatrice Esther Bulger ("Mammu"), and some unknown party, presumeably involved in politics somehow. This had resulted in Mammu's addiction to morphine. I know that the occult distraction persists at least as far back in my mother's family's veins as that. On my father's family's side his mother had turned to severe alcoholism. However my father believes that he is the "crazy" one between the two of us. He has even beat the shit out of me trying to fool himself into thinking this.

I forgive my father. He is nothing but my own manifestation, like a mirror of myself in the clear stream of time of which I stand at the center. He is just a solidified vibration I cast off like the ripples in a pond from the splash I cause by mind over matter. Like a golem. He is like the skin that a snake sheds off. I accept and understand the cosmic plan of things as being infinite beyond human comprehension. I think of myself as like a house plant.

There is a great degree of discrepancy in my perception of myself over time, but the self I perceive seems pretty much ubiquitous. There is a consistent subset of reality for which I choose to exclude the rest in favour of using to express to the rest my self concept. That Is How Others See Me. I am forever in motion relative to these accumulations and to the detriment of my detritus, for this motion I am erodes away at it, changing the face of it over time. I reasonably believe I should associate my self-concept with the motion, rather than the affects and affectations of my character, per se. Others disagree. To them, power comes from property. I do not fault them for not being able to see me as being as caught up in the whirl-wind of being myself as I see myself.

"Mad as a March Hare."

Indeed, I Am.

Here is a revelation, perhaps new to you, but old, very old to me: The animal internet is the crew that never sleeps, who run with the Great Burner. They comprise the faces on the calendar, from the seasonal to the instantaneous, they chart all the alignments of the stars. The Great Burner is the One who reads this calendar. In the past Enoch, Yeshuah Ben Padiah, and John Dee are known to have read and understood this calendar.

It is through the animal internet that the "civic spirits of cities" used to convey their general ambience across the face of the lands. The animals were used to convey messages between the domestics inside the city, the herds in the country, and the wild beasts in the woods, all via the birds, who obtained their most minute observations through the bees.

The domestication of man's best friends is like the ability to convince wild animals to be turned to lives of servitude as the highest possible honour beneath only being eaten. These are definately species from across the world committing themselves to the service of mankind, the monkey mammals. But why? What do they stand to gain?

Some speculate about the problems the Atlanteans had with the so-called "Great beasts" of the time, although this is most assuredly zodiacal. The truth dates back to before Atlantis, and offers some evidence of the commerce of archetypal idealogies between the stations of terrestrial holidays as relative to the seasons in which they calendrically occur. It is somewhat like the Buddhist Wheel of six Lokas, or worlds, this precession of earth in her orbit around her sol the sun. All the possible combinations for weather and terrain patterns have been calculated already by the base sixty-four hexagrams of the i ching. But these are small systems beside the animal internet.

When I talk about the animal internet, well... for one thing I sound crazy. But let me assure this is a rationally explicable idea. Consider my "Atlantean" Calendar. The Mayan Kin within it are all represented by the faces of various stages in our own human eveolution, from reptiles, through monkeys, men and into "Ahau" our future. These are the "anima anpin," the "animal faces." The zodiac signs are also animal faces. This is why, in the Ethiopian apocrypha of Enoch, the visions he describes following his descriptions of the measurements of time were the visions of the animals. Enoch's visions were handed down to John Dee in the sixteen hundreds, who combined the "western" zodiac with the Mayan calendar.

The rise and fall of populations in migratory animal cultures has always been seen as being preminatory of larger trends in environmental tendencies. This was also eventually applied to the rearing of plants, and so we learned to offer foods to the animals, and to domesticate them. Before this time, we all understood one another in perfect silence.

So, animals have been swayed into their current state by the one animal being fed to the other by the third. This process, of domestication by breeding animals increasingly dependent on getting their otherwise hunted food from their mammal-monkey masters, is what we consider a "higher order" process imposed upon the animal internet by mankind. It is thus only recently, after the world flood that separated and dissipated ancient ice-age coastal communities, that we believe we have come to "harness" and to "control" the animal internet, as the king-species above all the others.

We are obviously not the first "dominant" species on earth, let alone the first dominant genus or phylum. Once, dinosaurs ruled the planet, and some would say, did so about as efficiently as we seem to be doing these days, what with the war in Iraq, where we are clearly only waging a war against history itself. Afterall we have used the remains of the dinosaurs as fossil fuels, and have even depleted the world of many precious minerals for making molten metals. But the destruction of our present landmarks to ancient history, the destruction of our cherished treasures of the past, should not be thought of as gauranteeing us the right to time-travel, to use the same locations during the past in which to choose where to live out our lives. This all sounds like malarchy too, of course, but I assure you it all follows according to rhettorically sound premises.

Consider the way man has changed the animal into the machine. By replacing natural order with synthetic order, by replacing what is right to those that serve us with what is easiest for us to control. This, it is thought, is the technological dictatorship by the telecommunications proletariat phase of Marxist Socialism. We even replace the human labour force with robots.

Eventually, we hope, we will completely escape Into the Machine. The entire deistic view of the universe has grown out of the gnostic concept of the demiurge. We hope to dissolve ourselves into union with the Mind of This Universe. This means becoming one with the deist demiurge: the virtual reality / artificial intelligence of robots and clones. By believing we can evolve ourselves into such interdependence on machinery that we would become one with it on such a microscopic level that there would cease to be a difference between the components of our being, the components of our created machines, and the pre-existent particles of the universe. Each would be equally real to all.

This is how our primitive earth brains, inbred as they have become with the indigenous, bacterial type life forms of this planet, intend to escape the gravity well of earth. This is the planned and scheduled mass evolutionary event futurists describe as "the singularity."

According to a friend of mine, "2012 is the beginning of cyber-punk." I can only expect that by then the world will be... well.... very different than it is today.

But what do we really hope to find in our future? If we destroy our own species, perhaps soon enough our domesticated species will start to stand up, walk upright, to speak and even to write. Perhaps one day, some other animal will be living my exact life.

This all might occur only over the hundreds of millions of aeons, but I believe that most domesticated animals have a much more patient method of reckoning time than most of us humans do. They are apparently accustomed to living fuller lives in their, relatively, shorter life-times. They thus often come to be known as the bearers of the wisdom of the ages. Many people attribute the mechanism of reincarnation to include the animal realm.

The crew that never sleeps are a select faction within the animal internet seeking to guide and to control the rest. The Great Burner is their leader.

-ben

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

this information is all © 2006- Jonathan Barlow Gee

LINKS: