[Bill Ryan]

Hi, Folks:

Continued from yesterday.... and more to come later today or tomorrow if I possibly can.

Originally Posted by Steelhorsehd

We met and chatted at the LA conference. I was wondering if you could recommend a good regressionist in So. Cal.

E-mail me with the subject REGRESSIONIST...

Originally Posted by Moxie

[A number of commentators and sources have said or written that] "Time is short".

What do you know that is an apparent urgency?

Thanks, Moxie. My personal take on this is several-fold. It’s a big topic.

We co-create our future (in basic terms) and others with different intentions are trying to co-create a different future.

So it’s a little like two groups of people each trying to build their sandcastle on the beach with the same pile of sand. Who wins? It’s a kind of race. Time is short because if we don’t do enough, we get the sandcastle we don’t want. We will have been out-created.

Other factors: the biosphere is under threat. I wrote earlier about near-irreversible damage and (as I recall) was asked for my source. I was quoting James Lovelock's famous 1997 Rolling Stone interview here.

I’m aware that Lovelock (the originator of the Gaia hypothesis) is referencing a global warming model, and this interview is two years old, but it deserves to be read carefully. Lovelock is a highly intelligent man and he’s deeply in tune with the natural cycles of the Earth. His views deserve our respect.

We’re in the middle of a huge slow-motion mass extinction of species that’s extremely rapid in geological terms. Several years ago, with Kerry in the Masai Mara in Kenya, I was looking at the Mara river (the life-giving artery of the entire wonderful place) - and had a kind of vision in which in the future it had dried up and all the animals were gone. I was shocked. That really upset me - I greatly love nature and all wild places - and I can vividly remember it to this day.

And some of you may know that I had a highly strange and complex ET experience 25 years ago in which I was told “The Earth is a very beautiful place. It won’t always be this way.” Those words haunt me still.

I don’t believe that any future timeline is fixed, but I do think there are probabilities - something Henry Deacon used to stress each time we met with him and talked about these subjects. As Werner Erhard always used to say [my paraphrase], the danger is that we may all end up where we’re headed.

I am an optimist: I’ve said many times that if we were all doomed - in a rigged game - I’d not be here this lifetime, and probably neither would you, reading this now. But my real point is that the actual enemy might be complacency. Hence my message to everyone who can listen: start doing what you came here to do - whatever that is.

Originally Posted by Fredkc

Lemme spill out a "worst case", and go from there.

1. Man being a programmed life form, engineered by some other species for their purpose.
2. That even the glimpse we think we see at an ultimate creator is simply more of the same.
3. That our knowledge of ourselves, and our lot, is controlled so that even escape is an illusion (busy work). That there are enough of us willingly participating in this to keep it that way, and were that to change, our species would simply be re-engineered to regain control.

At this point, the story devolves into a "closed loop" which seems rather pointless. So a wrinkle is added:

4. "Benevolent" races arrive who are here "to help us", but through some limitations unknown are too damned "polite" (or whatever) to change the tune.

I’m not sure if that was a question. I think this is a closed-loop logic trap. It’s a little like saying that if we have no free will there’s no point in worrying about it, so we must logically assume we have - and take that as axiomatic. No other approach makes any sense.

The same argument applies re solipsism (the concept that you, reading this, are the only being in the universe and everything is imagined by you). It’s not disprovable, and so the only course of action is to assume the ‘video game’ is real and then start playing. That’s the only way you’ll find out more.

Originally Posted by Kinsuemei2

Ok Bill what do you think of Jesse Ventura's new conspiracy show on Tru TV?
What do you think of Jesse Ventura period?

I’ve not seen much. American TV always sensationalizes everything.

Kerry and I had our own planned Reality TV show (a kind of real-life X-Files, featuring a real Mulder and Scully) confirmed by one of the major networks: and then two weeks later it was abruptly canceled. This was two years ago. We assume there was a veto from higher up.

We were disappointed... we would have done a great job and it would have been hugely entertaining. This is still theoretically on the cards (maybe), but we might be just too radical or dangerous for the major networks. Any mainstream conspiracy show has to have built-in plausible deniability: segments of the audience have to be able to laugh or convince themselves something is hoaxed or unreal - or else it would be too dangerous.

This is related to all the arguments about “proof”. (Summary: if you can prove a conspiracy, then you become very dangerous to the accepted order. If you can’t, then you’re much less of a threat and may be allowed to drip-feed new ideas into the popular culture with a fuse always in the circuit - because without proof you can always be discredited if required.)

More later

Very best to all, Bill