David Rauschenbach ("Leader by default")

At the 2009 Singularity Summit, Peter Thiel presented his views on the current global macro-economic situation, and made the case that, assuming the status-quo is to be preserved, new exponential growth in knowledge and technology would be required, in order to carry the growth requirements of the global economy.

On the one hand, knowing that Peter is a libertarian, he may have simply been making the case that the burdens of goverment and banking are a crippling factor, and dragging the economy into the abyss.

But on the other hand, what if the problem is not solely caused by the burdens of compounding interest and the stifling effects of the rise of the meddlesome state? What if we are witnessing a "peak technology", caused by a limited modern view of rational science, which as a result of its limited scope, has run its course?

Rationalist Origins in Question

In Laura Knight-Jadczyk's book The Wave, she considers:

In the sixth century BC the Thracian Dionysiac cults were known to be using shamans as trance channels to communicate with the spirits, or what were then known as tieoi or gods: discarnate immortal beings with superhuman powers. Some scholars suggest that rationalist philosophy was born out of the Dionysiac, Orphic, and Eleusinian mystery cults devoted to the channeling of the gods; certainly much ancient Greek philosophy, especially that of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Plato, was saturated with these mysteries.

This brings up the question, of course, as to how "channeled" information could have been the basis of the Rationalist philosophy that there was nothing to channel? ...

In Plato's Theagetes Socrates confesses, "By the favor fo the Gods, I have since my childhood been attended by a semi-divine being whose voice from time to time dissuades me from some undertaking, but never directs me what I am to do." ...

The most interesting item of all is the fact that Pythagoras used something like a Ouija board as early as 540 BC: a "mystic table" on wheels moved around and pointed towards signs that were then interpreted by the philosopher himself, or his pupil Philolaus. Even down to the present day, the mysteries of the Pythagoreans are subjects of intense interest to scientists and mystics alike. And here there seems to be evidence that the advanced knowledge of Pythagoras may have been inspired by a Ouija board!

By the time the Romans had conquered Greece, the rationalist movement was turning against spirit-channeling. Cicero, the Roman rationalist whom the early Church Fathers highly revered, railed against spirit-channeling or necromancy on the grounds that it involved ghastly pagan rituals. But, as noted above, eventually, rationalism bit the hand that fed it and began to devour its father, monotheism, by further extending the argument to the idea that there is no god, there are no spirits, nothing survives the death of a physical body, therefore there is really nobody for us to talk to on the "other side", so why bother? Science took the view that the whole thing was a con game, and that's pretty much the current mainstream scientific opinion of the phenomenon today. — pp102-103

The Christianity, Judaism, and Islam Connection

Laura writes:

It seems that all "primitive" or preliterate cultures had some form of codified communication between spirits and the living. This phenomenon seems to be universal in the ancient world, and only came under condemnation with the inception of monotheism around 1000 BC. When Yahweh spoke through his channels, they were called prophets and the activity was "divine inspiration". When anybody else did it, it was necromancy or demonic possession, or even just out and out deception. This was because, obviously, since Jevohah/Yahweh was the only god, those other "gods" did not exist; therefore, anyone who claimed to be channeling them was lying. Of course that begs the question as to why people were put to death for lying about communicating with gods that were claimed not to exist. And, if they did actually exist, and were actually communicating, as Yahweh was also, then what status does that suggest about Yahweh, since he was the one who claimed to be the only god and that this was true simply because Yahweh said so via channeling? Most curious.

I refer such confoundments to Ray Swangkee, who swiftly gets to the heart of the matter by pointing out for Chistians that, according to their belief system, the Holy Spirit has not died, and the spiritual gift of prophesy was never revoked; and furthermore, their own bible tells them that aside from looking out for false prophets, that they should be expecting a real prophet, incarnated by the spirit of Elijah no less.

Therefore, knowing that the bible confesses that channeling is a fact which has not changed (although it does so "with hesitation", in its own convoluted, round-about way), the rational mind is once again left DEMANDING an objective understanding of it. And as I have now explained, is of interest to both religious and secular man alike. In fact, it should be obvious by now that it is of paramount interest to both parties.

It should also go without saying that any religion unwilling to subject itself to rational scrutiny is not worthy of its followers. Rick Warren said as much to me on more than one occasion, in his own words.

Creating Minds

In his book Creating Minds, Gardner took a look at seven creative giants, each credited with forging new systems of meaning: Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. Using a qualitative and quantitave analysis, Gardner profiled their environments, upbringings, timelines, and ultimately their processes, in order to attempt to unlock their key to creativity. His analysis revealed the following pattern (loosely recalled, since I read the book over 10 years ago): (1) getting started in their field as a child, (2) fixation on the problem or field of study, (3) saturation of all present knowledge of the problem or field of study, (4) incubation or roadblock, and finally (5) inspirational breakthrough.

In other words, I could make a very strong case that their breakthroughs came from without, in the course of an inspirational breakthrough, rather than from within and as the result of some integration which might have occurred during a saturation period.

Perhaps these breakthroughs were only possible after saturation, which may have had the effect of numbing or shutting down the left brain, or causing it to "give up" and finally yield a little latitude to the right brain, allowing that right brain to finally transcieve the object of intent focus from the information field with which it seems to interact.

Conclusion

Modern rational scientific thought may have to credit none other than monotheistic religions for the departure from its origins. It is perhaps no wonder that, after building their million-dollar microscopes, scientists now look into an atom and see only empty space, and are left without answers, and with no way to proceed (other than to state their obvious desire to build the next billion-dollar microscope). They seem to have run their course, and the world has quite a few things to thank them for. However, economic progress is not something they currently seem to have on offer.

It is no surprise to me that mathematicians and physicists are turning their attention to dowsing, channeling, and related subjects. A long time favorite researcher of mine is, of course, Laura Knight-Jadczyk, a leading knowledge integrator of our time. A new subject of interest is Jeffrey Keen, whose quantitative analysis of dowsing caused him to stumble onto the fact that the measurable boundaries of dowsing fields are in the shapes of geometric primitives such as squares and cones, or Pythagoras's sacred geometry. Oh my! This staggering data can be compared to a person walking up to a TV screen, and while looking closely at it with a magnifying glass, discovering that the picture is a lie, and actually made up of tri-colored pixels. The sacred geometry, it seems, is like physical evidence that what we think we see is actually a lot more like a 4-D or 5-D hologram, or possibly even "in here" rather than "out there". The measurement of the dowsable field betrays its geometry, and now we can go after the source. Once we understand the "tube" or "cyclotron" for this new field type, practical application can follow. Jeffrey asks:

“... is it possible that in classical physics "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" because we have been communicating using electromagnetic fields (which includes light), and using astronomy and photons (light) to confirm the velocity of light? In the same way that, say, a flying bat or a whale using sound to observe its world, would conclude that nothing can travel faster than sound? Probably, there are numerous forms of intelligent beings in the Universe. Would they want to communicate with "primitive" beings who were not au fait [up to a particular standard] with the Information Field? They would not wish to use photons to communicate, and wait hundreds or thousands of years for a reply. They would communicate via the Information Field, which would be far quicker. So, to extend knowledge of our Universe, our scientists need to open their minds, and possibly only then can we catch up with our past and look at our future.”

After 40 years of slow build in this direction, I say we are now looking at a game changer, and a far bigger one than electromagnetism.

I would invite my colleagues to consider the negative effects of continuing to plod on with a limited scope of "rational thought". By casting a wider net, we can pull in more data points that currently lie outside of the sanctioned fields of study and thought. After all, the founders of our very way of thought seem to have known quite a bit about it all, and we only mock ourselves by marginalizing their pioneering work, which has already proven its worth.

Scientific and educational establishments may have their hands tied by entrenchment and funding, but at the same time, and in the best libertarian spirit, venture capitalists and industry are free to lead the way, to take the matter off the shelf and monetize it. The high priests of science, acedamia, and established religions will step in line, once the value is demonstrated.

Further Reading:

• Spiritual tech, and other game-changers