Anyway we may as well begin discussing the obvious--

Sat Mar 17 14:01:28 CDT 2012

This will only take four hours of your time.  It's worth it to come and finally admit the obvious.  And let's enjoy it by being conscious of what is coming to happen before it happens, as it happens.
You may appreciate the fact that I was never even aware of this video until last night, and I did not know its contents until early this morning.  And that I have documented my coming to be what I already am here over the course of the last what, six weeks.  As it turns out, probably most of what I experienced and conveyed here is true.  All the stages I described are an accurate account of someone like me coming to be who they are.  It's enjoyable to wonder that I watched these five episodes once I decided to stop my observations of last night.
It's also notable, which I won't go into but you can trust my judgment on this, the utterly absurd circumstance in which I was arrest last June, that ultimately led to my necessary sobriety, reaching the six month point right when I began my absorptions.  Other fun things, my brother is a Leo, I Aquarius, and my mother was born in the year of the Dragon, which is now.  And my brother and I were born at the end of that most amazing period, in 1969 and 1971.
It's quite wondrous to become aware of the fact that of my becoming present when I was on this earth and the timing of my becoming conscious of what I already was before I knew anything about the wisdom and advanced technologies of the ancient Golden Age.  And now we are moving into the next Golden Age.  I have now become what the higher beings of the last Golden Age were.  I can see it all, in most luminous detail.
And it's always a thrill to wonder at how Nietzsche sensed all this so clearly, and he never had direct knowledge of much if anything before the Greeks.
Anyway.  For your illumination, get Netflix and watch these five 45 minutes episodes.  And let's stop denying.  We're all Pynchonites, after all.  He's certainly not denying it.  He probably already has close friends who are become what I have become.  Perhaps Pynchon himself has become what he already was.
The Pyramid Code
1. The Band of Peace2. High Level Technology3. Sacred Cosmology4. The Empowered Human5. A New Chronology

From: bledwelder at hotmail.com
To: bandwraith at aol.com; brook7 at sover.net; pynchon-l at waste.org; sweatyk at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Anyway we may as well begin discussing the obvious--
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:34:10 -0500

http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70212989&trkid=2965444&t=The+Pyramid+Code

If you don't have Netflix, get it.  Watch this.  I'm halfway through the first part.  Let's watch, and admit finally the obvious. This is non-human made.
Admit it.  We're all grown ups now.

> To: brook7 at sover.net; pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph
> From: bandwraith at aol.com
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:34:50 -0400
> 
> And besides computers don't get high... he says,
> as he sits quaffing his second tumbler of frascati.
> 
> It does seem that consciousness requires a
> motivated self, and the primary motivation might be
> self-definition. Self-definition probably preceded
> consciousness- as self-reproduction, but why
> would a system want to reproduce itself? Initially
> they/it probably didn't want to, but given the
> inherent properties of space/time/mass/energy,
> mixed in the flask of the day/night/day... and all
> the other macroscopic repeating trends, found
> itself being replicated, on a more intimate scale.
> 
> But it didn't care. It hung together as much by
> inertia and The Principle of Least Action, as by any
> concern for self.
> 
> The line between tools, or artifacts, and the system
> selected for replication, by the conveniences of the
> day, must have always been fluid. Artifacts became
> internalized or essentials extruded as chance events.
> 
> Somehow motivation was dependent on a complete
> lack of motivation- a completely unbiased, inconsid-
> erate, neutral field of debris, that didn't care one way
> or the the other, and still doesn't, if some quirky sub-
> aggregation ends up evolving into a jackass. Or, do
> you imagine the field  to be biased somehow, is, I
> guess, what I'm asking.
> 
> AI might be impossible either way, but if life is the
> result of an accidental chain of events, there is
> nothing in the mix working against AI, other than the
> sheer difficulty of the engineering, and the anti-bias
> of the second law.
> 
> If life wasn't an accident- well then, have you ever
> known anything more motivating for our species than
> a good challenge?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 3:42 pm
> Subject: Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph
> 
> 
> Well I just wrote a longish answer to your question, then somehow
> disappeared
> it. But here is the essence.
> I don't know what thought is. I am open to the possibility that what we
> call
> consciousness is really one of the dimensions of reality that is as
> fundamental
> as space or time and that thought is  a form within that dimension.  Of
> course
> it could be more a practical aspect of biological survival, but I have
> a hard
> time with the idea of wings coming from random mutations. Too much like
> rolling
> a rock down a mountain and getting the Nike of Samothrace. I suspect
> there is a
> deep connection between mind and body  or even mind and life that has a
> role in
> evolution.
>  I listened to Rupert Sheldrake yesterday talking about homing pigeons.
> Scientists have studied them a lot and they don't know how the pigeons
> do it.
> They have done experiments to test all the ideas that seem to fit what
> we know:
> sight, smell, ability to discern and remember the path away from home,
> celestial
> navigation, sun navigation, magnetic field of earth. It appears you can
> completely block any and all of these and they still fly home, though
> without
> sight they can only get a couple hundred feet from home.  Science has
> no
> explanation for how they do it and there are several similar mysteries,
> that
> point to the possibility that we may be missing some real basic parts
> of our
> picture of consciousness.
> 
> Still it is a lot about how you define intelligence.  Chess programs
> beat
> chessmasters and computers can be programmed to solve very hard
> problems. But
> will they ever ask their own questions and want an answer? But maybe
> that isn't
> really what Pynchon is talking about , but more what happens when
> machines can
> do anything we can do faster and with no mistakes.
> 
> 
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:26 PM, bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > But do you imagine that thought is something
> > more than a physical process, or just some
> > physically embodied process that is way too
> > complex and self-referential to program from
> > the top down?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> > To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Sent: Thu, Mar 15, 2012 2:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph
> >
> >
> > I personally think every prediction of AI so far is absurdly
> premature. The
> > premise still seems fundamentally bizarre to me. I just can't imagine
> self
> > generated thought apart from the kind of innate will that comes with
> being in
> a
> > bodily form with natural desires attributes and limits. The idea that
> you can
> > program curiosity, or desire to formulate and solve a problem into an
> electronic
> > device designed only to process  binary code just seems real iffy.
> >
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120317/b2814fa9/attachment.html>