1. Curiosity
2. Irreverence
3. Imagination
4. A sense of humor
5. A somewhat blurred vision of a better world
6. An organized personality
7. Well-integrated political schizoid personality
8. Ego
9. A free and open mind & recognition of political relativity
10. The ability to communicate

... I'd be looking for land in the boonies, well away from any good sized cities, and preparing for as much self-sufficiency as possible. Should worst come to worst, you'll be too far away from the brownshirts for them to bother with you (especially once the price of gas for their Hummers and troop carriers goes through the roof). Keep your head down, live quietly, and in about fifteen years, once the rest of the world economy has collapsed, you'll still be in good shape. You'll have guns, ammo, gold, silver, and a local barter system with your neighbors. Oh, and off-grid power. You won't owe anyone.

That's what I'm looking into. My guess is the sooner you start, the better, but you probably have about a year, just possibly two if the incoming administration and Congress are as incompetent as they appear to be.

I could be wrong, and hope I am, but revolution at this point strikes me as counter-productive.

Just my thoughts.

The following essay I wrote some years ago, but it seems appropriate now for folks who have an interest in my worldview. If you don't, that's fine.

The Power of One

By Theresa Holmes

 

One is a most singular number. It is the only number which can be multiplied by itself an infinite number of times and never equals more nor less than itself. It is also capable of being subdivided an infinite number of times. Added to itself an infinite number of times, it yields a number that can always be enlarged by adding another one. Subtracted from itself, it becomes naught, the absence of anything.

We all learn these facts early in life, yet we never seem to give them much thought. They’re just there, taken for granted. Perhaps it’s time we took a look at the implications of the number one, and what its singular qualities tell us about reality and our places in it.

It is human nature to separate and define objects and processes as distinctly different from other objects and processes. Language (including mathematics) is the means by which we exercise ourselves as observers, by defining what we are and are not. Over the millennia, we have been subdividing the one of which we are all parts, with the result that we no longer recognize the fact that we are integral parts of reality. A horse is not a tree is not a lake is not the sky by our way of looking at things. But a horse stands or walks on grass growing from the ground to the tree beside the lake and lowers its head to take a drink of the water without which it couldn’t live, and breathes the air of the sky, which also protects it from the “vacuum” of space. All these objects and processes are parts of the integrated one that is reality.

From the cosmological point of view, our universe began as a singularity exploding from nothing to become everything there is over the last 12 billion years or so. Most of space is seen as empty, and time as very long as it moves from finite past to infinite future. But is any of this true? Space and time, we are told by Einstein and others, are merely the structure of the universe, such that all times are here, all places now. If that is so, then our perception of the universe as largely empty and long is incomplete at best, a function of our limited senses. It is evident from viewing photos taken at all wavelengths that if we could actually perceive all wavelengths simultaneously the universe would be “solid white” with no darkness to be found anywhere. We are still in the instant of the Big Bang—or more to the point, it is still in us. As tiny a subdivision of the singular one as each of us may be, we are still a part of that one. It is not possible for us to be separate from it, therefore our sense that we are is an illusion, a figment of our imagination and need to distinguish between things and processes.

If each of us (to say nothing of everything else in the universe) is a part of the singular one, then the universe is still in superposition. Each of us could be said to be one outcome of an infinite number of possible outcomes, shimmering in and out of superposition with all other possible outcomes. This may well be why Time appears to flow for us as if we were each a leaf floating on a stream, able only to see where we’ve been and nothing of where we are going. We can only perceive the possible outcomes (and not even all of those) which have resulted in our current outcome. We are each, in effect, a single point of view within the infinity of the whole.

From the point of view of the whole, which must then be the aggregate of all existing points of view, reality IS. There is no time, no space, no separation, just the singular one, all its infinite possibilities in superposition.

This leads to five axioms that may be useful to describe reality, both from the point of view of the whole, and from the point of view of any part of the whole.

Anything is possible and all possibilities exist.
For everything that exists there is an adversary position from which to observe it.	For everything that exists, there is a reason.
Everything corresponds with everything else.	Nothing is as it seems.

 

If the whole of reality exists as a superposition of all possibilities, we may therefore logically state that anything is possible and all possibilities exist.

This axiom implies that every one of the infinite number of possible subdivisions of the singular one is its own point of view, potentially capable of observing all other possible subdivisions, and of being observed by them. Therefore we may logically state that for everything that exists there is an adversary position from which to observe it. We could not be who and what we are, with our unique individual points of view, if this were not a characteristic of reality as a whole. Indeed, we could not be who and what we are if reality as a whole—the singular one—were not who and what it is.

This implies that there is a reason for everything that exists—otherwise it wouldn’t exist. If the singular one were not its own reason for existence, and if every one of the infinite possibilities superposed within the singular one were not exactly where and what it was supposed to be, there would be no awareness of existence, because there would be no existence. One minus itself equals naught, zero, nothing.

Reality as a whole, the singular one composed of an infinite number of possible subdivisions, must be by nature a self-organizing structure in constant internal communication as a consequence of its superposition. This implies the fourth axiom, that everything corresponds with everything else. As a consequence, the speed of light is irrelevant save as an interesting constant. Call it the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the fourth dimension, just as the strong force is the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the first dimension, the weak force is the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the second dimension, and the electro-magnetic force is the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the third dimension. (Note that the speed of light is not the same thing as the photon as carrier of the electromagnetic force. It is more accurately termed the constant of organization, perhaps, since it is the rate at which what we call time is measured, and at which syntropy and entropy occur.)

If everything corresponds with everything else, several things are implied. First, communication at the speed of light is useful at short range (within the immediate region of the solar system), but it is not the only possible means of communication. Second, it is theoretically possible to be anywhere or anywhen in reality. Practically speaking, of course, we don’t yet know how to do this—much less what anywhere or when actually looks like beyond our own very small worldspace. Third, what we call psi is actually a function of our correspondence with each other as points of view of the singular one. We communicate using it as the base resonance of all our other forms of communication—body language, speech, and so on. If it didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to understand each other, much less work together on anything. Because it is a function of our correspondence rather than a function of physics as currently defined, proof or disproof of its existence requires a different direction of approach than assuming that the problem is how to explain the process by which “thoughts generated by neurons in the sender’s brain can pass through the skull and into the brain of the receiver.”[1] We haven’t even figured out how we get from patterns of neuronal activity to specific thoughts yet. And finally, if everything corresponds with everything else and there are an infinite number of possibilities and therefore points of view, it becomes evident that nothing is as it seems—because everything will look different to every single point of view.

Logically, then, there can be no right or wrong way to look at reality, only degrees of clarity combined with unique coordinates within reality. Most people have extremely low degrees of clarity due to lack of training in logic and intuition. A few people have slightly less extreme degrees of clarity. It is simply not possible for us as a very young species, inexperienced in our role as a corporate point of view of reality, to have anything but a highly inaccurate view of the singular one.

The role of science, as well as that of intuition, is to examine that part of reality within reach of our abilities in hopes of increasing the clarity of our individual and corporate views of the singular one of which we are all parts. The scientific method is, at root, reductionism, an effort to reduce everything to its component parts. It works best when combined with intuition, which is induction of the whole from the combination of its parts.

If everyone involved in all the rancorous debates rippling around the world via the media and simple word of mouth would shut up and take a moment to realize each is a unique point of view of the singular one of which all of us are very tiny subdivisions, the debates would vanish and we might be able to find ways to work together to increase the clarity of our views of reality and our places in it. If we can conceive of such a thing as living in harmony with each other under the Golden Rule, it is certainly possible.

All it takes is a shift in perspective from reality as seen by each of us as an individual lost in the illusion of separation from the singular one to reality as seen by each of us as a unique point of view within the singular one.

I dare you to try it.

 

 

I posted the following on Austin Hill's column today, available here.

Reality IS, and Time is the revelation of what IS.

All that has ever happened on this world (much of which remains hidden from our eyes, having left only faint clues in the rocks), including all those things we and our ancestors have participated in, are merely part of the fabric of this infinitesimally tiny part of Reality. To think what WILL be revealed is any different is to be clueless about the nature of Reality, even the tiny part of it we can actually perceive.

Shakespeare understood this when he said "All the world's a stage and we but actors on it."

We think we have choices, but in fact they all boil down to just one--whether we will accept Reality and our places in it or not.

Fatalistic? Maybe. I'm a Republican precinct committee person, and will do what I can to encourage the election of conservative Republicans to office here in Colorado. But I don't hold out any hope for the future, either of this country or for the human species within the circles of the world. Hope is a word without meaning when you contemplate Reality as a whole and your place in it. But then, so is despair.

In other news, Jack Thomas, of www.non-normie.com, is retiring from the arduous task of determining which of the many non-normies contending for the dubious honor of being named Non-normie of the Day should actually get that distinction. He will be posting a detailed explanation of how a child goes through the process of becoming a non-normie, and why. I encourage all of you to take a look at it.

Also, I have been making progress on updating my website, Phoenix Lady's Nest (see the Blog Roll for the link). I still have a ways to go with the House of Tomorrow section (although part of it is now available for viewing). I've also posted three of my "music videos," more like karaoke presentations, actually, although I haven't finished fixing the new Phoenix Rising Creations index page. The link to My Videos works, but the gif files don't load yet. I hope to get that fixed later tonight.

Meanwhile, I'm still enjoying the occasional screech fests on the columns. They give me something to laugh about between calls here at work. Occasionally, as today, I feel a need to drop a load of Phoenix wisdom (or bravo sierra, depending on your point of view, I expect).

The only reason I posted this entry is to remind people to pull back and regain your perspective. All too often, we forget that we are exactly whom we are supposed to be at every instant of our lives, and that all of us are projections of Reality (Shakespeare's actors) into what we know as the Tardyon Universe (Shakespeare's stage). Our reasons for existence are far different that what we think they are. But we'll all learn once we leave the stage.

In the meantime, if you haven't already, check out the set of entries I've posted called "In the Twinkling of an Eye." Then you won't have any excuse for saying you weren't warned, especially if Hillary is elected.

For the lake of fury hiding beneath his outward face, and its occasional breakthroughs, John McCain is today's non-normie of the day. To read Jack Thomas' comments, click here. (If you do so tomorrow or the day after, you can do a search for January 17, 2008 below the then-current non-normie of the day.)

On thinking about my last post, it occurred to me that if Jack is right (and I'm wrong) in believing that non-normies only account for about 15% of the population of this country, it ought to be possible to find a way to shut them out of the voting process, much as they did the black Americans prior to the Civil Rights Act (and still do when they can get away with it).

It's not likely to happen, of course, since they (non-normies) now control the main stream media and Congress, as well as most of the states. But I deal in fantasies by nature as a sometime science fiction writer, so here's a thought, for what it's worth.

If you've been to www.non-normie.com, you know there is a way to test yourself and/or others to determine where you or they fall on the normie/non-normie spectrum. Imagine what would happen if, at age 18, everyone had to take this test. Those that score 41% or higher are then classified as non-normies and denied citizenship and the right to vote or marry until they have done the following: a.) entered a 12-Step Program and stayed active in it until they are able to prove to their peers that they have learned how to process the lemons life throws at them into lemonade instead of into buried fury, b.) have retaken the test honestly and come in under 40%, c.) have obtained and held a job for at least 12 months without any incidents, and d.) have tested clean for substance abuse and criminal activity. Also, while in treatment and probation, non-normies are not allowed to be politically active, engage in protests of any kind, have sex, much less children, or live at home. If they do any of the above, children will be taken from them, and they will be committed to an institution to remove the distractions that are keeping them from successfully completing the 12-Step Program and their probation. Said institution should be managed only by those who test normie (or recovering non-normie) on the self-test.

For everyone over the age of 18 at the time the constitutional amendment and attendant laws are passed, each person must also take the test under observation by at least two normies (who will have interviewed the subject using the companion test as a basis for their interview). Anyone scoring 41% or higher in the interview will have all rights and privileges of citizenship taken away (i.e. they will be placed on probationary status), and they will have to go through the same procedure as the 18 year olds above. If they are already married and have children, their underage children will be placed in the care of certified normie couples until they have proven they can remain in recovering non-normie status (with annual interviews by certified normies). If they are unmarried and have children, their children will be placed in the care of certified normie couples until they have proven they can remain in recovering non-normie status AND they have married a certified normie or recovering non-normie.

Those who resolutely refuse to participate in recovery will be institutionalized and kept in isolation with no privileges and only the bare necessities of food, water, and clothing, until they realize their pouting isn't going to get them anywhere--or until they die.

It's a fantasy, of course, because normies are rarely interested in political power beyond the local level. At least, that's been my observation. As a recovering non-normie (I just tested myself again today and came in at 9%, though I have tested higher in the past, and know that earlier in my life I would have tested in the non-normie range), I've learned the hard way that the higher on the scale one tests, the greater one's need for control, therefore the greater one's ambition for higher office. The other reason it's a fantasy is because of the tremendously complicated process involved in even certifying the normies needed to make it work. Still, who knows, one of these days I might write a novel about it.

In the meantime, you can always read the Starfield Valley Tales, available here. They show a somewhat less drastic method of implementing the concept.

The solution no one considers...

...is, of course, space-based solar power. The liberals won't consider it because their real agenda is to control everyone since they can't control themselves (see http://www.non-normie.com for more on that). It isn't just liberals, particularly the flaming liberals who hog all the media time, but the flaming reactionaries on the right, aka the radical Islamic Jihadists. The only difference between the poles is that the flaming left-polar non-normies demand control through government (in their case, through draconian environmental regulations) while the flaming right-polar non-normies demand control through--well--government (in their case, Sharia law). As for the sensible folks stuck in the middle, you've got basically two choices. One, bloody revolution, or two, concerted, long term action to marginalize the flaming left and right polar non-normies by identifying them, calling them what they are--emotionally ill--and laughing at them. Oh, and not voting for them even for dog catcher.

...space-based solar power, to say nothing of space settlement, is going no where fast.

I wrote the above comment on Walter Williams' column about Tyranny Update--Government energy meddling, available here.

So, folks, are we going to have a bloody revolution and destroy the world economy in our efforts to kill all the flaming non-normies, or are we going to work together to out all the flaming non-normies and persuade the rest of our normie and recovering non-normie friends and relatives to join us in marginalizing them? Or are we just going to go on swimming around the simmering stewpot like the rest of the frogs?

I wish I had a better answer, but normies by nature tend to be relatively quiet and unassuming, preferring to go along to get along. Problem is, as adults we have to start acting like adults and disciplining the children.

Obviously passing more laws isn't the answer. Getting rid of the jungle of conflicting laws and regulations is an answer--but requires a major sea change in the body politic even to elect enough serious lawmakers willing to remove them. I don't see it happening.

I guess my real question is "Do any of you Normies posting here on Townhall and reading my blog from time to time have any intention of actually doing anything, or is it all talk and no action?"

You can post responses here or email me.

Just a quick post to let all my friends here know I'm still alive and kicking.

I've greatly enjoyed lurking the Townhall columns and commentary between calls at work (I do tech support for a major cable company). I can't post comments from a company computer, so I just lurk.

It's been quite amusing to see Robert (aka Wobbie) busted numerous times, along with HalD and numerous others. However snarky Robert may be, he's clearly a moderate, not a left wingnut. HalD's a bit further to the left, but also not a left wingnut. Both have completely wrong-headed views of the Religious Right, and are just as guilty of stereotyping the people they don't agree with as we are of stereotyping them. They have no excuses for their attitude of "I'm ever so much smarter than you are, you peons" save perhaps that they write with that attitude to deliberately provoke everyone. That, of couse, is even less of an excuse, because it shows them to be poor excuses for human beings. The best thing to do to these people is laugh at them--as I'm seeing most of my friends doing here. Meanwhile, I get to laugh at the zingers sent their way.

It's also been interesting to observe the networks of friends and relatives posting, and to read diametrically opposed views of the same quotes (e.g. discussions of whether Hitler was really a Christian or just using religion for his own purposes). When combined with my daily dose of www.non-normie.com (today's Non-Normie is Whole Foods, for firing an off-duty employee who chased down and held a shop lifter till the police arrived for the heinous crime of "touching a customer") I gain a lot of useful insight into human nature for use in writing my novels.

Meanwhile, as the political season heats up, I'll be doing my best to fulfill my duties as a precinct committeeperson (along with my husband). Colorado moved its caucuses up to February 5th, so we might actually have at least a tiny impact on the selection of presidential candidates. Although I prefer Fred Thompson myself, I expect Colorado will most likely select Mitt Romney, based on my admittedly sparse reading on the mood here. My husband, who is much more attuned (and interested) to local and state politics than I am, agrees. The reason for this is that most of the long-time party apparatchiks appear to believe Mitt is the best compromise between their desire for a winner and their desire for a conservative.

Someone made a comment on one of the columns a few days back about Colorado becoming a basket case like Michigan. It hasn't yet--but with a 40 to 25 Democrat legislative advantage, plus a Democrat governor, it's definitely headed in that direction. The person making the comment said it was because of all the Californians moving here, and I agree. However, we do need to remember all the years we lived under Roamin' Roy Roemer (the last Democrat governor), and before him, Dick Lamm. Colorado is really a microcosm of the country, in that the major population centers (except Colorado Springs, where I live) are largely blue, while the rural areas are largely red. The only reason Colorado Springs is largely red is because of the heavy military presence (both active duty and retired) and the major conservative religious organizations such as Focus on the Family. However, we also have a lot of liberals here, what with Colorado College, Manitou Springs (a separate city, actually), and so on. Still, the Democrats hate us because we are so red. They want control of the entire Front Range so they can consolidate their grip on the whole state.

Oh well. What will be IS, and Time is the revelation of what IS to our wondering eyes. With that, I need to head off to work so I can lurk the threads somemore. Again, Happy New Year to all, and may we succeed in avoiding the catastrophe of a Shrillary election.