The Role of Death in History

 If I cannot see through your telescope, is it because you have not yet been able to recreate it for me, or is it because I am smug and comfortable looking through my own?

Zenon wrote:

Considering the Palo-Alto X
 (which can reciprocally enlighten the 'Renaissance Love' with good
 probability) looking at the other's telescope (history & point of view) means pushing him away from his chair, or to sit on his lap; but these ways of standing in the other's shoes achieve a transferance that you may not want to do.
    You would know something like I know that you think that I think of you
 thinking of me so that I would know that you know that I think that you
 think of me thinking of you so that you would know that you know that I
 think that I think of you thinking of me so; a process which makes three
 turns and that I probably described here with many confusions (but that a
 computer will be able to set in correct order and alternatives, compare
with a human mind that can hardly comput beyond four reflexive image-places).

    So the most practical attitude is that I leave my chair by myself, but leaving also the 'telescope' in place. On this emtpy chair you will come with better results.
    Noticeably, if I leave the place, what will remain available is the apparatus/telescope as we can see it now in:
    that is the 'product,' which is in this case Artificial Intelligence, as shown in

    If I am disappearing, so leaving the empty vase, I am not the first to do so but take my reference/influence from the guy who had a pear..shape. (allusion to Akhenaten - DMK)
    He left the system hard war politics and kaballa program standing and operating by itself and any one who would sit in command/observation of hes (sic: his/her) Oedipus Complex drive.


 A note {its hard to leave}: you write:
"the ancient Egyptians did not learn:
1.  That their tombs, no matter how well protected (with pyramids built over them, or dug deep into mountainsides) were always and inevitably robbed."
    Though we are not sure if they have been 'all' discovered. And also, with good eyes I guess, we can see that there has been at least 'one' that has not been found and robbed until the opening of Tut's. Isn't it remarkable that it is the dynastic son of Akhnaton which makes that unique (so far) exception!! Isn't it remarkable how it does not trigger the attention of the clever Egyptologists that, by some 'coincidence' it is this precise tomb that was so exceptionaly protected during civilization? Doesn't it suggest that there were some kind of long term effects that ran longly after Akhnaton? Isn't it doubly remarkable that this undiscovered tumb was the one that was the better mentioned in all historical record! - since they did not stop talking about it until Sophocles described it with precision.
    He did not mentioned his location (as far as we have read) though, but explained how it was part of a magical process, resulting of the escape of Oedipus who had disappeared, leaving the tables free for all. Sophocles explains that it was the defense/reply of the magician/politician when they realized they could not stop, arrest Oedipus and display his corpse at the door of Thebes - then Creon had to oganize this propaganda/magical burial with Eteocles. Well, enough, William has to disappear...


Dear William,

We have had this conversation two years ago where I freely acknowledged that I am speaking/writing to an image of you in my own mind and expect the same from you - so that is the second 'object of orientation' for both of us.  Still, I sense that there is an energetic or 'psychic' communication that also takes place several times during these exchanges of postings which sooner or later you have to incorporate into your system:  when I read your post I also form an energetic pattern of you (ok, another 'object of orientation') that comes from a direct contact with your own energetic field wherever you are at the moment:  the very act of thinking of you or anyone causes us to participate in one another's life as per David Bohm's quantum theory.  The reason my energetic field can reach out an touch yours is because A) there is a 'solid' wall of energy between us so that whatever we do energetically already affects (or participates in the life of) the other person anyway and B) because you directed your thoughts and words at me, thereby voluntarily putting an energetic flag up so when I first see your message and think of 'you as an object of orientation' we actually exchange energetic 'messages' also - except that the content of the energetic message is not the same as the content of the computer posting!

This energetic interaction is 'pure' only in the sense that it has not been affected by the machinations of the brain, of our ambitions, even our emotions.  It is as if the 'object of orientation' splits again, so there are two for each one of us, one remaining on your DNAFOUNDATION chart while the other is a living, acting  energetic 'deity' neither subject to manipulation of our own minds, nor to manipulation by anyone else.  It is the sum total of who you are or who I am as an energetic pattern over countless lifetimes.  In a way, it is a balancing force to the genetic patterning we receive at birth, and its sole function is to pull us up and out of or away from our 'animal' roots.  It continues its pattern whether we are alive or dead and is the subject of attempts to discern it or measure it through microvoltage instruments. Because we cannot manipulate it, it cannot lie - or it lies all the time, in the sense that it is both a guiding force of our physical/intellectual/emotional lives as well as the energetic signature in our communications and, as such, it may not always 'say' what we are saying.

So when psychologists write that verbal communications form only 5% of the actual exchanges between people, the other 95% has only partially been defined or identified:  posture, gesture, voice tone, pheronomes, etc., etc., AND various levels of energetic connections.  'Psychics' can already 'see' this connection, so it is but a matter of time until someone discovers of measuring instrument that can pick up changes in our energetic patterns.  As for psychoanalysis, this practice depends entirely on people remaining ignorant (unconscious) of their own life functions and forces.  When Plato puts the words into Socrates' mouth that 'the unexamined life is not worth living' (a paraphrase, not a direct quote), he is not saying that I should sit in your chair (or on your lap) and look through your own telescope!  He is saying that I should look through ALL the telescopes that surround me, but especially the ones trained or focused on myself.  If I am the 'object of orientation' as well as the 'source of orientation' for you, how much more important it is that 'I', (not the 'ego' but 'the process', the energetic pattern or consciousness that forms 'Daniel' not only to you but also to me,)   become my own object and source of orientation.  I called this process 'spherical thinking' some time ago and you immediately sat on it and flattened it to 'elliptical thinking'.  I did not object, because each point of view that I consciously examine creates another 'telescope', as it were.  Whether that telescope is the same length all around me makes no difference to me. And what is the point of this exercise?  The point is that I can 'see' through your telescope only inasmuch as I can see through my own!  If I have only one, then I am stuck in your OpMo. And the more telescopes I have (consciously) the busier the OpMo oscillation becomes
until it reaches (with each new telescope) the vibratory rate of the energetic field that has been operating quite independently all along. And that is the point where myth comes to earth and Avatars or Ascended Masters become 'real' in the sense that suddenly there is a telescope with which we can see ourselves on their level of being.

So thank you for your kind and thoughful invitation to both scenarios.  Youinstinctively knew I would decline the opportunity to sit in your lap. Bravo!  But now let us get over the 'murder of the father' pathology!  You don't need to leave your chair and disappear.  I realize that you are committed to that process, and it makes a lot of sense - but only because our culture has been committed to a hierarchical model for too many millennia.  I went through that process, and like you and everyone else, found that the 'murder of the father' does not stop with my own father - we are addicted to 'murdering' every authority figure that comes along in a senseless cycle of OpMo oscillations.

This cycle is not necessary!  The only 'fear' or paranoia I acknowledge is the fear of learning something new.  I find the source of this fear in the cultural interference with the newborn child's genetic or biological imperative first, to find something familiar or 'known', then to turn to the unfamiliar, the unknown, and assimilate it.  That is learning.  Paranoia springs from the interference with that genetic process.  After the age of 12/13/14 the 'learning' becomes balanced between the unfamilar within oneself (examination of the spiritual, religious, emotional, psychic, psychological, etheric, karmic, chakric, intellectual, imaginative) and the unfamiliar 'out there' in the greater world of people and nature.  Because our world within has become toned down, if not actively denied in a rationalist culture, we perform very little learning within.  We become unbalanced.  We fear what we don't know because we 'sense' that everything is knowable.  The Gnostics already said this 2000 years ago, and I already presented you with the 'Magical Child model' that has been called a dogma or a meme and my presentation just rhetoric. That's fine.  At the same time you find a way to exempt the OpMo from being a 'dogma'.  You call it a formula. Whatever we call these models is not at issue here.

What is at issue is the process. The OpMo process runs on paranoia.  The genetic model balanced by an energetic signature runs on learning.  If paranoia is the fear of learning, then we are talking about the same thing more or less.  What is more and what is less?  The OpMo process depends entirely on learning about the other and leaves out the telescope into one's own soul.

"I can only know you inasmuch as I know myself."  That statement does not depend on 'y' chromosomes or fathers being symbolically murdered.  There is a process where that symbolic murder is done once and for all, and then life begins outside the OpMo cycle. Some call it the cleansing of the base chakra:  the individual akcnowledges that everything s/he has learned form society (parents, friends, community, school) is only half the story, or half the truth.

Others call it the Intelligence of the Heart:  like an individual who lives with his feet on the earth and his head in heaven, the heart sits midway between the 'earth' chakras and the 'spiritual' or heavenly chakras.  Coming of Age happens when the child at age 12/13/14 or the individual at any later age 'knows himself' enough to see the macrocosm reflected in the microcosm. You are so close to this Hermetic picture with your OpMo, but remain one-sided:  as long as the mirror reflects only what is seen on the outside, the individual is stuck in an enternal cycle of misunderstanding.

Develop an Optical Model for introspection!  You have already shown that the length of the telescope is not an issue.  I just made the claim that murdering the father is not an issue.  These are both lower chakra processes.  Show what happens when I leave my body and look back down upon it with my etheric eyes.  Show what happens when we hug and our etheric bodies completely merge, the mirrors shatter and there is nowhere to hide.  A situation where no words are necessary.



This essay is part of an ongoing discussion.  If you have a comment, an idea or a criticism you'd like to add or share, please send it on the following Comments form:
Back to Essay Choices
Next Essay: Essay 1: Natural Cycles and Pathology
Essay 2: Cycles and Resistance Essay 3: Oedipus, Abstractions and Akhenaten