Archive for May, 2012

The Model: Latest Developments

21 May 2012

My earlier article, for reference.

While the political scene continues to percolate, and for the most part is not being covered by any reliable information source, I have been pushing my “new model” for understanding human life out onto the web.

A danger sign disguised as futurism – Russia 2045

The 2045 website was just recently launched. Here’s a link.

Though it purports to be a “brand new” approach to the future of humanity, spearheaded by innovative Russian academics, what do you know?: It’s a dot com website!

It looks pretty Russian. Except for the Ray Kurzweil and Dalai Lama endorsements. Who’s really behind it? Perhaps time will tell.

Their major project is to “reverse engineer the human brain.”

So close! Yet, so far.

I sent a little missive to the email address for this project. I warned them that this whole line of reasoning could turn out to be very unwise. They responded the next day with one sentence: “Please never write to us again.”


I hope my readers will understand the problem I’m looking at, assuming The Model has any validity whatsoever (see next section):

  1. If the brain is not actually what produces human consciousness, then reverse engineering it will just get you a much better robot.
  2. If human consciousness is immortal, then why don’t we just remember how to make better robots? It’s got to be in someone’s memory somewhere.

The people putting up the money for this project should be aware of these two points. So what is their honest reason for supporting this project? I invite your comments on the matter. (Comments are, however, reviewed by me before posting.)

A Lawyer and Psychologist wannabe researches past lives

Robert T. James is an interesting fellow. And he got more interesting when he agreed to apply his hypnotism training to someone who wanted to know if they had lived before. According to the regression, she had.

I found out about his little site some time ago, but had not had the time to take the plunge. Yesterday I bought a copy of his eBook for $6 and started reading through it.

This was serious!

In two separate studies, starting about 1994 (he didn’t publish until 10 years later) and involving roughly 150 separate people, he attempted (and for the most part managed) to cover some of the biggest questions posed by The Model:

  • What are the chances that patients make these stories up?
  • How can you tell the stories are real?
  • If they are real, what really happens when someone dies?
  • When someone picks up a new body?
  • Between the time someone dies and when they pick up a new body?
  • What gives past life knowledge therapeutic value?
  • Can inspecting past lives be harmful?
  • How much training does the therapist (or researcher) need?
  • How far back can people be regressed?
  • Have human beings ever lived as animals or as animal-like creatures?

He touches on ALL these topics in his book. And is never heavy-handed about it. He’s a skeptic without an agenda, except to contribute to the science of human psychology. And he has. Too bad no psychologists seem to have paid any attention to his book. (To be fair, there are a few academics who study this; Mack and Stevenson were the most prominent.)

Furthermore, his work validates The Model.

To review the basics:

  1. Human consciousness does not die with the body; it is continuous.
  2. The memories are there; just a bit hard for most to access.
  3. It is very common to hang over the body a bit after it dies.
  4. Beings generally try to pick out a baby based on their preferences.
  5. Beings demonstrate a tendency to find each other again.
  6. The between-lives experienced is cloaked.
  7. When asked about many “secrets” of life, patients under hypnosis respond that they are “not supposed to tell.” Someone out there is trying to keep it a secret!
  8. We do have experience as other life forms, usually before earth.
  9. Yes, there have been aliens who crashed their space ships here and died.

Get the idea?

Yes, the universe really is a wild and crazy place where many things are possible that someone wants you to think aren’t possible. And that’s my point about the first topic of this article.


Life as a Process

11 May 2012

Most recently my head has been buried in matters related to computer programming.

So why this waxing philosophic?

  1. It is time – past time really – to take a new look at the world around us.
  2. Programming languages are based on certain philosophic principles.
  3. When you write programs for the purpose of understanding how to do it, you run into these principles.
  4. If you have prior philosophic training, you may find these principles interesting, rather than just annoying or dogmatic.

In addition, I have just come off reading some Courtney Brown books, and I have also immersed myself in the movement to re-invent life on earth in a more sensible way.


In programming we have this term “object.” It means “an instance of a class.” If that doesn’t clarify things for you, I don’t blame you. But I’m going to keep this light; I’m not going to resort to my Webster’s. A “class” is a pattern for an object. Like a gene is a pattern for a protein. An “instance” is an actual example of something created from a class. A person is an “instance” of his genetics, in this sense. And the browser window you are reading this in is an instance of the various classes that were specifically designed to make browser windows. The “browser program” defines the process, as a series of steps, for creating and working with a browser window.


We usually think of an object as a thing that doesn’t “change” unless a process acts upon it. This is a convenient and workable way of thinking, but at its core it is flawed. If the objects all around us – including us – were not in a constant state of change, they would all disappear. In macro terms, we are constantly changing position in every frame of reference except our own. And in micro terms, we now know that atoms and subatomic particles are, in fact, in constant motion.

Thus from the point of view of a human in material existence, it even requires a process of some kind for objects to appear to remain the same. Without some sort of continuing process, an object would vanish as soon as the process creating it finished. This actually happens in programming.

For example, for my systems analysis class I wrote a little program that simulates how a grocery checkout system works. When the clerk holds an item over the scanner, the scanner detects the bar code of the item and sends it to a database. The database responds with data about the item, which the system temporarily stores in an ITEM object. This data is then inspected and processed, if necessary (does the item need to be weighed? etc.), and when that is done, the item data is copied over to the INVOICE object, and the ITEM object is destroyed. The ITEM object does not appear again until a new item is scanned, and the process is repeated.

Physically, a shopping basket is being emptied of items, which are being handled, one-by-one by the cashier, and are then put into a shopping bag. So, the physical items simply get handled and moved to a new location, while the logical ITEMS get created, inspected, and destroyed over and over.

In both cases, we are talking about process. But for me, the life cycle of an ITEM in a checkout program really brought it home for me. The continued existence of ANY OBJECT depends on a continuing process. You could even call an object a process.

This is definitely what LRH tries to get across in his book Fundamentals of Thought.

And similar ideas are expressed by other teachers who lean in the direction of metaphysics. These ideas are now even invading the realm of particle physics.


An example of this problem is the attitude of science to the concept of spirit.

Academically trained writers have trouble with spirit. They reason that, since the spirit has no physical properties, it could not rightly be said to “exist.”

I stood in my kitchen one day not long ago, just after reading such a discussion, and watched the wind blowing around the bushes and trees outside. And I thought, “spirit is like the wind.” After all, I realized later, the word comes from a word for “breath.”

And certainly, no one would argue that “wind” doesn’t exist! But “wind” is a name for a process. The process involves the movement of air from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure. We don’t study wind and rain as “things” (I hope). We study them as processes. And that is really the only way to study spirit.

Everything is a process

But according to my earlier discussion, what, in fact, is NOT a process?


The postulate of an “unchanging object” is in fact a matter of mere intellectual convenience. Within certain frames of reference, or rules of play if you want to use a game analogy, certain objects can be thought of as non-changing unless acted upon by a process that changes them. But this is simply intellectually convenient. It is not, ultimately, the truth of what is going on.

The truth is that everything is a process. Some processes are relatively insignificant in most games, and can be ignored. Others are more significant. But to overlook this truth is to make a major error.

Particle physics has had two major approaches.

One approach involves creating a very small space in which a lot of energy is added in. This tends to “expose” processes that are normally very private. In this way they have discovered “particles” with very short lifetimes that normally are created and destroyed inside of other particles.

The other approach has been to create a very small space in which a lot of energy is drained out (usually by cooling). The matter inside this space tends to simplify, or act more like it would under “ideal” conditions. You get superconductivity, superfluidity and other phenomena that indicate that the various processes in matter start to cease to interfere with each other, or in fact can be “turned off.”

However, this is nothing, in my mind, compared to the various experiments in what we currently call the “paranormal” during which “solid objects” have been observed to appear and disappear (materialize and dematerialize) according to the will of someone with “psychic powers.”

Scientific study of spiritual phenomena

If science is willing to entertain the possibility – as they have had to do in particle physics – that the subject they are studying is basically a process and not an “object,” then we may have an entrance point to the problem of how to study the spirit.

Particle physicists are now well aware that what they are basically studying is a process, and that what they are perceiving are the effects of this process. When asked to give a name to this process, they usually come up with “nature.” They could have just as easily come up with “god” or “spirit.” Conceptually, there is really very little difference. The main difference is that “nature” is conceived to be a totally unbiased agent of change, whereas “god” is considered to have attitudes about things. I think, though, if we really looked into it, we would find that “nature” also has attitudes about things.

If spirit is best thought of as a process, then the only real question is to what extent “spirit” and “nature” are equivalent concepts. To the extent that they are (surprise!) science has really been studying spirit all along! And spiritualists have also really been studying nature all along.

While the spiritualists are ready to concede this point, the scientists, for the most part, are not. The path to such a concession could be – and I hope it is – shorter than previously thought.

My take on the push against Sharia in the US

9 May 2012

Those who follow me (if any) know that I am interested in changing the current financial system. In this regard, I have been following the White Hats movement, which seems loosely related to the much more tentatively real Galactic Federation of Light.

These people want to replace the current system with one that is “equity-based.”

On googling “equity based finance” I found numerous links to articles and papers about Islamic banking. Why was this?

It is because Sharia advises in favor of equity-based financial practices.

I read the Wikipedia article on it here:
Islamic Banking

To quote the article briefly:

The term “Islamic banking” refers to a system of banking or banking activity that is consistent with Islamic law (Shariah) principles and guided by Islamic economics. In particular, Islamic law prohibits usury, the collection and payment of interest, also commonly called riba in Islamic discourse. In addition, Islamic law prohibits investing in businesses that are considered unlawful, or haraam (such as businesses that sell alcohol or pork, or businesses that produce media such as gossip columns or pornography, which are contrary to Islamic values). Furthermore the Shariah prohibits what is called “Maysir” and “Gharar”. Maysir is involved in contracts where the ownership of a good depends on the occurrence of a predetermined, uncertain event in the future whereas Gharar describes speculative transactions. Both concepts involve excessive risk and are supposed to foster uncertainty and fraudulent behavior. Therefore the use of all conventional derivative instruments is impossible in Islamic banking.

The source given for this statement is:
Mervyn K. Lewis, Latifa M. Algaoud: Islamic Banking Cheltenham, 2001

Morality in finance

This introduces the odd idea that banking, and financial matters in general, should be conducted on an ethical, even moral, basis.

The is NOT the Western tradition! To be curt, the West has practiced “rape and pillage” banking since at least the days of Rome.

Push against Sharia in US

There has been a push against Sharia in the US justified by the idea that Sharia encourages Islamic extremism (for which there is no proof, of course).

According to this article support for this backlash seems to be loosing ground. But where did it come from? The article mentions David Yurushalmi, a lawyer for the conservative Center for Security Policy (CSP). David, an anti-globalist, does not claim to be the intellectual or any other leader of this movement. However, he does firmly believe in it, as does the Center he works for.

This group honors mostly various military leaders in the US. One odd exception to this was Christopher Cox, U.S. Congressman from California, and chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2006 to 2008. This group also supports Zionism and American Exceptionalism.

According to Wikipedia, its membership includes Richard Hoagland and Linda Moulten Howe, who are prominent commentators in the alternative news community.

Again according to Wikipeida, based on a web page that no longer exists, the CSP is subsidized by donors supportive of neo-conservative causes, including the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation and the William H. Donner Foundation.

I have no real way of tracing the sources of funding for these foundations. However, the Mellons were a banking and oil family. Shelby Collum Davis was an investment banker. And Donner was a steel man who got financial support from Mellon.

These guys like the “American way” there’s no doubt about that. And that includes, I presume, the “American” way (actually the Roman/Italian way) of doing banking. Many “modern” banking practices are outlawed by Sharia.

Any connection?

It’s a lot more clean and clear than the surface argument, isn’t it?

Larry Discovers Courtney Brown

4 May 2012

Courtney Brown website page

It’s Late

2AM. Or is that early? The point is, Mr. Brown seems to think that it’s getting a bit late, too.

So he’s taking his message to the masses via, most recently, Project Camelot. And that is how I ran across him.

Courtney Brown is a math PhD who studies remote viewing through a non-profit institute that he created for this purpose. He has also done some of his studies privately.

“Remote viewing” is one of several forms of semi-causative super-perception techniques. Remote viewing (RV) was originally developed by the military specifically for investigative purposes.

According to Dr. Brown’s theory of remote viewing, the trained viewer will pick the correct target even though he is not given any overt hint of what that target is. This is because of the actual connectedness of existence. In other words, the ability includes the ability to discover the target without being told what it is, as long as someone will eventually decide what it is. If we were totally “connected” we would be able to perceive everything that “is.” Disconnection is an illusion that we have enforced upon ourselves for some purpose, but greater levels of connectedness are always possible, though it is a strain for humans to do this.

In this way, all existence, which is really just a collection of considerations, is ultimately available to be perceived. That includes all perceptions of what has happened (or patterns we have experienced in the past) and all perception of what might happen (patterns we expect to experience in the future). To see any of these non-local experiences is simply a problem of extending perception.

Findings, briefly stated

  • The asteroid belt formed after a planet exploded.
  • Mars is inhabited and has been for a long time.
  • Jesus arranged things so that he was not the person who got crucified, though most observers thought it was.
  • It is likely that a major “disruptive” event will happen on earth this year.
  • Advanced ET civilizations are a reality.

Dr. Brown – rightly, I think – believes that these findings are significant.

They, in fact, add up to a whole new take on how life works.


In Dr. Brown’s video about Jesus, he mentions the Seth material – recommended to him by a friend – as an inspiration for that project. This material was dictated by “Seth” via Jane Roberts, mostly to her husband, from 1963 to 1983.

I have mentioned the “Hubbard material” as an inspiration for my work. The books he wrote were all penned in the 1950s, except for the Way to Happiness, and his fiction, of course.

In the 1960s through 1980s most of his written work was presented as either Bulletins or Policy Letters, and have since been published as books. The Bulletins are contained in 13 volumes comprising, I believe, over 6,500 pages. The Policy Letters are contained in 11 volumes, consisting of roughly 5,500 pages. And if all of his lectures were transcribed (most of them are), this would amount to an additional 100 volumes, approximately.

None of Hubbard’s work was channeled. It is all either research findings, attempts to explain those findings, descriptions of how to do things correctly, or musings that serve – usually – to illustrate his major points.

It is obvious that both of these individuals devoted many years to their work, believed in it, and thought it was important enough to record and publish.

Seth, for all intents and purposes, founded the New Age.

And Hubbard, in addition to founding Dianetics and Scientology, hoped that his work would help usher in a New Civilization.

If there is any time left to heed these teachers, it starts now.

Take your pick, or study both of them.

Here are some parallels between what Brown believes his research is demonstrating and what Hubbard believed his research was demonstrating:


  • Experience in the physical universe is based on a perception of solidity.
  • When we look deeply into matter – or the mind – we find no real solidity there; we only find a perception of it.
  • Our feelings of being trapped or restrained all stem from this perception of solidity; it is, ultimately, a false perception.
  • The discipline of remote viewing (Brown) or auditing (Hubbard) lead to the realization of the above truths. That realization takes time to occur; years.
  • What Hubbard found that Brown has not yet mentioned is the sense of personal freedom and restored ability that following this discipline can provide to a being.
  • In these “new” truths, or realizations, lie the key to a new level of existence that is lighter, but no less challenging, that what we currently experience. It could enable us to end the sense of being in a “downward spiral.”

Positive Law

2 May 2012

I am writing this as my first reaction to the following items, among others:
David Wilcock’s latest article
Treatise by Byron Beers on Merchant Law


1. arbitrary 2. explicit 3. confident; assured 4. affirmative 5. indicating progress 6. constructive; 7. absolute; 8. real 9. based on facts 10. empirical; practical.
The above definitions and synonyms are excerpted from my dictionary.

In Scientology we have a thing called a positive postulate. It is a decision to act or to be or to have that admits no thought or concern for failure. In the context of the real world, it is difficult to make a positive postulate, unless one is confident that no one would be harmed should the postulate come true.

Positive Law

This describes a rule made simply because the maker of the rule thinks he would benefit from having it enforced. The implied intention is that the rule will be enforced with physical force, if necessary.

If you get a picture of a king sitting on a throne somewhere who likes pancakes and thus has a law requiring that the people of his kingdom supply him with lots of pancakes, then you have some picture of the context in which positive law “makes sense.”

It doesn’t have to make any real sense. It depends solely on the rule-maker’s ability to enforce it.

Life down through the ages

When one studies the history of Europe (which I have not done that much of), one is immediately impressed by the difficulty groups seemed to have is keeping things peaceful enough to make some kind of progress.

In the not-too-recent past, Europe has had to deal with climate conditions that left people there without a balanced supply of the basics of life. One solution to this was to establish trade, usually with people living further south. The other solution to this was to ride out on horses, armed with swords, and pillage.

Understandably, the traders did not appreciate the robbers, though the robbers rather depended on the traders.

What was worked out, as best I can tell, was for the traders to “employ” the robbers to “protect” their trade routes. This left those neither traders nor robbers holding the short end of the stick. However, this system seems to be the basis for a tradition known today as “Merchant Law” which is a form of positive law.

“Modern” Law

The “rest of us,” understandably, did not feel well-served by Merchant Law, nor by its close ally, Admiralty Law.

One attempt to buffer the population from the world of constant warfare was common law. This is a general name for the legal customs of various nations that were used in the conduct of ordinary life.

Back then, ordinary life was not very commercial. You could often pay rent in the form of goods, and barter was also common.

But we see the merchants, along with their robber friends, work to gradually infiltrate commerce into culture, and make it seem like the “modern” thing to do.

Thus, more and more, our Common Law was replaced by various national flavors of Merchant Law. What this resulted in, basically, was to legalize activities that, under common law, would be seen as illegal.

Today, crime is basically legal, as long as you have the guns (read government) on your side.

As this is essentially a predatory system, and thus not sustainable, we are beginning to tire of its ever-increasing burdens.

Many groups have arisen to expose and oppose this system, and David has been writing about some of their activities, ideas, and plans.

The robbers and the merchants

The keener among us have noticed that while we could do without robbers, we would have trouble doing without merchants. We see our main job as separating these two from each other, and giving the more positive group sufficient education so that they will choose better ways, in the future, to afford their activities protection.

The robbers, though few in number, have shown themselves so willing to violate “God’s” laws that they are widely feared. What we need to deal with them is a way to disable them without compromising our own moral integrity. If the only way to stop a robber is to become one, then we might as well bow our heads and submit to their will.

What I very much hope is true, and what seems to be the case, is that it is possible to win the “guns” over, thus depriving the “robbers” of their firepower. The key to this is to render the lies they have used to gain the cooperation of fighters powerless. This is tricky. The key to it is education of the fighters, and providing them with ever broader and more constructive “fights” in which they can invest their aggressive (even destructive) energies. To fight must remain an honorable thing. It is the enemy that must change.

The true deceivers can, for now, only be handled by physically containing them. It is hoped that at some distant date they may be cured of their deceptive approach to life. Some may choose to commit suicide should they be found out, but this is not a permanent solution.

Jargon and Minutiae

Most attempts I have found on the web to explain this situation are confounded by their use of arcane legal terminology and details. This approach is not suitable for a more general understanding of the situation. Many of these researchers seem to have the attitude that “if I had to suffer in order to obtain and understand this data, so should you!” I hope I do not fall into this same trap.

It is interesting to become an “expert,” learn all the technical words, and make a bit of a spectacle of oneself. But that will not get the job done quickly enough. I think David and those working with him are assisting in this work with some skill, considering none of them are trained in LRH Study Tech. I wish I myself could do more, and hope someday that I will be able to.