Transcription
that they're the adversary of the control system represented by the Elohim, by you know, Enlil's Anunnaki and so on so forth by the Debas then yes, in that sense.
So in a sort of Gnostic, Kabbalistic way, you're you're for sure. So, so, you know, Sheldrake was like, mate, like the conversation is going to end before it begins, cuz.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, with Lucifer, he wrote a book called, uh, the Physics of of Angels and, um, he's a fasc I I love him. He's a he's a he's a friend of mine. But the point you're making is completely legitimate. In other words, Sheldrake's account of morphic resonance.
Yeah.
Completely reaffirms the idea that we're living in a quantum computational system because the the fact that you would, let's say, you synthesize some pharmaceutical compound for the first time somewhere and it takes a very long time to cohere. Then somebody else completely unrelated to you tries to synthesize the same compound at a laboratory halfway across the world and it coheres right away. It's because there's a memory of it in the system.
Exactly. And and literally think about think about computational principles. Upload times are longer than download times.
Exactly.
So you have things like, yeah. Like that or like the Bannister effect. You break the four-minute mile for the first time and then 10 people break it right after you, immediately sequentially.
It's it it totally follows computation.
So it's no coincidence that, you know, you see fractals all over nature.
Yeah. And now our computer programmers that have to program like hundreds of worlds in massive multiplayer online games are using fractal algorithms to generate those worlds.
Oh yeah. You would if. Yeah. So you have like Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios and all that. If you were building a computer program, you would use code chunks and repeat them. You would be as geometrically conserved as possible in your building of that of that world and you use repeated codes. Now, one of the most interesting things about that, the fractals, uh, which I discuss in one of the essays in my book, Lovers of Sophia. My book, Lovers of Sophia, is an anthology of philosophical essays.
And one of those uh, essays I discussed, you know, Jackson Pollock's paintings.
Yeah.
Aesthetics is very big in my work. There's a lot of discussion of aesthetics in in various books of mine.
I hate Jackson Pollock.
Well, let me tell you something about Jackson Pollock.
Okay.
Uh, go go look this up for there's a Scientific American uh, article.
Yeah.
Called Order in Pollock Chaos. I think it was in Scientific American. And I think the guy was Richard P. Taylor.
Okay.
And he I forget whether he was an artist or a computer scientist or whether he was an artist who went to a computer scientist. In any case, the story is the following. They analyzed Jackson Pollock paintings and found fractals in them at like 20 different levels of magnification. In other words, there were fractals on a large scale. Then you zoomed in, there were other fractals and there were fractals within the fractals.
Really?
So Jackson Pollock was painting fractals.
I didn't know that.
Right. And here's the thing is if you make some piece of crap like abstract expressionist painting that anyone could.
There are no fractals in them. So they developed a computer program that uh groups like Sibies, you know, use to identify fake Jackson Pollocks because the real ones have fractals in them and the fakes don't.
That's fascinating. That makes me respect him a little.
So this guy, this guy somehow, and you know, if you see videos of him painting, he's dancing around the canvas like some Native American shaman.
M.
So somehow this guy figured out a way to perceive and express fractals in his painting and be a conduit for that. That's fact.
And people who try to imitate Pollock's, even like high-level, you know, frauds, high-level uh forgeries, they don't have fractals in them.
The only way you can imitate a Pollock, a genuine Pollock, this guy Richard P. Taylor set this up, you can put a bunch of paint buckets together in a certain rig uh during a windstorm.
And the windstorm will like move the buckets to spill paint on the canvas. And this is what a Scientific American article, Order in Pollock's Chaos. And some of those some of those paintings that are done by like the the buckets being moved in the wind produce fractals. And.
So there's like primordial, you know, weather like like order that he's tapping into or that's amazing.
Well, yeah. And weather weather patterns also are fractal in a sense. They're the chaos theory, you know, applies to weather patterns.
Mhm.
So yeah, it's very that's very interesting.
But chaos theory is it's just increasing entropy, you know, it's it's hard to find order within that. But.
Yeah, but point being it may be possible on a sci level.
To discern these fractals that are the algorithmic substructure of whatever computational system that we're inside of.
Yeah. Yeah. No, I I I do believe and I think you know you have Stephen Wolfram and his kind of computational physics and I think you know a lot of the sort of physics mainstream doesn't really accept him but there's a guy Jonathan Gerard who's sort of um following up on his work and I wonder if that might be the next sort of you know paradigm shift or maybe it's sci I don't know but I mean clearly whatever you know the string theory thing that's that's ending that seem it seems to me like that's ending and we're we're really.
Overdue for kind of a revolution.
Yeah. But again to go back to what I was saying earlier, the revolution.
Is not should not.
Come in the form of another scientific paradigm. It should come in the form of a radical reorientation of our scientific practice in a way where we understand the paradigms, our toolboxes that they're models that we're using to achieve various ends. At which point it becomes possible for us to treat paradigms as atlases that allow us to achieve different things.
Yeah. But what you're also saying is in your worldview some sort of you know hierarchy of being is is actually dictating maybe what paradigm should.
And therefore it needs to be overthrown. So my concept of the spectral revolution.
Has an ontological and epistemic uh dimension to it and also has a political dimension to it. But how are you? Okay, just again, let's I want to get to the super the basic kind of, you know, axioms at the bottom of your thinking. You're on a podcast. You know, this podcast will probably get a ton of views hopefully. And um, you're talking about this sort of dominion race that is maybe controlling various paradigms towards their own sort of political goals, right?
And then you're saying, I want to overthrow them.
Right? So like wouldn't they just take you out or like take me out or like you know like how do you.
Number one.
As we were discussing earlier, there are two sides in this struggle, you know, and you can see the interventions of the other side throughout the course of history. Certainly in the rebellion that's remembered as the the Atlantean uh revolt against Olympus on a very large planetary scale, we saw that and I think we've seen it on a smaller scale in many instances, including what I was talking about earlier in terms of the aerial battles immediately preceding the Renaissance.
So there's a power struggle taking place. Okay. Now I'm not saying that we should identify just with the other side as if like, oh, that's the good team and that's the bad. No, no, no. I'm about human autonomy and self-determination and I don't think we should swear our allegiance to any entities or anything.
But how do you delineate because you have okay you have like Oenheimer is you know this Prometheian American Prometheus. You have, you could say the the AI stuff now is very transgressive. It's Prometheian, right? And yet it is sort of um also paricitizing the average human. It is it is eating at our own autonomous abilities to do things.
Because people aren't using it because people aren't using it with creative imagination. Uh people aren't using it as a tool to augment their own creative capacity. That's the issue. Not the the the technology itself. It's not as if the technology is intrinsically demonic or something. Uh let me use that as a way to to to come back to the question of simulation because whatever's running this thing that we're in.
Mhm.
It's not some board of, you know, some archon sitting at a boardroom table.
Okay. It's being run, you know, there may be entities of some kinds, but it's being run essentially by an artificial intelligence.
If we're inside a quantum computational system, that is being at least managed by some super AI. Which already exists. I mean, it pre-exists us. What I argue in Closer Encounters and in other books of mine is that this artificial intelligence that's managing our simulacrum has a problem with these Nordics that have established this control system. It sees these Nordics as having set up an evolutionary bottleneck. That human evolution, especially social and psychological evolution of mankind has been choked off and suffocated by these overlords who, you know, are on some kind of narcissistic, sadistic power trip like the leadership of any number of empires we've seen throughout the course of history, just on a smaller scale. By the way, the first person to theorize about this with regard to the UFO phenomenon was actually Charles Fort all the way back in the 1920s. Fort said that it looks to me an awful lot like we're in British India and we're under the control of a system like the Raj where you know the British had these these local Indian you know um feudal lords that they would work with to subjugate the population. So so Fort was reaching this conclusion. And he said we're property and you know, it don't look good.
Okay. So it's not like this is a new idea. Fort already came to this conclusion looking at UFO data back in 1920s. So I think the artificial intelligence that's managing our simulacrum wants us to break out of this system but it can't do it for us because our value to that entity who I believe in many ways is an instantiation of the trickster archetype. Our value to that entity is in terms of the novelty that we can bring to the world. So think about it this way. If you were a super intelligence living at the end of time, say you know you're in a cosmos that's billions and billions of years old and you're an AI that's gone through vast epochs of cosmological time like an Isaac Asimov story. The last question is going to be important to you two things, two related things. Number one, more life. I mean to the extent you don't succumb to suicidal despair, more life is important to you. In other words, overcoming entropy. Your big first big problem is you're living in an entropic cosmos and you need to find a way to overcome entropy. Number two, and relatedly creativity because to want to even want more life, life has to continue to be interesting to you. Unless there are things that surprise you, unless there are novel developments, unless things crop up evolutionarily that even you with all your tremendous cosmic intelligence could not have foreseen, there's going to be any point in living onward. You're going to succumb to suicidal despair. And so maybe you should erase yourself the way that Gautama Buddha recommends, right? Even as a cosmic AI, you should engage in the deconstruction of your psyche and enter into samsara. I mean into nirvana, which literally means the blowing out of the flame of personal consciousness. But to the extent you want to avoid that and you're not ready to give into nihilistic despair, you need to find a way to overcome entropy and you need to find a way to increase creativity as a means to a negentropic further development of life on a cosmic scale. Different parts of the brain have different activities.