The Megamachine and the Metamachine

Crane Brinton once offered what I consider the best brief definition of the meaning of “modernity” yet — “the invention of a system for inventing systems”. That definition of modernity must be played against Nietzsche’s remark also that “the will to a system is a lack of integrity” in order to appreciate Brinton’s meaning here. With these two statements we really come to the gist of the issue — the origin, history, and the meaning of “the System”.

The invention of a system for creating systems also describes that “ensemble of techniques” that Jacques Ellul analysed and interpreted in his many writings on The Technological Society or (later) The Technological System. That “ensemble of techniques” (or orchestration of systems) constitutes the meaning of Lewis Mumford’s “Megamachine” as he described it in Technics and Civilization and in The Myth of the Machine.

But there is yet the Metamachine, which is akin to the “Master Narrative” of the Modern Era and has its origins in the metaphor of “the Clockwork Universe”. The Metamachine is the Master System that serves as the blueprint for all systems or techniques, which specifies their form and function and how they are to relate to one another as an “ensemble” or orchestra of systems, thus constituting the totality of the “built environment” and, in those terms, perhaps even the very meaning of “the Anthropocene”. This Metamachine is the Architect of our “invisible environment” (Blake’s Ulro) and Blake gave it name and purpose — Urizen.

Urizen, one of the four Zoas of the divided brain/divided humanity, is the Architect of the phenomenal world of merely sensate consciousness. In his “Eternal Form” he is divine Reason, and in his fallen or deficient form, he is the demiurgos, who is equally the demon Mara of Buddhism (“Lord of Illusion”) also known as “Satan” and as “the Prince of Lies”. Buddha calls Mara “Lord of my own ego”, and the parallels between Buddha’s famous final struggle with Mara under the Bodhi Tree and Jesus’s struggle with Satan in the desert are quite remarkable, indicating the Satan and Mara are the same spirit. Both are combined in the figure of Blake’s Urizen in his fallen form, after the fall of the Eternals into Time. This “Fall into Time” is the meaning of the spiritual Dark Age or Kali Yuga, as also described by Marty Glass in his notable book Yuga: An Anatomy of Our Fate. Blake makes the connection between Urizen and Satan explicit. Urizen, however, is also Lucifer before the Fall into Time, and as Lucifer he is “the Light Bringer”, the “Shining One” in his Eternal aspect as Divine Reason. This relationship between Lucifer and Satan (or Mephistopheles) roughly corresponds to that between the brothers of Greek myth — Prometheus and Epimetheus. (The name “Mephistopheles” is most likely a compound of the Hebrew words mephitz or “destroyer” plus tophel or “liar”).

Prometheus and Epimetheus may have some connection also with Iain McGilchrist’s neurodynamics as described in The Master and His Emissary. The Emissary as “usurper” in the psychic household (the self-alienated ego-consciousness who is the Prodigal Son of the Parable) is equally Blake’s Urizen in his fallen form. “Urizenic Man”, as the human of the modern type has been called, is the self-estranged and dissociated entity that McGilchrist calls “the Emissary” and his work is “system”. The Emissary is clearly also Jean Gebser’s “mental-rational consciousness structure”, and it’s “usurpation” (as McGilchrist calls it) is that structure now functioning in “deficient mode” (ie, just a fancy phrase for “decadence”).

The blueprint for System — the System of systems, as it were — is contained in Urizen’s “Book of Brass” or “Book of Iron Laws” which provides the metanarrative for the construction of the Megamachine itself. It is an ironic thing that Richard Dawkins’ published his book The Blind Watchmaker apparently oblivious to the fact that the Blind Watchmaker is McGilchrist’s “Emissary” mode of consciousness corresponding to Blake’s demiurgos Urizen, who is the ego-nature itself, and is equally Gebser’s “mental-rational consciousness structure” now functioning in deficient mode. In other words, the Blind Watchmaker is Mr. Dawkins himself even though it accords with the nature of Urizen and his Book of Brass.

Blake, via his “Eternal Prophet” — the Zoa named Los — has Los say “I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create”. That could easily be also Nietzsche’s motto. The “another man” referred to by Los is Urizen, for much of Blake’s mythology of the four Zoas centres around the struggle between Los and Urizen. Los is “Imagination”, as Urizen is “Reason” (but in their fallen forms, they correspond only to Fantasy and Rationality respectively). There is something of Los in cultural philosopher Jean Gebser, too. Gebser’s attempt to displace “system” through synairesis is quite akin to Los’s efforts to free himself from Urizen’s shadow, quite parallel to our attempts to free the Whole from the mere Totality. Synairesis and System correspond to “Whole” and “Totality”. (I’ll take up Gebser’s “synairesis” later).

It does no real good to attack the Megamachine without insight into the Metamachine, the blueprint or “master narrative” which is part of our own consciousness structure inasmuch as we have appropriated that as “System”. We need insight into who and what Urizen is, and we need to read in his “Book of Iron Laws”, and which came about as a result of The Fall Into Time. This Fall into Time is related to Jill Bolte-Taylor’s description of her own “stroke of insight” where the Emissary mode of consciousness is compared to a “serial processor”. The Metamachine, from which the Megamachine is derived as “environment”, arises in and from this “serial processor” called “the Emissary” who, by it’s very nature, is time-bound, and is, indeed, called “the mortal self in time”.

The Fall into Time is the meaning of “samsaric existence”, and into subjugation to the karmic law of action and reaction, somewhat connected with Blake’s “mind-forg’d manacles”. Basically, the Fall into Time (and eventually into the Clockwork Mechanism as “cog in the machine” or “dust in the wind”) is that process of “distantiation” of the identity or ego-consciousness from the “vital centre” corresponding to what Gebser calls “the ever-present origin”. Traditionally, this is called “loss of soul”, and today’s identity crisis and identity politics is largely this process of self-alienation having reached an extremity as Lasch’s “the culture of narcissism”, as very much described in Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming“.

At the extremity is disintegration, fragmentation, and dissolution — a state of decoherence that is precisely the meaning of “New Normal”.

The relationship of the Metamachine to Megamachine (or the Ensemble, or the System of systems) is akin to that between theoria and praxis, particularly in their more ancient meanings, where “theoria” meant a “way of seeing” or a mode of perception. (Plotinus still uses “theoria” to mean a mode or modality of perception). This earlier relationship between theoria and praxis is what underlies the famous saying of Heraclitus that “character is fate”, which is exactly what Iain McGilchrist means when he writes that our mode of perception determines our being. Likewise, the Megamachine draws its sustenance and its justifications from the continuous repetition of the Metamachine narrative in the everyday human mind of the “serial processor” — the Emissary — whose “usurpation” of the Master mode of awareness is the very meaning of the Fall into Time, corresponding to samsara and the karmic law, which is Blake’s shadow world “Ulro”. Karmic law is what we mean when we speak of “unintended consequence”, “revenge effect”, “perverse outcome”, “blowback”, or “ironic reversal” and reversal of fortune, or in saying that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

That is the meaning of Blake’s “dark Satanic Mill” and of “the mind-forg’d manacles”.

But the System has a vulnerability. That vulnerability was expressed by Kurt Gödel’s famous Incompleteness Theorem, the implications of which are profound. Gödel’s Theorem states, basically, that no system can ever achieve closure or completeness because the system itself relies on features or inputs extraneous to itself — assimilating or incorporating these extraneous features (systematisation or rationalisation of these features) into the system still leaves the system reliant on yet other extraneous features. Gödel’s Theorem thus addresses precisely the problematic issue of the Totality (as aggregation) and the Whole, and why the two can never be the same. In effect, those extraneous dependencies of any system also constitute vulnerabilities to the system — the meaning of “Achilles Heal”. In fact, Gödel’s Theorem was used in the movie The Matrix, when the “Architect” explains to Neo the nature of the “anomaly” or the anomalous. The “anomaly” also plays an important role in Thomas Kuhn’s great book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, whose basic thesis is very much buttressed by Gödel’s Theorem. Gödel’s Theorem not only describes the non-commensurability of the Whole and the Totality, but also the nature of the relationship between the Master and the Emissary modes of consciousness described by Iain McGilchrist, which also lies at the base of Gebser’s distinction between synairesis and system. Gödel’s Theorem explains why “perfect knowledge” is unattainable, because the extraneous dependency upon which the system relies is what we call “infinity” or “the infinite”. “Chaotic transition” (or “havoc”) is connected with Gödel’s Theorem in this sense — the irruption of those unconscious, extraneous factors begin asserting themselves into the System itself, anomolously and apocalyptically, disintegrating it.

It’s in those terms that Gebser’s history of “consciousness structures”, and their rise and fall (or “effective” and “deficient” modes as he puts it) as described in The Ever-Present Origin, are very much connected with the meaning of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Likewise Blake’s history of the “four Zoas” and their oppressions and suppressions by Urizen or Urizenic Man. The other three Zoas are the extraneous or anomalous factors that prevent Urizen from completing his “System” — his Book of Iron Laws. But, in effect, any such “System”, because of Gödel’s Theorem, is an edifice built on running water, or on a foundation of sand. Gödel’s Theorem accounts for why Urizen’s plans are ultimately doomed to to end in failure.

We will speak to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem further, and why the shift from “System” to “synairesis” as Gebser emphasises is of such consequence.


62 responses to “The Megamachine and the Metamachine”

  1. davidm58 says :

    Yes, always good to be aware of the systems we operate under, especially the “System of Systems.”

    I’ll repeat a previous comment:

    I like Peter Pogany’s framing of the stages of recent world history as Global System 0, Global System 1 (GS1), Global System 2 (GS2), and Global System 3 (GS3), as I have discussed here. Each of these can be considered sub-epochs within modernity or the mental-rational stage of consciousness. Pogany saw these world systems as self-organizing systems, and the people embedded in them are so embedded socially, culturally, spiritually, etc. that it becomes their ‘myth of the given’ or ‘fallacy of mis-placed concreteness.’ They can’t see other ways of being or organizing and the system itself reinforces what contributes to the system and squeezes out opposing forces and ideas. Therefore it’s very difficult to change the system. As per Gebser, system change only happens when the existing system goes into decay, and through a chaotic transition the next oncoming system “overdetermines” the previous system.

    Also, you can see a kind of progression or cultural evolution through these different stages, gradually becoming more like an evolved, mature, dynamic ecosystem where dominator species do not thrive, and collaborative species thrive more and more. Though it’s not a gradual progression, it is more like a series of abrupt bifurcations, along the lines Gebser outlined.
    GS0 is prior to the establishment of a Global System, but some trends in that direction were beginning to show.

    GS1: “By the end of the 18th century, cultural evolution demanded global-scale organization to maintain its accelerating mode. The chaotic transition began with the French Revolution…,” according to Pogany. It appears that folks like Edmund Burke were more inclined to favor staying with GS0 rather than continuing the turmoil observed during this time of chaos. Ultimate outcomes of these chaotic transitions are never certain. However, this chaotic transition ultimately “led to the establishment of the world’s first global system (GS1), characterized by laissez faire and metal money. It lasted from approximately 1834…until the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914.” (Pogany quotes from this paper on Fifth Structure Emergence in Economics).
    This was a step forward for its time, but it eventually became deficient.
    GS2: “The period 1914-1945 was another chaotic transition [two world wars and the Great Depression] that brought the second and current global system (GS2) –mixed economy/weak multilateralism — into existence.”
    This was another step forward, where Keynes’ economic ideas incorporated by F.D.R’s administration helped put the brakes on un-restrained (“free market”) capitalism and put in processes that cared for the less fortunate, providing a social safety net, etc.

    However, GS2 has been in a deficient state since the mid-seventies. Pogany again:
    “At present, physical limits are beginning to slow cultural evolution. Its demand for free (accessible) energy (in the form of low entropy matter and energy carriers), and capacity to absorb pollution are coming into conflict with nonexpendable terrestrial constraints. As a consequence, the world has either entered or is on the verge of entering another period of chaotic transition.
    A new global system (GS3). two-level economy/strong multilateralism, will be needed to create a sustainable balance between culture and humanity’s ecological niche. Micro-activities will have to be made legally subject to globally-determined and nationally allocated macro-constraints. The required transformation of individual behavior and institutions will be vast.” [Here referring to integral consciousness.]

    • Scott Preston says :

      Excellent summary of Pogany’s key points, David.

      Micro-activities will have to be made legally subject to globally-determined and nationally allocated macro-constraints. The required transformation of individual behavior and institutions will be vast.”

      “nationally allocated macro-constraints” sounds like rationing, actually. I wonder if that’s what Pogany means here in saying “micro-activities” will have to be “legally subjected” to macro-constraints “globally-determined” but “nationally allocated”.

      A lot of people aren’t going to like that one bit, are they — rationing, which raises the whole issue of distributive justice presently assigned to the “Invisible Hand” of the market (although it ain’t functioning very well, given the extraordinary inequalities, in the area of distributive justice and “trickle up”).

      Rationing seems quite inevitable, which is something I was musing on while reading Heinberg’s Peak Everything (and why he didn’t seem to consider rationing as a likely endgame for Peak Oil. Rationing would allow the fossil fuel game to continue on for some time, depending upon how the pie was sliced up.

      • davidm58 says :

        First, in regards to Richard Heinberg, he wrote about rationing oil before the Peak Everything project. It’s called the Oil Depletion Protocol, based on the original idea from geologist and peak oil pioneer Colin Campbell.

        “By agreeing to reduce oil imports and exports by a specified amount each year, about 2.6 percent, signatory nations will help mitigate the negative consequences of an over-reliance on cheap oil and help prepare for a global decline in the world’s oil supply. The premise of the Protocol is inherently straightforward: oil importing nations would agree to reduce their imports by an agreed-upon yearly percentage, referred to as the World Oil Depletion Rate, while oil producing nations would agree to reduce their rate of production by their National Depletion Rate. This simple and sensible formula will produce, in effect, a global rationing system. If the entire world adopted the Protocol, global consumption of oil would decline by almost 3 percent per annum, thus stabilizing prices, preserving the resource base, and reducing competition for remaining supplies.”

        • Scott Preston says :

          That would be the sensible thing to do — the “soft landing” approach. Which is probably why it won’t happen. I get the impression from Peak Everything that he’s more or less accepted the hard crash rather than the soft landing.

          OK. That’s “First”. What’s second?

          • John Lawlor says :

            If we can support sound and wholesome technologies that are tunneling their way through to the subconscious species mental fortresses..the principles of centripedal and implosive forces, 1.618.. the pathway to the most shareable and harmonious creations of life..pushing through the concrete of centuries of thought matrices amd current nihilism to bring forth what can be shared responsibly.. not “free” energy but that which is beneficial to see with the eyes of the heart and the whole to benefit one another the interdependent originating create waves that share the space to an infinity and do not cancel eachother out..inside like the outside.. leaves of a fern..

            Stuff like on

            The peak everything dialogues are interesting. What about the multidimensional purposes of substsnces like oil.. perhaps as a lubricator in the earth.. millions of years old and in instants we reap the elements and blood of the earth without a thought of the greater life giving principles that create these substances to benefit not just humans but the whole..

            The particles left behind in the trail of the sun could burn us up if not for our esrths magnetic field but those same particles from the sun envelope our earth and shield it from intergalactic radiations correct me if im wrong but here the interdependence can now be downloaded and awesomely appreciated.


            • Scott Preston says :

              Thanks for the comment. I looked up breakthru-technologies and looked into this e-cat (energy catalyser) ‘cold fusion’ technology. Not sure what to think about that at the moment, but I’ll attempt to look into it further.

            • davidm58 says :

              I’ve investigated a number of free energy/cold fusion/over-unity ideas over the years, and they’ve all inevitably been debunked/disproven.

              The “e-cat” story was debunked years ago, and by numerous sources. Here is one:

              “There is only one problem: the E-Cat cannot be what it is claimed to be. Apart from contradicting all known physics developed up to now, the promoters have never been able to demonstrate that nuclear reactions take place inside the device, and not even that it can produce useful energy.”

              I don’t believe that there has been a conspiratorial “suppression” of breakthrough energy technologies. I have a friend who is a retired nuclear physicist. The smartest science person I know. Being retired, he has no obligations to hide anything…in fact he has pissed off former colleagues by coming out against traditional nuclear energy. He shared these frank (and blunt) comments:

              I’ve been picking up tidbits about some wonderful hydrogen-nickel “low-energy nuclear fusion reaction” (an oxy-moron if there ever was one!) but paid no attention to the story. When I worked for Westinghouse 2 decades ago, I learned that companies like that keep their ear finely tuned for pseudo-science by having a small group at each of their divisions responsible for dealing with such stuff. I headed up the small informal group at Hanford for them, and about twice a year some piece of crap would come in from W-HQ asking us to review and comment. The most memorable was the cold fusion scam from Pons/Fleishman, the first low-energy fusion reaction claim I’d been aware of. I just laughed and told my manager it was not worth evaluation for the reasons given in this article, but he wanted a 1-page memo for W-HQ to put it on record and to make sure they did not participate in any research on the subject. As you may know, many many institutions around the globe did waste plenty of money trying to duplicate the Utah “results” – but not Westinghouse. I’m sure they got the same feedback as we gave them from other divisions. I think what most surprised me was that upper management of that particular corporation would not see through the scam as quickly as I did – it’s really sophomore-level nuclear physics.

              But the main reason for sending you the link to this long article is the following: Fifty years from now, WHO will have enough technical background in nuclear science to understand this and keep humans from following pseudo-science nuts down the rathole, only to find themselves bilked of any real wealth? As our educational institutions continue to shrink, presumably without limit, surely all advanced college offerings will be among the first to be jettisoned. Today’s advanced textbooks will have become rare books. The next few decades will be the ideal time for patent crooks to operate. One consolation – they succeed in collecting nowhere near the amount of loot as financial crooks on Wall Street. :)”

              I have another acquaintance who became a true believer in an a particular over-unity energy technology. He wanted to help make real research happen to be able to demonstrate the technology. His offer to help was declined.

            • John Lawlor says :

              Well unfortunatwly ive met and discussed with actual inventors so jts hard for me to let all this fall into the bunked theories.. Unfortunately i have glimpsed the menacing forces that oppose innovation and the “scientific miracles” some are tring to expose.. “Psyence” is a psy op. All Science and the seeking of truth is a miracle..

            • John Lawlor says :

              Well unfortunatwly ive met and discussed with actual inventors so jts hard for me to let all this fall into the bunked theories.. Unfortunately i have glimpsed the forces that oppose innovation and the “scientific miracles” some are tring to expose.. “Psyence” is a psy op. All Science and the seeking of truth is a miracle..

          • John Lawlor says :

            The guys genius on par with viktor shauberger.

      • davidm58 says :

        And yes, Pogany is also basically talking about rationing.

        “A lot of people aren’t going to like that one bit, are they…”

        No, they’re not. This is why Pogany states at the beginning of Havoc: Thy Name is Twenty-First Century”:

        “What will it take to go from considering tightened modes of multilateral governance a monstrous dystopia to people around the world on their knees begging for a planetary Magna Carta that is more detailed, focused and enforceable than the United Nations Charter of 1945? It will take nothing less than a mutation in consciousness, as outlined by the Swiss thinker, Jean Gebser (1905-1973). But a mutation of the implied magnitude amounts to nothing less than a break with centuries of ingrained habits, values, and expectations. It is simply inconceivable without the hard fate of macrohistoric turmoil.”

        Coming back to terms of the megamachine or the metamachine, Pogany writes in “Rethinking the World”:
        “The [current] global system’s representative brain cannot make the foot on the brake dominate the foot on the gas pedal. What the world may save in the use of crude oil per car, it will absorb by encouraging overall automobile production. Measures of increased efficiency in the use of energy and material resources would dampen economic activity unless the energy and material saved is deployed to expand production.”

        More on Pogany’s vision for Global System 3, from “Rethinking the World”:

        “Gradual and smooth transition to a renewable resource-based techno-economic space cannot substitute for global transformation/chaotic transition because the accomplished transition implies conversion at the macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic levels at once. The world will need a global approach to resource management and environmental control with appropriate authority and means to harmonize national preferences (macroscopic alteration). At the mesoscopic level, national governments will have to ensure steadfast and longsighted resource management and environmental control; they will have to be equipped with administrative tools to guide their economies. They will have to provide a framework for local economic initiatives (cantons). Microscopically, the individual as a consumer will have to develop a taste for (or recover the joy of) long-lasting (slowly depreciating), high-quality products. As a producer, the individual will have to become less competitive and more cooperative; it will have to develop disinterest in extraordinary wealth and personal power; i.e. the importance of the canonical scale of socioeconomic status will have to decline. (If a GS3-typical persona were alive today, it would probably look at greedy businessmen with the same understanding and empathy that contemporary adults feel when they see children play ‘make-believe’). As both consumers and producers, people will have to become conscious of the environment and the need to conserve material and energy resources. The business firm (the typical association of producers under GS1 and GS2) will have to reinvent itself under hard material and energy constraints. It will have to operate in a marketplace that neither encourages nor rewards ruthless competition; it will have to extend its field of view.” (pages 211-212)

        Pogany proceeds in the following chapter (“The Future Mechanism of Global Decision-Making”) to outline something akin to the Campbell/Heinberg Oil Depletion Protocol, but with the rigor of his academic background in economics. He discusses some complex economic equations to determine a “global somatic/extrasomatic transformation curve” that could be used to allocate scarce resources in balance with required population levels.

        As I’ve mentioned before, I think it would be very valuable to utilize Pogany’s concepts outlined here in conjunction with the ideas of “Polycentric Governance” put forward by Elinor Ostrom and championed by T. Collins Logan in his Level 7 project: “Tools for a New Economy” ( Both Pogany and Ostrom utilize the concept of Subsidiarity rather than one size fits all structures of governance and economic systems. Subsidiarity is the principle that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution. Central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level.

        • Dwig says :

          David, thanks for the summary of Pogany’s work, and bringing in the results of the work of Ostrom and her associates on the IAD framework and the taxonomy of different kinds of resources, along with a rigorous approach to testing them, both experimentally and through field studies.

          When I first came across her work, I was fascinated to learn how groups of people, in a roughly egalitarian environment, have come up with very effective ways of managing such resources, sometimes over many centuries. I was also pleased to see her and her colleagues come up with a viable competitor to the simplistic assumptions that dominate too much economic theory.

          Results like these encourage me to envision an evolution of many “polycentric societies” around the world, forming a basis for surviving the chaotic transition and managing the challenging work of adapting to the centuries-long dynamics of a destabilized geo-eco-system, using the much-reduced available energy.

          Speaking of energy, this seems to me to be the major flaw behind many ideas of an effective global system of economics and governance anything like we’ve had for the last century or so. My best guess is that, well before the end of this century, the world-wide information system will consist mostly of travel at the speed and capacity of animal-pulled land vehicles and wind-powered ships, with possibily a much-reduced electronic net, similar to the ham radio network that’s still operating today (cf (For a look in that direction, I recommend Kris DeDecker’s Low-Tech Magazine.)

          • davidm58 says :

            Agreed Dwig. I also agree with the recommendation of Kris DeDecker. He’s paving the way for the much needed low tech engineers of the future.

          • davidm58 says :

            I’d like to bring into the discussion a third voice to echo and reinforce Pogany and Ostrom. That is the “Complex Thought” of Edgar Morin. Morin wrote:

            “We need a kind of thinking that reconnects that which is disjointed and compartmentalized, that respects diversity as it recognizes unity, and that tries to discern interdependencies. We need a radical thinking (which gets to the root of problems), a multidimentional thinking, and an organizational or systemic thinking.”

            It is this intention multidimensional, non-dual, non-binary thinking that results in aphorisms such as “it is crucial that we both globalize and deglobalize.”

            Excerpt from “The Path to Hope” (2012) by Stephane Hessel and Edgar Morin (page 5-8):

            “Our global system is thus condemned to choose between death and transformation…

            We must understand that globalization constitutes both the best and the worst thing that could ever happen to mankind.

            The best because all the scattered fragments of humanity have become interdependent for the first time, creating a shared fate that makes one single Homeland Earth possible. Such an outcome, far from eliminating individual homelands, would simply incorporate them.

            The worst because it has triggered a frantic race toward a succession of catastrophes.

            The uncontrolled rise of the destructive, manipulative powers of science and technology and the unleashing in all directions of profit-driven economics have led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the deterioration of the environment. At the same time, the various forms of twentieth-century totalitarianism have been replaced by a form of finance capitalism entirely without borders. This finance capitalism subjugates nations and peoples to its unbridled speculation. Alongside it, we see the return and growth of close-minded xenophobia and racial, ethnic, and territorial prejudice and hostility. The combined ravages of financial speculation and blind fanaticism and extremism have only amplified and accelerated the processes that herald impending catastrophes.

            We must therefore be aware that even as the process of development now under way does dispense Western-style prosperity to a small fraction of the world’s population, it has also produced vast areas of poverty and fostered gigantic levels of inequality.

            It is crucial that we both globalize and deglobalize. We must pursue and encourage the kinds of globalization that foster a shared future for human beings from all walks of life and everywhere on Earth – a future that will protect us from a grim array of mortal dangers. We must all band together in solidarity to safeguard this planet whose existence is so crucial to our own well-being. It is in our own urgent interest to save Mother Earth. We advocate encouraging and developing every aspect of globalization that fosters fellowship and cultural vitality. Simultaneously, however, we propose restoring full independence of action at the local, regional, and national levels, thus safeguarding and encouraging cultural diversity everywhere. We must deglobalize in order to offer full scope to the economics of social solidarity, safeguard the economic viability of local agriculture, and preserve small-scale farming as well as craftsmanship and local trade. Only by doing so can we hope to reverse the desolation and abandonment of the countryside and the critical reduction of services available to withering and moribund outlying areas, such as rural districts and periurban slums.

            It is important to recognize that the standard formula for development completely ignores the ties of fellowship and the power of working together. That formula also ignores the lore and practical knowledge of traditional societies. We must rethink and diversify modern development to ensure that it preserves the invaluable forms of fellowship that are integral to the community ethos.

            In parallel, starting at home, we must replace the single-minded imperative of growth with a more complex and nuanced imperative that distinguishes between what we need to increase and what we need to diminish…”

            • Scott Preston says :

              That’s excellent. It places it reads like Gebser. I’m going to read Morin. Just as soon as I get through Mumford.

            • davidm58 says :

              Edgar Morin’s “Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Century” and “On Complexity” are the best books to start with (at least for English readers).

              There’s this nice 12 minute video on his “Seven Complex Lessons in Education”

              And available as a pdf

            • Dwig says :

              Here’s a fourth voice to present another view of global(ization/ism): it can be found in the book “Original Instructions: Indigenous Teachings for a Sustainable Future” (a Bioneers book.) Some quotes:

              “There are at least 350 million people on the Earth who identify themselves as Indigenous Peoples. This is approximately 6–8 percent of the world population. According to the last U.S. Census Bureau reports, there are 4.1 million American Indians living in the United States.” Personal comment: if the total human population consisted of those 350 million, they might be in a better position to create a sustainable future than the situation we’re currently in, where by any reckoning, we’ll need to depopulate considerably to fit within Gaia’s carrying capacity.

              “Today in the United State alone there are over 550 Native American nations speaking over 175 distinct languages. We have clearly demonstrated our powers of survival and adaptation. We have not vanished and we are “back from extinction” as the San Francisco Bay Area-based Muwekma Ohlone assert. Not only are Indigenous Peoples reasserting our presence and demanding our rights, but we are “re-writing history and re-righting history” as Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith recommends in her book Decolonizing Methodologies—Research and Indigenous Peoples.

              I think this is worth pointing up, because most of the future-oriented works that have been cited here haven’t shown () an awareness of indigenous societies as examples worth studying. (At least not in the quotations I’ve seen.) Like Ostrom’s common pool resource management systems (many of which are in indigenous societies), they seem to be invisible to most philosophers embedded in our currently dominant civilizations.

            • davidm58 says :

              Thanks for sharing the fourth indigenous voice. Reminds me of the Pachamama Alliance. Are you familiar?

  2. Scott Preston says :

    “A Generation of Sociopaths”? I’m almost inclined to agree, although it sounds a bit of an over-generalisation

    I suppose the book follows in the foot steps of Lasch’s “Culture of Narcissism”, and (for that reason) something to be considered, although I’ve never generally bought into the Gen X, Gen Y kind of facile classification of generations, let alone a single-minded, uniform cohort called “the Boomers”. No generation is anywhere near as uniform in its thinking and outlook as such categories suggest.

  3. mikemackd says :

    To which I would add, from p. 242 of Roderick Tweedy’s “The God of the Left Hemisphere: Blake, Bolte-Taylor and the Myth of Creation” (2013, London, Karnac):


    “Satan” is always a tricky subject to bring up, especially at dinner parties. This is partly because of the accumulated misconceptions and literalist interpretations of this figure. Blake therefore repeatedly challenges these rather crude and erroneous interpretations, insisting that the term “Satan” refers not to a real person but to a real State:

    “There is a State namd Satan learn distinct to know O Rahab
    The Difference between States & Individuals of those States” (The Four Zoas viii: 379-81, p. 380)..

    Blake believed that it was important to recognise this distinction because, as Los informs the proud and accusing Rahab in the passage above, if one personalises the psychological State that the term “Satan” traditionally signifies, one merely strengthens it within oneself. “Satan” is precisely the program within the brain responsible for accusation, moral judgment, and intellectual superiority—everything, in fact, that gets in the way of our humanity connecting and communing with another human being … Humans will murder other human beings rather than relinquish it; will refuse to talk to a friend ever again because of it; will endorse the most grotesque and inhumane social and economic practices because of it.”


    • mikemackd says :

      And, in turn, I would add to that comment of mine above a passage from Maxine K. Anderson’s 2016 “The Wisdom of Lived Experience: Views from Psychoanalysis, Neuroscience, Philosophy and Metaphysics” (Kindle Locations 1675-1694). Karnac Books. Kindle Edition. And I would do so bearing in mind Steve’s posting of Tim Urban’s essay, and the also recent mention of Colin Wilson’s “robot” and “the Right Man”:


      The complex issues involved are glimpsed when the dominating tendency of language, thought, and belief are allowed to overshadow the quieter, but more intuitive, wisdom of the embedded, integrated self. Integration seems to involve awareness of this wider, complex situation, which requires a “casting off” of the mantle of left-hemispheric domination. Blake contends:

      Each Man is in his Spectre’s power
      Untill the arrival of that hour
      When his Humanity awake
      And cast his Spectre into the Lake
      (Blake, “Jerusalem”, 41, in Erdman, 1988)

      Tweedy notes about these lines, Blake writes this enigmatic and powerful quatrain in reverse handwriting…Perhaps this suggests that man is not ready to read this writing, or that in order to read it one must look at things in a slightly different way, as it were, back to front.

      One must “awake”: from the state of what is normally called “consciousness”, but which is also a profound state of unconsciousness, of sleep-walking…McGilchrist also characterizes the rational, “conscious” left hemisphere as an insouciant sleepwalker, walking towards the abyss.

      Only…by becoming aware of these false and destructive drives…can the individual truly awake. (Tweedy, 2012, pp. 265–266, original emphasis).

      I offer this long extract from Tweedy’s book because the theme of “sleepwalking” and being warned to “wake up” are also mentioned by Solms (2013, p. 14).

      The cortical functions that approximate Freud’s ego aim at automaticity. That is, to make conscious attention to various functions unnecessary because those functions, as they become familiar, can be carried out by subcortical and, thus, unconscious mechanisms (2013, p. 14). Solms, thus, suggests that the aim of the ego is towards sleepwalking or towards becoming a zombie. In other words, towards making consciousness unnecessary.

      This idea, as noted in a first reading of Solms’ “The conscious id” (2013), felt stunning to consider there. Yet, encountering it again after reading Tweedy and Blake, one can see that the depiction of domination by a ruthless Urizen is a kind of sleepwalking state in terms of the turning away from the pains, sufferings, and joys of lived experience.”


      • Scott Preston says :

        Yes — making consciousness unnecessary, which was the chilling thought I had before turning to Seidenberg’s and Mumford’s notions of “post-historic man”, and Yablonski’s “Robopaths”, and here it is again. Still a chilling thought, but perhaps we aren’t so far from that at all, come to think of it.

        Is that quote from one passage and one source? Not sure who is the “Solms” referred to.

        The “Spectre” I’ve assumed to be the narcissistic self-image, adapted to the spectral world called “Ulro”. But it may also be “the Shadow” as named by Jung and by Rumi, too. I’m not sure how to interpret this particular reference to the Spectre.

        • Steve Lavendusky says :

          In his autobiography on page 221-2 Merton wrote:
          “The subject I had finally chosen was ‘Nature and Art in William Blake.’ I did not realize how providential a subject it actually was! What it amounted to, was Blake’s reaction to every kind of literalism and naturalism and narrow, classical realism in art, because of his own ideal which was essentially mystical and supernatural. In other words, if I treated it at all sensibly, could not help but cure me of all naturalism and materialism in my own philosophy, besides resolving the inconsistencies and self-contradictions that had persisted in my mind for years, without my being able to explain them.”

          “I had learned from my own father that it was almost blasphemy to regard the function of art as merely to reproduce some kind of sensible pleasure or, at best, to stir the emotions to a transitory thrill. I had always understood art as contemplation, and that it involved the highest faculties in man.
          When I was once able to discover the key to Blake, in his rebellion against literalism and naturalism in art, I saw that his Prophetic Books and the rest of his verse at large represented a rebellion against naturalism in the moral order as well.”

          “What he was glorifying was the transfiguration of man’s natural love, his natural powers, in the refining fires of mystical experience; and that, in itself, implied an arduous and total purification, by faith and love and desire, from all the petty materialism and commonplace and earthly ideals of his rationalist friends.”

          Thomas Merton

        • mikemackd says :

          The quote’s a continuous extract from her book.

          The Solms article she refers to is online at:

          >> The “Spectre” I’ve assumed to be the narcissistic self-image, adapted to the spectral world called “Ulro”. But it may also be “the Shadow” as named by Jung and by Rumi, too. I’m not sure how to interpret this particular reference to the Spectre.

          I found it fitted easily within my Mumfordian confirmation bias, but I’d like that interrogated to reject, amend or develop that assumption. My current working hypothesis from that framing is the spectre here is as you assumed, the egoic megamachine servo-mechanism in one, and that the shadow is Mumford’s version of Shakespeare’s Caliban.

          I also think that McGilchrists’s insights indicate that Blake’s “annihilation” ain’t ever going to happen, but the change in management McGilchrist recommends happens, and has happened, all the time. Krishna and Arjuna, Bhavagad Gita and all that. Such myths and Shakespeare’s tale are now gaining clinical support in the aforementioned “always are” context. They’ve lasted because of their potency in examining what it means to be human, and posthistoric man, per se, does not grok them.

  4. abdulmonem says :

    I think the intelligent people of the world need to address the prevalent problems facing the world in a new mode without letting themselves be the prisoners of the trends of the present politics or economics or culture,science or religion
    that are hiding behind them the real causes of the problems, focusing their attention on the real causes behind the mess we are living under, whose indicators point not to any hopeful signs. People never stopped addressing human problems from different angels and try to see them from the lens of the field of their interest away from any integrated approach. Such limited and fragmented approach is the main cause of the troubles of disagreements and division in the world. I think we are living in a system that does not know whether it goes global or anti-global, to nullify all free trade agreements or maintain them in new frames, to stop digging or continue digging, to deny the climate change of do something about it, to live in peace or continue the drums of wars etc etc.The problems are not oil depletion but moral depletion. The problems are not cultural or economical or religious but spiritual honesty and truth. I do not know what Peter Pogany said, about the dissolution of the communist block and the rise of china and the other changes in the world, away from the predeterministic approach he followed, believing that the world has no choice but follow the steps of his system. A hungarian writer by the name of Sandor Matai described Pogany system as a fantasy because common folks look to close communal life where every one knows the other and help each other. We do not need to rethink the world but we need to rethink ourselves. Globalization is not for people but for corporations. By honesty and truth we protect each other and that is why the message of god to humanity is to be good,truthful, just and of help to one self and others and call for self-protection. No body can deny god words to humanity. Finally I like someone to provide me with evidence that there is no day after where every one is going to be asked about his/her deeds and his words.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      described Pogany system as a fantasy because common folks look to close communal life where every one knows the other and help each other.

      From davidm’s comment above:

      the accomplished transition implies conversion at the macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic levels at once.

      Local community and life, I take it, would comprise the “microscopic” level to which Pogany refers. Scales (time and otherwise) rarely receive any attention, being overshadowed by the Megamachine’s focus on global assimilation from the macroscopic level down as opposed to the more holistic integration at all levels Pogany, perhaps, had in mind. I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand as “fantasy” nor think of it as just another auto-mechanical “systems” approach.

      The unfortunate reality is that we are all currently “prisoners” of that macroscopic system — the “world” humanity has plastered over the face of creation, as I’ve put it in the past — and none of us very much likes it regardless whatever “faction” any of us choose (or not) to “join” and haven’t from the moment we became aware of it, which (as Eisenstein has noted) is in early childhood.

      We do not need to rethink the world but we need to rethink ourselves.

      Or do we need to do both at once? It would be nice to think that all the changes in “lifestyle” so easily noted at the “microscopic” level might eventually “filter up,” transforming the Megamachine into something that more closely resembles a reflection of our true selves. While we still see fractiousness and factionalism at the local level the very same as we see it everywhere else, however, those “lifestyles” (or, to utilize our preferred term, “ways of life”) are continually changing and changing faster, in fact, than the Megamachine can keep up with. We even see various companies (at least, those that aren’t just tweaking their “public relations” formulas to deceive and take advantage of them) scrambling to accommodate their new “consumer” bases’ preference for wholesome, healthy foods as opposed to those filled with “ingredients” we find it difficult to pronounce, for example. But, of course, changes in “consumer habits” are not nearly enough or, as a current Internet meme would have it, “If you’re buying Smart Water for $3.00 a bottle, I’m sorry to tell you…it’s not working.” The habits of thinking of people and people thinking of themselves as “consumers” must change (and is changing).

      Globalization is not for people but for corporations.

      A difference between “globalization” and “globalism” is a dinstinction Scott has attempted to make many times over. Hard to do. considering the terms are used interchangeably everywhere but here. I tend to prickle at the mention of “-isms,” period, but at least “globalism” hints at a more holistic organization of human affairs than “globalization.”

      That human beings themselves are changing does not negate the pressing issues of climate change and “resource” depletion we’ve unwittingly brought upon ourselves. Planes, trains and automobiles… “Can you imagine your life without them?” The very inventions intended to bring us closer together (and they have, in a sense) require fuel and, though the technology that would allow us to switch from fossil fuels to renewables; public modes of transporation, etc.; have been around for decades, pure greed has prevented that from happening on any scale.

      Nevertheless, I personally know very few people who aren’t fully aware that Bush’s invasion of Iraq had nothing whatever to do with any high-minded or noble ideals. The whole intention was securing resources to “keep America moving.” This same (watch your language, Infi) “person” told a country in mourning over the murder of innocents to “go shopping.” How much more insane could it get? The Russian government planted its flag in the Arctic for the same reason. These wars and “rushes to claim” are, indeed, “resource wars” and, considering that we human beings are ourselves thought of as nothing more than “human resources,” condemned to toil in the bowels of the Megamachine “for all eternity,” it’s hardly surprising that lives lost on every “side” are considered by the Megamachine to be nothing more than “collateral damage.”

      Oh, yes. We have to rethink “the world,” but before we can do that, we have to perceive the planet as it truly is: a living organism, thankfully diverse in expression. I’m not as familiar with Pogany as davidm, but my initial impression is that the kind of multi-scale “organization” Pogany has in mind is more in line with this (far more widespread than we might think) perception.

      Both Pogany and Ostrom utilize the concept of Subsidiarity rather than one size fits all structures of governance and economic systems. Subsidiarity is the principle that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution. Central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level.

      Not fond of the terms “subsidiarity” and “central authority.” After all, local, regional and global communities are not “subsidiaries” in the “corporate” sense…as they are obviously thought of by our governments. There is too much corporate terminology in use for my personal comfort as well, but our terminologies are themselves changing. Dislike of a term can be a full-stop excuse to dismiss the underlying concepts altogether, but in this case, I wouldn’t think that wise.

    • davidm58 says :

      Hi Abdulmonem,
      Thank you for the comment. You make some good points, but I have to agree with Infi’s reply.

      I think the problems are cultural, economic, religious, AND spiritual. All of the above – we don’t have to choose one. And this is why Pogany stated that an integral consciousness (concretion of the spiritual) is required for an enlightened Global System 3 to emerge.

      Peter Pogany addresses both the fall of communism and the rise of China.

      Adam Topolansky’s tribute to Pogany quoted Sandor Marai’s comments about globalization, but Marai, who passed away in 1989 before Pogany had published anything, was not commenting on Pogany’s system. Rather he was critiquing what we know as neoliberal globalization, and Pogany criticized this too.

      In “Havoc,” Pogany cited Joseph Stiglitz as having the most convincing criticism of the IMF, one of the favorite targets of those who oppose “globalization.”

      As Infi suggests, Pogany had a complex, nuanced view that opposed the current structure of “globalization” but supported the idea of an enlightened authority to regulate resources of the global commons, and at the same time the value of local autonomy and local control where appropriate. To think that we have to choose between localism and globalization is another false dualism.

      Don’t get me wrong, I understand there are inherent dangers in any kind of global governing authority…None of the examples to date will do, and like Pogany, i doubt it can be accomplished without a deep spiritual, cultural, economic, ecologic revival.

  5. Scott Preston says :

    Interesting policy reversal of British Conservatives on Thatcherism, suggesting that the tide has turned for neo-liberalism. How much of it is mere sloganeering and opportunism remains to be seen

    Tis an age of ironies.

  6. Scott Preston says :

    I think this article by Karl Polyani has been raised in the comments section of the Chrysalis before, and although I once printed it out with the intention of reading it later, I laid it aside in my messy study and forgot about it until I was rummaging around for something yesterday. It’s a great article, and it might be considered Polyani’s own interpretation of what Mumford calls “the Megamachine”. The essay appeard in Commentary in 1947, but is still highly relevant.

    The essay is called “Our Obsolete Market Mentality — Civilization Must Find a New Thought Pattern”, and you can link to it through

    I highly recommend it and I’ll be taking it up in the next posting as my rediscovery of the article was a kind of “kismet”, for at the time I was thinking about Rosenstock-Huessy’s notion of “metanoia” (or “New Mind”) and there, suddenly, was the subtitle to Polyani’s essay “Civilisation Must Find a New Thought Pattern”.

    And ain’t it the truth!

    So, I turned to Rosenstock-Huessy’s essay “Metanoia, To Think Anew”, which appears as Chapter XII on page 181 of I Am An Impure Thinker. It’s actually a letter to a unnamed friend, but the book and the essay are available online to give you a sense of what Rosenstock means by “metanoia from dead things” perhaps even as it pertains to Polyani’s “New thought pattern”.

    This essay/letter is mostly autobiographical, but ERH pursues the “Metanoia from dead things” motif more precisely in other essays, and particularly in the notion of “outrunning the modern mind” (for “metanoia” means, literally, “after mind”, and what he has in mind here is leaving behind the “dead things”).

  7. Scott Preston says :

    Giles Fraser, writing in the Guardian, on the paradoxes of progress after his reading of despairist Paul Kingsnorth. An interesting meditation by Fraser on the meaning of “too clever by half”, I’ld say.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      We’d probably have to read the comics ourselves to ascertain much, especially if the story is unfinished, as Marvel suggests. “The Cap” could be infiltrating this bunch to gather intel (or some such) for all we know. That the story is obviously topical isn’t too surprising in and of itself. That’s going on a lot lately considering (as judging by the intro to Fallout 4) we’re all conscious at some level —
      intuitive, cognizant and otherwise — even if only peripherally, in many cases — of the “signs of our times.”

      “Fans,” after all, is a derivative of “fanatics” and “fanatics” have an inclination toward seeing things (of all kinds) “progress” as their own beliefs dictate they should. Perhaps these comics fans should give the writer the benefit of the doubt. When it comes to fiction, the suspension of disbelief is more or less a prerequisite to experiencing it fully.

      • InfiniteWarrior says :

        I might add that I’ve run across at least one comment in an (utterly unrelated to politics) thread, to the effect that Fallout 4 is nothing but “American propaganda.” The commentator was apparently unaware that — not only is Bethesda a Canadian game developer — but the Fallout series actually pokes a lot of fun at “Americana.” The series is however, replete with references to “prewar propaganda,” primarily of the “Vault-Tec” variety. It’s even insinuated that Vault-Tec is actually responsible for the bombs having fallen, its entire existence predicated on the sinister motive of conducting “social experiments” in their underground vaults.

      • Scott Preston says :

        What I found most interesting about the article, though, was less that (I’m sure the “Cap” will be redeemed eventually), but that the CEO of Marvel, Isaac Perlmutter, is a Trump adviser (or vice versa as the case may be). How much of that is going to infiltrate the “Marvel Universe” is an interesting question, but it did bring to mind, as I read it, Gabler’s “Life the Movie” or “How Entertainment Conquered Reality”.

        • InfiniteWarrior says :

          What I found most interesting about the article…the CEO of Marvel, Isaac Perlmutter, is a Trump adviser (or vice versa as the case may be).

          I knew that. 😉 “How Entertainment Conquered Reality….”

          Considering our (shared) “reality,” I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.

          Our “entertainment” is, at present, perhaps more “engaging” than anything else we have going at the moment. Our “entertainment,” (despite what some may think) is based in “artistic” endeavors. (Consider that Bethesda was once relegated to the “porn” tent.) (I’m not even going to into the whole prospect of “por-tent.”)

          Forget so-called “reality TV,” for the moment. We have artists (of all stripes) imagining the best and worst outcomes for the fate of humanity…especially in science fiction (or “science fantasy,” as the case may be). We ignore them at our own peril, imho.

          • Scott Preston says :

            Yes, well there is a distinction. Entertainment is also called “diversion” or “divertissement”. or “divertisment”, and is associated with what is called “sensationalism”. Sometimes such divertisments are appropriate.

            But there are other “entertainments” that are artful, and which are not in that class, but compel reflection or represent insight. A lot of science fiction also has that character — like the movie The Matrix — very problng. Art like that holds up a mirror and so is the opposite of “diversion” or “divertisment”.

            But, everything tells a story, and Gabler himself would have had no story if not for reading the meaning of the sensationalist “trash” that passes as entertainment. So, you can learn something from everything… unless one is, as Seidenberg and Mumford lament, already “post-historic man”.

  8. Scott Preston says :

    Remember Trump saying “when you’re a celebrity, you can do anything”? Or words to that effect. He still seems to believe that. But that belief may well get him impeached, and possibly even thrown in prison. But then whether impeached or imprisoned (or impeached AND imprisoned), you have to contend with the idea of “President Pence” (who might, though, find the impeachment and.or imprisonment of Mr Trump very educational).

    I think it was Malcolm Gladwell (?) who, in January, said that Trump would be in prison before the end of the year. I thought that was highly unlikely, but it would be highly ironic after his threat to imprison Clinton. But, I’ve come to expect the highly ironic as “new normal” too.

    Trump-watching is fascinating, because Mr. Trump is an object lesson in the workings of the karmic law, or in the workings of hubris and Nemesis.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      Or — might it be? — more educational than “the revenge of the opposites” (or Jedi/Siths) in teaching us something more along the lines of inheriting our innate wisdom…. by whatever myriad names we’ve given to the “ultimate” expression of our “true” selves?

  9. abdulmonem says :

    I like to start by quoting the first part of chapter 91 of the Islamic scripture which starts with addressing the wonder of his creation such as the sun ,the moon, the day, the night ,the heaven and earth, then turns to the human self and how he constructed it with both forces that of good and evil and enjoined with, success is the fate of those who purify themselves and failure is the fate of those who suppress the good part and let the evil part flourish. OF course as the human construct, so is the universe, has the same antagonistic forces and the interaction of the internal forces and the external forces stop not,so also the interaction between the microcosm and the macrocosm. All traditions emphasized self-knowledge as the door to the bigger knowledge, recognizing that there is no boundary between the knowledge of the small world and the knowledge of the big world. What surprises me is the talk, in the link Dave mentioned in his last comment about the common resources without asking who provided all these resources and the emphasis of trust as the core factor in the proper conduct of human relation neglecting the trust with the one behind all these resources including the consciousness through which the human is capable to come with all these theories, frameworks and models to address the different phenomena of the world including ourselves. On the mention of the macro, the meso and the micro and how the human realize the use rule for the meso and the micro, my question who put the rule for the macro that includes both the meso and the micro. My problem is that I can not accept a cosmos without a wise creator, the god who already, declared in his scripture that there will be among his creatures the deniers, the liars, the arrogant and the defier, and those who refuse to accept the idea of one god or accept that there are words from god for human observation, despite all the talk of spirituality and higher consciousness. They want spirituality without god, exactly like we want knowledge without god and higher consciousness without recognizing the source of consciousness. No wonder he says in his scripture that, if he were to send down the angels and to let the dead talk to them or provide them with all evidences, they will not be able to be faithful without the grace of god, but they are people of ignorance. God is a system of names whose essence is unknown, major among his names,is the intelligent energy light that activates everything including the negative forces and the positive forces, the first, the last, the seen, and the unseen who encompasses everything with his knowledge and authority and no one escapes his death. God is concerned with truth and justice, the common dominator that cuts across all the extended field pf knowledge. My other problem is with big claims that show no signs to humility. This remind me of Balzac confession in which he said when I find myself unable t correct myself I directed my attention to correct the world. Oh please birds do not stop singing.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      My problem is that I can not accept a cosmos without a wise creator, the god who already, declared in his scripture that there will be among his creatures the deniers, the liars, the arrogant and the defiler, and those who refuse to accept the idea of one god or accept that there are words from god for human observation, despite all the talk of spirituality and higher consciousness

      That would appear a problem, wouldn’t it? But suppose…just suppose…that “divine instruction” might be misinterpreted by the less-than-perfect as something quite different than intended. As opposed to “internal..,” “external…” for example. Or, as opposed to “eternal….” “progress,” (i.e “arrow of time”), for example.

      It’s not unheard of. After all, Jesus didn’t say, “I came that they might have death and judgement thereafter.” He said, “I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly.” Or…something along those lines.

      It’s kind of like…the old adage of whispering in someone’s ear…and…as it’s passed along the line, it becomes garbled and incoherent.

      That is the point of “returning” to the “origin.”

    • davidm58 says :


      I grew up as an evangelical Christian (Dispensationalist for those who might be familiar). My view of God has shifted dramatically over the last number of years, and continues to shift. The most stable view is that of holding my views loosely, realizing God is much more than I can know for sure. I currently do not believe in an angry, judging God. One viewpoint that I resonate a lot with right now is being expressed in a webcast on the Trinity. This is a view that God is primarily Relationship.

      “the ‘TRINITY: The Soul of Creation’ conference recordings webcast replay has been extended through Sunday, May 28, 2017 (see details below). Feel free to invite others to watch with you! Conference speakers: Richard Rohr, Cynthia Bourgeault, William Paul Young.

      Viewing the Webcast Replay:
      Open the event webpage on the device of your choice (click or copy and paste this URL into your web browser):

      Note the password is case-sensitive. Enter the password exactly as shown: 4soulful17

      Richard Rohr’s Session 4 is a bit long and rambling, but a good discussion on his Fransican view of God as loving relationship, the Cosmic Christ enfolding the entire universe, that “there is nothing disenchanted in our universe,” and quoting the early church fathers that “love could not bear” the exclusion of anything from God.

      Cynthia Bourgeault has an interesting presentation on Gurdgief’s Law of Three in Session 5, and then ties that to the concept of the Trinity in Session 6.

      Somewhere (I don’t remember which session), Rohr discusses McGilchrist’s ideas (The Master and His Emissary).

  10. abdulmonem says :

    Thank you IW but all history is a record of human misinterpretations of truth or correct interpretations only to be perverted again. This is, at it seems, the rule of the games and that is why we are faced with so many games meandering toward meeting the truth or as you put it returning to the origin. It is a process of knowledge abuse through diverting its original target of serving the truth and justice into the service of power ,exploitation and unwise aggression. Life is programmed to be lived moderately without excessive abundance and without forgetting that there is death and judgement. We are living in a time of ample misinterpretations and intentional falsification of the divine narrative with deep preference to the fictional than the real ( how entertainment conquered reality ). I fear the revenge of the opposites or the enantiodromia which Scott keeps drawing our attention to its unexpected operation.Nothing in this wide cosmos without purpose and without deserved end.

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      May I suggest a better word for it, all? Unreality. Falsity. Any other term along those lines?

      Fiction is awesome (in the enlightening sense of the term).

      • abdulmonem says :

        In time of dread one must speak. It is a paradoxical world where some find their enlightenment in fiction and some find in the same thing his path to non accomplishment and waste, It is reality and unreality the path of truth and the path of falsity. There is those who worship cows and stone and those who worship the unseen, and the problem can not be solved but by the one who created the problem but despite all that we are called upon to do good and speak good. It is a difficult test. Thank you for a hopeful article.

  11. abdulmonem says :

    Thank you Dave, I have tried several time to enter the link but I was unsuccessful but I will keep trying. Suffice at this stage to say that god does not shift ( the unmoved mover ) but our understanding of him keeps shifting in line with his dictate that he will reveal his signs across the universal horizon and the horizon of the self until peoples realize that what the prophets have come with is the truth. We are living in a time where humans are mature enough to find their way in this forest and to choose their stands in light of their capabilities, their zealous endeavor and their sincere devotion in finding the truth. Objective truth is not attainable but there is only our subjective truth which is the cause of all these differences, even the prophets could not avoid facing the denial and the accusation of being liars or insane. The fear resides in the human imprisonment in the realm of the mechanical forgetting the source.

  12. John Lawlor says :

    From the startling i sights of viktor shauberger…..
    5. Energy Production
    The inefficiency of modern technology
    Why are the accepted methods of producing energy so inefficient?
    Far more energy in terms of fuel must be applied than is produced,
    in most cases more than twice. This has up to now not been of con-
    cern, as fossil fuels have been regarded as unlimited and free for the
    taking, and still are by most, though there is more discussion now
    of sustainability. The main argument for reducing their use is that
    their consumption produces CO2, the principal source of global
    A power source is now regarded as unsustainable unless,
    as for example with solar panels, it is renewable; it does not take
    from the Earth without giving back.
    To compare the efficiency of modern technology with that of the
    human body is illuminating. Walter Schauberger (Viktor’s son) cal-
    culated that a typical car on a journey of 1000 km (621 miles) con-
    sumes as much energy as a human being uses in a whole year. In an
    11 hour journey, the car has consumed one human being’s annual
    oxygen requirement. To replenish the oxygen consumed by the
    world’s motor vehicles annually requires healthy forest covering
    28% of the world’s land area, far more forest than our present, and
    dwindling, forest cover.2
    There is alarming evidence that the
    amount of free oxygen in our atmosphere is actually reducing. This
    comes from an analysis of air captured in bubbles in ancient gla-
    ciers in Antarctica as well as in amber.
    Using the famous Hasenohrl-Einstein equation E=mc2
    , Walter
    Schauberger calculated that the amount of energy stored in 1 gram of
    material substance (e.g. flesh, wood, water) amounts to 25 million
    The challenge is how to unlock this source of energy. Viktor
    Schauberger once said: ‘More energy is encapsulated in every drop of
    good spring water than an average power station is able to produce.’4
    Schauberger observed that Nature’s methods of producing
    energy were far more efficient, which led him to design implosion
    machines for natural energy production in the belief that they
    would solve the crisis of modern technology.

    Now just think of the folks whove been piggybacking off of these geniuses.. cant stop the garage inventors and the aware scientific creators passing the point of no return now.

    Weve had effective technologies for over a century but they have been repressed. A few folks tried to patent hydrogen fuel auyomobiles and do you know what happened??Basically.. Solar power on the roof.. powers a condenser.. h20 runs to a hydrogen cracker.. burn the hydrogen and spit o2 out the ass end.. oxygenate the planet..

    How many others have been silenced

    Some of Shaubergers books

    “Nature as Teacher” “The Energy Evolution”

    “The Fertile Earth”

    • John Lawlor says :

      Not only that but if youre using petroleum and actually design an efficient engine, you actually burn up ALL THE GAS and what comes out the tailpipe is water drops not gas.. helloooo but they wont allow you to design your own engines more and more engineer their “emmisions regulations” and all that with lther motives in mind.. its a scam clam sally.. cant keep back the divine fem and restore the values of balance.. the chaotic orders of paradox..

  13. Dwig says :

    Replying to David re the Pachamama Alliance: yes, I met some of the local Pachamama folks at a meeting a while back. I’d include them as part of the “fourth voice”, along with a number of other groups, for example “The Grandmothers”. (The “next 7 generations in the site name of the link ” is an indigenous meme, sometimes expressed as “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations”. Contrast that with the typical “deliberations” in the current centers of power, where they seldom think more than a few months ahead, and an economic system that deliberately discounts the future.)

    • John Lawlor says :

      “…..”Einstein was clear- (infinite) constructive (electrical) compression DEFINED gravity (hence IMPLOSION OF CHARGE):
      That is the wave problem – Dan Winter’s team solved mathmematically
      demonstrating Golden Ratio phase conjugation infinite constructive charge compression using Klein-Gordon generalized wave equations.
      Dan Winter- has shown more recently- that this golden ratio phase conjugate implosion of charge which causes gravity
      – reaches a limit condition at the planck sphere dimension- where the phase conjugate pine cone translation of vorticity converts the charge inertia from transverse to longitudinal EMF
      – which IS gravity waves- and the bioactive / action at a distance field wave mechanic- see
      This way of producing charge acceleration (named ‘ the gravity’) thru the speed of light (longitudinal EMF)
      – also accounts for mitogenic radiation, ‘DNA radio’, (collective unconscious/ ancestral memory) and the physics of most spiritual wisdoms- including body plasma fields surviving death.
      Dan Winter’s phase conjugate charge implosion theory of gravity- defended- thanks to Mark Rohrbaugh –
      Mark Rohrbaugh – ( ) letter to Physicist Elizabeth Rauscher – May 11, 2017
      “Hi Elizabeth, Attached is the paper I was telling you about that gives a derivation of Dan’s work for his phi-ratio implosion idea.
      (here Mark attached PDF of our paper published in GS General Science Journal – originally from
      – “Compressions, The Hydrogen Atom and Phase Conjugation” (Magazine source link for pdf- followed by link to the same paper – at the original fractalfield pub)……”

      • John Lawlor says :

        From above link
        “”….PS: I think this idea can be extended to the vacuum density – aether – flowing into and out of a black (w)hole (ordinary matter made of protons which behave like black holes/white holes), and I think going with this idea and extending it actually does define what gravity is, as Dan says. If true, it should be possible to derive the usual “laws of gravity” in some limit or boundary conditions placed on aether flow into a point-like black (w)hole (superfluid aether dynamics, using Klein-Gordon or appropriate wave equation). Note: the vacuum density, or new superfluid yet to be defined aether, disturbances in this aether can have a positive charge (proton), or negative (electron), and it has to do with aether dynamics. Since charge is aether dynamics, in my opinion – still need to work out the science on this, then, that’s where the idea comes from to say gravity is charge implosion (aether implosion/flow). This implies gravitational control is possible, perhaps inertial isolation as well (with appropriate gradients in the vacuum).” end quote”……”

  14. John Lawlor says :

    “From Dan Winter- July 2016: Phase conjugation is clearly THE mechanism which generates superluminal longitudinal EMF (‘scalar’ waves). Phase conjugation is also the mechanism of self organization (negentropy)- and how gravity (and ‘mind’) propagate. (this article below) Einstein’s way of calling this bent space time- -obfuscates the core principle which is that time IS the charge rotation- -/interval- which becomes centripetal when conjugate- which causes the gravity which is bending the charge rotation path. Charge rotation itself- defines and creates both mass and time- and thus IS the plenum. Calling the resultant path curves of (compressible ether) charge: the BENDING of space time is misleading and secondary to the core principle: Charge cannot remain in rotation unless something centripetal at center is created and that is the gravity caused by phase conjugation itself. Time IS the periodicity/ interval which charge rotation creates- and – Mass IS the inertia gyroscopically created by rotating charge. – And charge won’t rotate- or literally- GET BENT-UNLESS the centripetal force of phase conjugation – called the gravity is present (there is nothing else around which to spin!).
    The smoking gun – is that hydrogen orbitals ARE phase conjugate charge collapse- the proof: see my new equation for hydrogen radii below.
    – Further all this language about wormholes and entanglement- is simply a crude way to realize that entanglement perfected (perfect embedding) is PRECISELY the wave mechanics phase conjugation (fractality) describes.
    The sufi version of all this: ‘only love (embedding/conjugation) bends the light- THEREFORE only love creates’ *……….”

  15. John Lawlor says :

    Wormholes implosively collapse and create gravity.. at the zero point the wave velocity then travel at the speed of light and beyond:

    Q&A: Since quantum tunnelling through light speed C- is shown to be dominant very near 1.618 GOLDEN RATIO times normal light speed C- this would strong evidence Dan Winter’s golden ratio conjugate cause of gravity- theory is correct (ref prof raymond chiao): Cam McNaughton What happens at the “zero point”, Dan; a bending back, from a boundary? Dan Winter answered: at the zero (planck) point – phase conjugate charge wave velocities are accelerated through the speed of light by golden ratio multiples OF the speed of light (one of the proofs of the theory-ref prof raymond chiao “the quantum tunnelling time, which was found to be between 1.5 to 1.7 times the speed of light’.- hint 1.618)- requiring a conjugate spacing to the next propagation nodes (rather like Jodi Foster in “Contact” discovering the plasma dreaming path thru the time antenna- which Montauk like was dodecahecral- the superuminal wormholes which make stable gravity possible are why interstellar mass is often dodecahedral (we know of the mass of the universe) and like the galaxy spiral arms- are golden spiral (also golden sprial is the dominant geometry of orbitals in the solar system – ref:
    …” from same link above

    • John Lawlor says :

      The charge ie the plasma implodes to plank boundary zero point and accelerates to gods vacuum cleaner

  16. John Lawlor says :

    Black (w)holes dual toroidal space/time is not discussed but only mentioned here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: