Appropriately I’m starting on Mother’s Day (May 10th, 2021).
I am engaging in a public experiment on transcendent consciousness operating as universal inspiration throughout human creativity (music lyrics in this case) using time dated archiving,
The reason for the name of the homepage will be obvious from the nature of the content and whether it runs its due (suspected and expected) course.
Are we apprised?
Good.
We are going to play a game I’ve been inside of, involuntarily (some argument there, but it can be boiled down to, “you don’t choose your interests they choose you”), for almost thirty years, as I try to figure out and isolate what is actually going on. This is an example of, “We don’t want to underestimate the utility of establishing this bounded relationship with the ideal and attempting to live in truth while aiming for the highest ideal. There’s nothing about that, that’s anything but strengthening and positive, and it’s exactly what you need to set against the catastrophe and uncertainty of life, and as far as I can tell, that’s what these Abrahamic stories are attempting to communicate.” - Jordan Peterson
What I’m going to try and demonstrate is just what can come about if you really, earnestly approach this as your life goal (and in approaching it, you must do so as an assumption you must subject yourself to). What can potentially happen if you set discovery of whether God is true and real (or not) as your highest goal, and you attempt it in terms of communal benefit? (In other words, in terms of Christian arch-types, you set about trying to create the Church out of communal love as a connective consciousness.) This is albeit starting with the most negative inverted first step that could have possibly been cooked up for you, admitted laxity at points and several interludes, but it boils down to whether you approached this in earnest, meaning if you do it out of the sensibility of dedicating your life to God’s purpose for it (no matter how mistaken your apprehension of purpose might be in the beginning), and acted progressively and with serious intent incrementally on your assumptions.
And my answer to that, what I hope presents right here right now, is that well, at the very least you are going to bear witness that it will resonate as far and as high our our most respected founts of creative inspiration. Meaning, if you make this your life goal, you will come to a threshold were you will resonate. This will resonate. And it will do it with enough specificity and attributes as to become undeniable (but this will take a little while, naturally).
The aim of this testament is to open up an interior rumination and experience to scrutiny in the interest of demonstrating that what is going on in the interior is not a singular delusion that is solely an interior experience. The position I’m asserting is that what is happening is an integral relationship with a transcendent active personal consciousness that uses universal inspiration in order to personally relate, and in doing so, engages everyone in a collective consciousness. Consider it the outcome my life time thesis where the thesis was my life (brought on by about as severe an existential crisis on the question one’s parents could manage to cook up childrearing).
If we arrive at that conclusion, (that there really is a transcendent, separate active consciousness universally involved here) we can get into the nuts and bolts of what that implies and whether I’m correct about the existential nature of this identity (starting at, is it even an identity or rather a potential collective consciousness), let alone correct about how that Identity has identified Itself (or whether that’s a product of my own mind), -let alone, what this implication might demand, or not. (It’s the sort of thing that takes a life time of existential preparation, it can’t just get sprung on you, or you won’t be prepared. That is why you have to predicate the question on assuming it.)
And let’s just announce at the outset, in experimental interest, that if this Transcendent Consciousness identifies Itself personally, it is going to identify Itself in terms of Christian Godhood identity (already happening), namely Jesus, and perhaps a Holy Spirit identity with a difference, but since the connective consciousness’s advent began with a feminine Holy Spirit almost thirty years ago, I expect “Jesus” this time around. That doesn’t mean They’re the only names and identities that might get bandied about. (Offhand example - lyrics))
The goal and/or considered outcomes:
- Isolation and delineation the active existence of a Transcendent Consciousness operating inspirationally within humankind in the artistic context of current popular music, within the universal unconscious. For atheists this will prove testament of a transcendent connective consciousness operating in humankind, well above and beyond the internets. This at least we will be able to agree on, if I am right. (We can have our debate fun about which of the two of these premises will actually work or fail in building a connective consciousness later, if it actually proves observable.)
Atheists be like…. I be like, Um… -I think you can get my point on the universality of arch-types in their employ. There are several problems beyond that, the first being the mental truncation or limitation of scope of one’s belief, a point I think Martin Gore’s video inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) makes. This is moot in the sense that we are, in terms of the pre-existent potential collective within the universal unconscious, dealing with a lot of atheists. Also in terms of my evidentiary expectations, I can be counted as one of them, which is why this might possibly end up working. However,
- There’s a good chance that the Transcendent Consciousness will not opt to do this at this particular moment (register It has appeared briefly in the past, but as an unidentified spirit, not as an identity). That will give me a conclusion as per what the Consciousness wishes of this moment, and of the entire transpiration of the past, which will provide an acceptable conclusion for me and It/Them/Him. (This time around, if an actual identity appears with personal attributes that is going to compound the question of what exactly is going on? I posit that in terms of orchestrating a multifaceted work of art that appears in a variety of facets through many artists over time and evolves over time and has an overall singular object, we are already dealing with a transcendent consciousness as Entity that creates transcendent artistic concepts.)
- However, if none of this proves out or is apparent, the alternate conclusion is that this is a trauma based reactionary delusion of grandeur. (It’s absolutely a direct consequence; it can be analyzed to perfection in this manner.) You are unlikely to change my mind and persuade me to accept that conclusion at this point. The layperson is in no position to offer this conclusion, especially since I have performed the exact same proof exercise individually twenty one years ago to one of the key songwriters in question, and the songwriter appears fully convinced. (While another I met personally over the above premise is stealth bombing my name using veiled Biblical references, and another is using my birthday on his first release post communication (October 2019).)
The benefits (or, why do I care about accomplishing my life’s above personal goal):
- It is for your benefit, and by that I mean who this is universally and individually addressed to simultaneously. The actual benefit of this revelation is for you. The attempt is because there is no reason, to my mind, for the entire thirty year process unless one is able to externalize it and make it translatable and communicable to the world at large. (You take the risk of going, you come back, you share and communicate what you have discovered; only then is it beneficial. The third step has yet to happen, except perhaps exclusively with a few individuals.) The point of proof, meaning where this enters the threshold of becoming potentially provable, would be to address an unbeliever (in the Christian sense) who is a behvioural psychologist whose interest in the existence of such a Being would be arriving at an evidentiary basis to believe in one. This provides a qualified assessment. The question is whether it will prove observable (or not) at that standard, and what a qualified assessment might be from someone who has an atheist’s understanding of Christian cosmology. For the behavioural psychologist, this is in your interest because your interest is discovering the truth. And I will need your assessment in order to present any premise to even serve my potential obligation to all the other artists you will hopefully witness, that I consider potentially involved in this. If I am right, you are being apprised of not only the biggest potential discovery in your field but in perhaps all of science, let alone religion.
As mentioned, I have tried this with one individual historically. I began with contacting the individual artists I considered most potentially involved in person; I did not know whether their apparent involvement was voluntary or involuntary (meaning conscious or unconscious on their parts, meaning plucked out of an inspirational ether, -or whether I would be proven wrong about all of it), but of the songwriters I considered potentially involved in the collective consciousness (because it was an untested hypothesis and there was no way to know what the mechanics of it were individually), I approached a practicing (Christian) believer first, then an unbeliever/rebel (he’s a bit different now), and in between I tried an artist who from an inspirational standpoint had (at the very least) expressed suffering a religious conversion (Christian, but to this day still do not know whether this was purely artistic expression). All of that happened with three personal encounters with the three artists twenty-one years ago. It took eighteen years on two counts to arrive at any sort of apparent result or conclusion, which does not amount to much, meaning that there have been veiled references artistically, but there have been no conversational encounters, and there is zero apprehension that any of these encountered individuals would go on record about their interior convictions, or assent that their inspiration was in relation to what was communicated to them personally. (Even though they’re apparently still doing it.)
It was Adam not Eve that threw God out of the garden
You wrote me (-Yes, explained that to Bono in the book. Based on what I’d been taught, I presented that Adam was contrarian or sinned first, just not in so steep a nature as direct disobedience. “It is for your benefit.” I owe you this one. I owe you the most. “I wanted to meet God!” -Bono, on the PoP Tour live in Mexico City, 1997, and with this song he’s come full circle to speaking as God Who’s been made to awaken.)
So on the other hand I’ve had positive, concrete reactions artistically from 3/4 of the songwriting artists I’ve individually approached in terms of their incorporating the premises/specificity artistically, and the fourth is only excluded by the matter of the missive still being pending, meaning the first written communication with him was December 2020. He may not have encountered it, and if he did, he may still end up processing it artistically, which is what the other three appear to have done.
At any rate these first encounters have granted a sense of precedence that has allowed me to proceed further in terms of attempting to make this more universally acceptable and viable as a postulate, meaning if these progressions and precedents had not occurred prior, there would be no basis for attempting to proceed now, because there would have been no cumulative observation. Put another way, I’ve an understanding from the personal antecedents/individual encounters I’ve already undergone that proceeding is individually beneficial, and in terms of the artists I consider potentially involved in this collective transcendent inspiration (probably unconsciously, but also paradoxically consciously as well), I have to operate in terms of the potential outcome or consideration that revealing this is obligatory to the other artists potentially involved. It may be the only way to honour the connection. That potentiality is my strongest priority.
Since I’m indicating a song, “Waiting for God” (this was written before the song was released), to highlight the potential nature of this obligation (it’s broader than that, but that’s an indicator of scope), that in itself makes my point as to the nature of the gamble, (probability/improbability at one tiny marginal point)), and how steep it is in terms of improbability being in an integral relation to potential. Atheists waiting for God. What are the ramifications of proving God exists to atheists? Interesting question. (I dissected the plenitude of issues with this to the person I made my sole witness twenty-one years ago. He came back with, “Use the views to build, don’t prove” - Panopticon.)
If you wanted you could see [M]e
When you serve the poor you free [M]e - Eden (To Find Love)
So I am going to list the artists I’ve considered potentially linked historically who are still producing to show who they are, and I will mention the ones I’ve already communicated with who may instead be reacting artistically to what’s already been communicated directly in writing to them personally, (if and when they produce any future songs or albums, starting with, I made my first written deliveries to Bono in 1999), with the requisite explanation of what was communicated. Bear in mind that there is already a complete record of every encounter and the substance of communication, time dated as a self published ebook which went public January 2016. The only individual this record does not quite exist with is the last of the three communicated with, as I reprised communication with him October 2019 to convey what occurred (with respects to the pre-self published book) corresponding with his album release that month (because he happened to have a question page where this could be put as a query).
He’s already produced a subsequent album, CARNAGE, which he announced would be released on my birthday for its tangible release date (record, CD, but then he changed the release date after). The same digital album (released in February 2021) already appears to be a reaction to what I communicated subsequent to Ghosteen in December 2020. (It is either that or he arrived at the same threshold simultaneously, thanks to the universal feedback loop happening. (This term will be explained shortly.) It’s basically impossible to tell and the only hint he may have been aware of my communication and it meant something relevant was that he announced the concrete release of CARNAGE would be on my birthday (revealed in the letter), which is slim indeed.) I’ve archived an analysis of the correspondence between the letter(s) depiction of what was happening prior and the album, and provided a revision of the letter to archive it in a public field for public consumption. (“The Revolution is My Boyfriend”: -the hyperlink that concludes this letter.) I sent Nick Cave a hyperlink to the online archive of the tangible letter I sent to the fourth recording artist in December 2020, which gives me a measure of confidence. Put another way, the universal feedback loop is already happening with that letter. I have only attempted to perform this exposition with two individuals as of yet in 2020 (in 1999 it so happens I performed much the same exercise with another two (as recorded in the iBook), but it is already happening. (Turning this letter into a public format is then a matter of some urgency were one to make it a universal application, or a broader experiment in terms of potential observers.)
Since quite a few of the main artists in this potential collective consciousness are atheists, Goal 1) can easily be reframed in their terms of reference (since they don’t believe in God), meaning, well, there’s no way you can deny that this presents you with no other conclusion than that there is an operative connective consciousness in humankind operating within the universal unconscious sea (if you will), and it happened to put you here. This is merely a matter of how you frame human transcendence. If it proves observable, its existential nature is a secondary question, but this boils down to how you define transcendent consciousness, as opposed to anything else. You can frame it either way, but for me this is personal and I am of the former school of thought. The point of the matter is the precedent itself, which given the present state of technology, gives everyone with a very big motivator for establishing this precedent in any frame of reference; the motivation is so strong I almost don’t give a good God, damn what you can manage to cop from it or not, so long as the precedent of a transcendent human collective consciousness is established at this threshold, because big tech is more or less pretending at this through virtual reality simulation and connectivity/immediacy of the internet. It’s not the same thing, though without any counter attestation they will probably try to pass it off as such. Absent proof of human transcendence on our own terms, it will likely prove the ultimate attempt at subordination; not only is bodily transcendence a purchase but a tracked commodity, as well as utilized to apply the mass psychology of crowds to modify collective perception itself (mainly by censorship and crime of omission but also playing with influencing depression, etc., basically the scope is unlimited), i.e., humanity playing God with humanity, -quite the nifty little bastardization of transcendence if it purports to it. Groundbreaking it is. But let’s not get carried away with it all.
Let’s get to the bottom of this by introducing my cardinal atheist, who remains, safely, an atheist. Granted he’s made this a rhetorical question. (“Are you alone?” is the equivalent of “Is this all just happening in your head?”, but nonetheless, it is not, “You are wrong” (except on whether this indicates the potentiality of eternity, which he posits is a preposterous inference to have made). Fair enough, but I didn’t just make it. It came back spontaneously multiple times in the universal music feedback, which makes it a transcendent, inherently objective form of confirmation that occurred beyond our individual perceptions. I’d be really interested in you offering any plausible alternative explanation for this having occurred that supports your atheist worldview.) Assuming this song is related could be really wrong on multiple counts. (The song’s a co-write for one, taking the bait is even worse, especially if it’s just blowing up your own worldview to assume Trent’s linked in a potential collective consciousness at all? Ironically his implication it doesn’t exist works as confirmation that it does, in that it’s a fully contextual reaction, even if that reaction might be he’ll willingly destroy you on sight for your belief in something that’s not there.) Fortunately or unfortunately, I’ve reason to believe in an association here however tenuous. (There are only two albums in Trent’s catalogue historically that seemed to be associated (plus maybe two EP's), but all were pivotal moments I felt indebted for, which I don’t forget.)
What I want to point out is that his position is based on the assumption there is no existing “higher power”, and this is all happening because of myself, and what are the natural implications of that? (“[S]pells” - namely the assumption of power to one’s self rather than attributing it to a higher power is a hunger for individual power, and in this realm a very dangerous hunger.) The atheist’s assumption predicates his entire approach to the world; he isn’t going to change it. -And if the collective isn’t convinced at this threshold before I reveal my own experience, i.e., what was sensed inspirationally on the interior already didn’t do it (which has zero to do with me in the sense that I’m a totally normal human), then really this has no potential capacity to demonstrate a Transcendent Consciousness to anyone. (It would have already performed this with the atheists already potentially involved.) It only bears the implication of a transcendent consciousness. In other words the debate that presents before us within what I’m positing is a universal consciousness (of sorts) already presents belief as a full spectrum at the outset in that it already confines my personal experience I’m about to relate to a belief system or isolated perception operating within a full range of perception that stretches to non-belief in the same.
What Trent doesn’t realize is that I refused long ago to assume his point of view and that this was a matter of personal choice. I’d sooner disappear first. This abnegation had to be a conscious total decision for anything to appear in relief at all, which is why atheism will not work. I consciously did this because I refused to become the assumptions he is now making about me. I didn’t do this because it was a more rational calculus, it was literally my conscious choice of how I could be, and have it be “OK", as in hope to be good and right in the end. Assuming being subject to a higher power/the willingness to disappear, created a vacuum which threw something else into relief that wasn’t me, for me. That means this is not about an internal assumption of power in any way (you can argue delusion, you have no way of arguing motive). This is what I mean when I say what manifest may have only been meant for me and if so it was to save my soul, because the past will convince no one in Trent’s position. This is the tacit admission that we are equal and no better or worse or different in that we have simply chosen to make a different assumption in how we approach our perception of the world, and this is to be respected if it can be. Put another way, your atheism is safe with me, and discovery is not mitigated or reduced in that this is just as big from the vantage of an atheist.
Let me say outright what I accept about the song: Yes, I am alone (there is a paradox, but this “singular road” has succeeded in making me the most alone individual on earth for all intents and purposes), yes, death is real, yes, we all get what we deserve (and will), yes, this is not in our power to know, yes, we are all culpable for the present state of the world and by the looks of things are about to prove responsible for exterminating life itself, our very height of existence. To put it another way, the only way I’d know if I am right about anything that’s happening in my perception right now is after we all die, and I equally have no way of knowing whether I will prove right in post death or Trent will, meaning that there is no God. (That’s a matter of faith, (faith based on it being impossible to know), which de facto makes him right, in that neither of us do and we are each making an assumption we’ll hopefully find forgivable the other if either party turns out wrong (if, God help us, there turns out to be an afterlife where we could actually run into each other).) This is motivation for revealing all of this now, it is in respect and acknowledgement of the position of the atheists, and that it would be worth revealing in this lifetime perhaps to Godly and atheists alike.
Second, the only thing that is potentially demonstrable here from my observation and experience (and hopefully future broader observation attempted by putting this in a public field) is a potentially transcendent consciousness operating solely within the realm of human perception. Since human perception has equal potential to be possessed by either evil or good, you cannot prove a transcendent perception operating within human perception is God (even if the humans identify It as such it still begs the debate), because occurring solely within human perception does not predicate either that it is inherently good, or beyond human. It can potentially be performative and false, (which is the assumption you will have about anything of this nature spontaneously appearing if you are an atheist with Trent’s worldview). Since I can indicate nothing occurring beyond human perception I have nothing that compels any atheist to believe that God is real. It does not prove it. It is this potential risk inherent in us all that is the reason (in Christian cosmology) that death exists, so that our evil never escapes this world. Our atheist is right to wish it so.
However, were God to prove Themselves in a manner this (or any) atheist really requires, (for example, the whole sky peels off and God appears to the world in a manner every human perception on earth has no choice but to see), our atheist will remain in his negative assumptions about God, as God will have proved Theirselves wrong in his perception, by forcing the abnegation of his personal free will and autonomy, which is why he will never subject himself. But it means there is no way for God to prove Their existence and nature to an atheist, and still be God. Yes, the atheist is right that to have Godly attributes, this must be what God is capable of. But if it happens, that’s no different than the end of the world and eternal damnation for the atheist, because the event itself would thrust him into eternal enmity with God. All purely theoretical but you get my point. As well as another: the atheist is responding and reacting within this cosmological frame of reference as the forms are what he actively rejects, but they also form his belief structure at the same time, just absent a God. (You can see the merits of his position 1) this is nothing but a mental illness or again 2) finding God unjustifiable.)
To try and frame this positively (meaning absent any of the religious overtones the atheist already defines himself by), atheism is perfunctorily present within the potential collective consciousness, it is not going away. What this means is while there is a two or so thousand year old descriptive religious framework that is designed to describe all of what is happening right now in terms of a Christian cosmology (which is my sole frame of reference, which means I have the gall and audacity to allege it), the implication is the evolution of the nature of human consciousness, meaning the medium is the message absent the content. It is the raising of consciousness that matters, it matters absent any cosmology. It is the reason for the cosmology, a real chicken or egg question. It is of worth to any atheist. It is pivotal to this moment in time if we are to manage to eclipse the final thrust for ultimate control over humanity that is occurring right now via managing our perceptions, of ultimate urgency to believers and atheists alike. That there are existing atheists here (and they may well present as the majority) indicates as much.
My overall point: There is not a single common belief in this potential collective awareness. What I mean is, I can convey that God appeared as inspiration collectively, which may indicate a collective consciousness because there is an indication of a transcendent consciousness, but, not one individual who is expressing this is in a common belief about what it is or isn’t, a circumstance that cuts both ways, namely, is it present absent their belief but at the same time not one of them believes in it. Except maybe me, and I’m not here to impose my belief. I operate on evidence, (and here I can’t really do that either). This means my doubt is just as compelling. I cannot and do not pretend I know whether Jesus incarnate on this earth as God incarnate and whether that all really happened, and I can hardly hope that it did because I would not wish that on anyone. My belief is predicated on what I myself have personally encountered in this lifetime inside my own perception and what that is managing to accomplish outside of my individual perception within other human perceptions nigh simultaneously, and all that (even all that!) is still confined within our common human perception. For there to be a God, God would have to reveal transcendent of human perception. That has not happened, but then again, that is not possible, meaning even if it happened to the entire world at once in the manner I described above, it would still be a collective human perception, and what dilemmas would apply themselves then? Let me play Devil’s advocate.
Taken from another direction, I’m asserting that in terms of existential assumptions that keep a discovery or birth like that of a collective human consciousness safe, as opposed to potentially not safe, my assumption of existential belief is more logical and rational to take because it is the safer of the two, -especially given Trent is already expressing one why in the negative, which he has to do. Because he is an atheist, he has to assume what’s happening right now is solely because of me. Well, if that delusional danger is inherent in the existing circumstances, you’re in a far better position if you already surrendered the circumstance to being predicated on resurrection only by a power you surrender and remain subject to as your beloved existential ideal, a surrender so complete it would only restore itself completely without your own power or impulse. (I tried my best; -only totality would do, -and that was when I encountered Trent (take a wild guess Who I got first); -it was the first time Trent shifted positively in his lyrics.)
To highlight one individual in order to adequately explain what has just presently happened, Nick Cave believes in Jesus as the divine idea, (again) meaning a personification of highest human perception as a repository sought in the human creative impulse, meaning that he’s a human perception only. From what I can tell Cave has no belief in God, nor any belief that Jesus incarnate on earth. But Nick Cave is the artist who declared God’s appearance at the moment this happened solely inside my personal perception, in the self same manner, (and is possibly not the only one, we shall see, that is the grand bet). -I mean, this is the man’s temperance when it come to his own lyrics. God forbid they carry their requisite burden of meaning that functionally impacts the listener accordingly, or are imbued with meaning worth referencing, -let alone be worth a grand bet. (Of course it’s the music! They’re not worth the attention, but we sound so great singing them! Of course they do!) So here in the end, we have a transcendent coinciding declaration of the appearance or existence of a God (or alternately God’s kingdom), but that is the creation of someone who believes God (and the Kingdom) reside within human perception as a mere figment of human perception, and is more or less a disposable concept that’s merely functionally utilitarian for his band’s stellar musicianship (and his stellar poetry). Which means I of my own admission can indicate nothing beyond that. How easy it is to blow up the access to the transcendent in your own creation, when that was the only reason for creation. Nick Cave ascribes all meaning to the emotional experience of the music absent meaning, (a true sign of our times), when meaning and emotion are integrally related, emotion is elevated by imbued meaning, rational arrival at the emotion's true value. The emotion is endowed by the Word. Why create them only to abort their value (which additionally amounts to ultimately being about your own empowerment as an artiste at their expense)? Of course, the instant I castigate, I get a musical riposte of sorts from David Gahan using the same back-up singers, where the only elevating aspect of the song saving anything from the lyrical dive is due to the musical ascendance lifted by their choral voices. (I'm first to be remiss anyhow because it took me eight months to write the lyrical analysis to CARNAGE, as everything caught up with me first.)
This is a tap on the shoulder to remind that this is by definition not how the transcendent works. (The transcendent will never return if you preclude it returning, but as if that’s within your power of dispensation if it is really transcendent.) I exist to introduce you to a real time demonstration that the transcendent is really transcendent. The transcendent is in no way obliged to your perception that it isn’t worth belief. The divine idea exists within human perception as a transcendent concept. And I don’t mind a lifetime requisitioned to mapping this, or offered as demonstration.
(This has happened between Cave and myself not once but twice in two separate events, twenty-two years apart, with Jesus appearing as redemption close to simultaneously, as Nick Cave creatively recorded religious conversion the first time, with Nick quoting thoughts back to me I’d had when I set up what turned out to be my own apprehension of Jesus prior, thoughts that were known only to me. Cave attributed his redemption to a woman. I sought Nick out in an attempt to find out what was happening the first time ‘round, which granted me a not dissimilar conclusion about meaning, meaning I’m glad it wasn’t him. That was the basis with Cave, that it’s not him. -How could it be?)
The above is the predication of my belief (that and what will happen with it right now), these two events apprehending God in the same context with the same attributes and circumstances twice, with a true unbeliever, meaning one who believes in these concepts to the extent they exist within humanity/himself, not transcendent of humanity, a creative dispensation. (Flimsy at best, but at the same time extraordinary.) Beyond that, not even “my” one true believer believes. He has shown as much by making his belief utilitarian insofar as to subvert it to other uses. There is not one single belief held in common anywhere, but that is irrelevant to the implication either way (it either is or it isn’t), meaning it either makes the implication of a transcendent consciousness steeper in that it’s occurring irregardless of individual belief and is only apprehended perceptually, but paradoxically, has zero common belief. The closest we have come so far is a nebulous common belief in a transcendent “higher power”, which is loose at best, the point being, there is no common perception or belief that has appeared universally (this is part of the grand bet right now), and thereby transcends or eclipses the nature of sensory human perception, which means it may just be this extrasensory extraordinarily occurring connectivity of human perception, and if that’s the case, the atheist is perfectly free to perform as the Devil’s advocate and test negative arguments about it, because this is not in and of itself inherently “good”, given the nature of human nature. I’m glad he does. It helps keep me on the path, I hope. What I mean by that is that it demands you rethink what success in these realms is? The real question is, is it freeing?
In the end we are left with this common consciousness arising in the form of the beautiful ideal within the realm of our human perception, the highest idea. The point is not whether that perception proves God is real, but that it occurred within us collectively at all, which points to the transcendent. That it occurred within this cosmology makes its own point about the cosmology, in that it did not occur in any other. I think even your worst devil’s advocate atheist may come out agreeing with this in the end, but I agree with him, this occurring in and of itself is a gobsmacking discovery, it is the discovery, but it is right to examine it in terms of its existential nature and examine whether it’s a good thing. (I’ve been stuck on the question for nigh thirty years, so I am not going to reject debate.)
However, the fact that he and I examine this on the question of whether this is a good or a bad thing in terms of its fundamentals is examining it in the reflection of a Christian cosmology, not some other cosmology. And that is the tacit acceptance of human nature. Accepting the true nature of death is the holy pact that we will leave all of human existence behind in order to abolish evil forever, as we witness the planet burn. Here is the atheist’s conundrum, a paradox as good as any at war with itself in any believer, he is still responding in terms of the cosmology he does not accept and will never believe. Trent can differentiate himself from me as absolutely antithetical. (Good in the sense the potential collective is defined by individuation at the outset.) -I smile at the fact that the single largest plank driving his entire ethos is really nothing more or less than an atheist’s orientation of the concept of original sin, which hardly differs from my own. In any event, the presumed atheists who appear here are using these arch-types at their full utility, some as if they are believers themselves (Depeche Mode’s “Personal Jesus” a likely example), perhaps ultimately in the paradox we witness with Nick Cave. (Martin Gore was the fourth I wrote to December 2020, but I also forwarded it to Nick Cave.)
So, in acquiescence to the field of the debate, my answer to the perceived atheist within the perceived spectrum is a simple one. The atheist, whether he asks it or not, is requiring an adjudication by content. Let’s say the premise of an existing Higher Consciousness inspiring collectively is off the table. (Even though if there is One It has presented in a context that abides free will: -if God appears in all this, my personal personification is not going to be my problem, but it has framed itself as perfectly rejectable too, which conserves free will.) Let’s reduce the field of debate to, is the collectivism apparent in the existing music creator feedback loop positive of negative overall? (This is predicated on whether we ascertain an observable feedback loop.) The atheist makes an assertion about the content/context that is his own personal point of view. I possess the opposite point of view, the complete antithetical that willingly presumed the Higher Consciousness had appeared personally (and took it extremely personally). His assumption is as subject to the ensuing circumstance (my assertion of a musical feedback loop occurring irrespective of our individual consciousnesses and perceptions) as mine is. I predict that in the ensuing music feedback my perspective will resonate (or come back or be engaged by others) and his will not, because he is incorrect about the transcendent consciousness and its inherent nature and value(s), in that it is overwhelmingly positive, as well as overwhelmingly transcendent, attributes not possessed by his own personal point of view. At least, that is the gamble I have the nerve to take. And I am going to sit here and say, well, if I think this (or in your apprehension lose my mind to this delusion), you are still stuck with the conundrum of why this particular light storm happens if and when I do. (I for one am awfully hard to convince that there is a God.) And yes, everyone gets to sit back and judge the situation and decide, purely based on their own faculties of observation, just what is observable here? (Starting at, is this observable in terms of unique specificity and is it anomalous enough (and big enough) to prove observable to begin with?)
It’s not like I haven’t done this before. This is the same challenge I went through with “my” boy in black the first time, in 2000. He became an existential incident on the music feedback radar, just enough to show him he was there as himself, just as I predicted he would be. The ensuing music feedback did not center him beyond the interaction between us. It didn’t center his worldview, nor did his obliterate mine, though he’d given it his best shot at the time. Because I challenged and addressed him directly, it contextualized between the two but centered me, and that came back overwhelmingly positive. (If you have the audacity to gatecrash my playdate look out. You will get it described back to you as your gatecrash.) I’m expecting the same repeat on a scale of about 100 to one, except that there aren’t that many artists I can point to. What I mean is my grand bet is that the resonance will weigh on my side of the ledger by about 100 to one. (I’m going to go one better on the grand bet this time, and assert that the “gatecrash” in this instance this time ‘round won’t make reference.)
The predication of surrender to a higher power deals with the existential question of whether something transcendent occurring solely within a collective human perception has its origins in negative attributes or good, which is the confinement and existential nature of this particular debate. This is why you set your ideation on the highest human ideal humanity has ever conceived. (It deals with the question of evil inherent in human nature and the sum of human perception.) Even as a non-believer you can understand that the reason to do this is the lede of this paragraph. It’s a viable strategy to safely raise collective human consciousness. We can have our debate about whether attributing this spectrum dominance, if you will, to me, or rather a transcendent power is the more logical assumption after the fact, meaning if at this threshold it even manages to prove itself. -How’s that sound? I think thrown into relief after the fact it’s not going to seem all that plausible, but then I am offering myself up as subject for debate; -the debate the atheist has introduced, I am open to. (Of course I am, or I would not have started framing this to a behavioural psychologist who is by Christian standards an atheist before having any awareness of Trent's latest musical release. (Yes Dr. Peterson's position is as complex as this is, but he still is by Christian definition an atheist; -wait 'til you see the arguments on this question I'll engender about myself, as I cannot really offer more than his ideation of belief, which is to live and operate and respond on the pretext and understanding that there is a God.) You do realize our cardinal atheist, who should believe in the results of impartial observation if it lends itself here to the implication of a transcendent connective human consciousness absent any God, is the one who has more or less demanded adjudication by cosmological content? Called a reveal of the cards? We’re back at atheists “Waiting for God”, the cry for true transcendent justice to arrive on this earth.
Part of my gamble with the present is the hope that the artists who are aware of me (meaning Bono and William P. Corgan) as a person presently existent on this earth are going to appear on this particular inspirational bandwagon in spades right about now. (This hope is leavened by considerable water under the bridge. This is more like arriving despite not because, which is how I have hope in spite of the fact it could just as easily blow up in my face. Bono is, (among other things), deliberately non-specific to a fault, as in the covert bible verse name bombing is so stealth not even my God fearing mother believes it. Thanks for nothing for twenty-one years. The man knows how to apologise, but that is the extent of it. That I am here now absent evidence is its own answer.)
On the bright side, there has already been one announcement with this implied possibility (you’d need the backstory but WPC has decided, twenty years later, to sequel both albums I accosted him on in the first place), and after all, I am putting this forward in a public field because the third has already given me a measure of confidence with the February release corresponding to what I sent in December, meaning that by the looks of things we are already in accord about this appearing Identity. If and when they do, that will be part and parcel of the analysis. (Like I said, if and when they produce work I will operate in full disclosure of who received communications in the past and what they were.) The pre-self published book will demonstrate that I am making none of this up (though summer 2020’s transpiration has shown me I’m forced to rewrite and recalibrate the entire thing). By that I mean, if any of these artists I’ve communicated with directly in the past happen to play these inspirational cards now in relation to the personal revelations they’ve already received, (if and only if), the retrospective is already in place to demonstrate the entire past that led to this threshold.
There are two things to bear in mind with this, the artists already engaged with communication are at the same time both stronger and lesser points of proof of my premise, stronger because they wouldn’t be incorporating inspirationally unless they possessed some sense of adherence to the notion, lesser because, it was already revealed to them, and that makes the situation inherently non-objective with them, meaning, they are not deriving this inspirationally solely from the universal unconscious ether, and technically this is does not imply a transcendent consciousness operating inside the universal unconscious. But it does indicate they probably accepted my premise of a transcendent consciousness inspiring them individually already. (After all, one of them already explicitly believed this. I just went to ask him in person whether his apparent command from God might have had to do with me as a personal object; -this is the guy now stealth bombing my real name by stealth bombing biblical verses.)
The sum of encounters with them also mean that in terms of a potential collective obligation to the rest of the potentially involved artists, I have a track record of precedent in the past based on these encounters that shows me externalization is a positive act, even whether or not a singular attempt turns out to be futile (in terms of introducing the premise to the entire collective); -despite that, the action itself still indicates that externalizing in the interest of communication is a proactive and beneficial act to the collective because of the feedback that ensues with the collective. Even if they are unaware of why, the feedback on that action is broadly positive, and these individual efforts appear to have turned out positive individually. (All that is on record in the eBook, which fully documents the first collapse/rebirth cycle’s reflection in the universal feedback loop, as well as going up to the threshold of the second. My presupposition of the God identity is predicated on what happened in the first cycle.)
- Goal 1) is, to my mind, the requisite challenge that what we will nominally call “Big Tech” has set itself up for with the advent or present goal of global digital identification, ID2020 (“77,000 data points on every child”), and an online censorship regime opaquely conducted by algorithm that is not rationally driven. Our technological transcendence is a human goal arguably on the verge of totality. This exercise presents that our spiritual development is integral, and moreover has been so far ahead of technocracy on the nature and transcendence of human connection, it is already an existential fait accompli. This “gotcha” is in the sole interest of the integral and reciprocal development of the human collective along healthful lines and goals. Human transcendence is only ever arrived at through the human nature of existential sacrifice, altruism and universal love, cooperation and long frame thinking. These are the only mediating forces that will prevent the total commodification of humanity for economic harvest, along with the entire planet. This is not a competition; elimination is not in the cards. This is about integral development. The idea “we’re half asleep [morally] with nuclear bombs” has arguably even steeper ramifications with Big Tech, meaning our collective cognitive moral development needs to be even steeper to reckon with it, namely the behavioural psychology techniques applied to mass communication we’re implementing with AI/logarithms (-and that’s just the very start; -to say it’s not going well at this threshold is the understatement of the millennium).
"[M]ankind in some sense, just having a small glimmer of understanding about how it is progressing through the world I think is now almost completely eliminated, and not in the way that I expected, we actually have access to much more knowledge about how we work than we've ever had before, but it's being eliminated through the speed of informational processing and therefore the speed of the change of knowledge, and that's rapidly moving into artificial intelligence; -the algorithmic processing of knowledge is moving into artificial intelligence, and while artificial intelligence is just another kind of algorithm, I think the scale changes that have occurred in the last seven years are significant enough to classify it as a qualitative change. And that qualitative change means (in my view) a very serious threat to the stability of human civilizations (-not that they should be too stable), and the ability for human beings to organize their fate in an intelligent manner." -This is the first thing Assange had to say in the last broadcast from the Ecuadorian Embassy he was ever allowed to make. We are miles away from the thresholds we need to be, though in reality what I’m positing is, actually, quite a number of us are so ahead of the curve you’ll never catch us, and given your ramifications we’d have to be, so let’s let the genie out of the bottle in the collective interest.
Now granted for both Goal 1) and this ramification to reach public parity, that would mean this transpiring in a public field with public exposure. I’ve always wanted this to happen, but am still hesitant and am considering that private discourse may be the sole course this should and might take, as Goal 2) is a considered outcome. It is even a Biblically considered outcome. Maybe the current thresholds suffice. But if I have an obligation to the potential other artists to honour, then obviously a private exchange as per the individual this was framed and written for is insufficient for the matter at hand. Again, obviously, the course of action will be determined first and foremost by if and whether this inspirational feedback loop I have been observing for nearly thirty years now renders itself provable in a clinically observable manner at this present threshold, or not.
- Yes I’d like to publish a book out of it and I need to, but that is predicated on the former considerations. No one’s going to be interested in publishing a book unless this gets a pass by the standard of clinical psychology. Another way of saying it is that proving Goal 1) really exists has to be broadly positive (not just in potential collective sense but on the considered scale of humanity) for that to happen. That is not an easy question. It’s ambiguous even by Christianity’s standards.
Lastly, I will try and make this suitably entertaining as a narrative. I hope it’s some actual fun. Rest assured you are dealing with an individual with a sense of humour either way.
To make this successful from an evidentiary standpoint, I will be archiving every post concerning this so that they are time dated time capsules, which is the only way they can provide potentially supportable proof in real time. That is the only reason to do things online, above and apart from communication.
So, some caveats and preambles:
I have only performed this with one person successfully a little over twenty years ago, meaning there was only one time I attempted to turn the inspirational universal feedback loop into a proof exercise, and I was compelled by the apparent dichotomy of my object (he appeared to be having a personal existential crisis because he found the question of God’s existence indeterminate), as well as a set of personal circumstances that made it too excruciating not to try. I did it because he was so integrally involved it either existed at that nexus, or it never existed at all. (The eBook records that too, and he’s songwriting about what transpired in the book with that encounter eighteen years later.) So we are dealing with a once in twenty year opportunity I’m running late on, because what I’m going to relate is, “What happened to me last summer”, as in two summers ago. Basically this will be an online, hopefully digestible distillation of an 160+ page letter I sent to the fourth artist I’ve ever tried to present this whole situation to last December, meaning the four I’ve ever addressed in person using the printed word. (There was one more. If that comes up (and I expect he will), I’ll be obliged disclose it in the interest of full disclosure, which is a shame, actually, as in retrospect I shouldn’t have been wasting purely objective contexts on a whim, but it was a small independent publishing house helmed by a musician.) I don’t know whether he read my communication or not, and will only know if he incorporates the content sufficiently artistically in the future. We are dealing with a situation where he has yet to produce anything post encounter. So potentially that is the circumstance with two artists not just one.
So, how would you isolate Goal 1) (the only goal I care about) in a manner that might prove acceptable to the field of clinical psychology?
Try this on for size. I call it intercepting the universal feedback loop:
If you are able to convey an interior spiritual experience that you expect to have universal ramifications ahead of time explicitly enough to provide sufficient unique detail, and that correlates in the subsequent songwriting across a spectrum of songwriting artists, enough to subsequently reference unique points of the narrative comprehensively, then what is in fact happening?
That is my question. For me is has been an existential question since the beginning of 1993. I have put a lot of conditions on that question in the past. The first is evolution over the course of time through collapses and rebirth and whether that corresponds accurately, and whether the archetypal symbolism persists, meaning the arch-types happen to follow pre-existent active dynamics that happened specifically, and this happens with enough specificity to adequately ground the arch-types. (It’s done so for twenty-eight years through three differentiated collapses/rebirths. This is the third rebirth.)
The test of relational correspondence over time cannot readily occur in a snapshot, so in the moment, what fundamentally happens is that the existing circumstance as expressed is tested via whether a complete synergy between arch-types in combination with comprehensive environmental, personal and circumstantial specificity will “just happen” between the interior narrative and a broad array of songs subsequently produced by an array of musicians. An archived, dated narrative will supply the necessary specificity. Bear in mind for the premise to operate, I don’t have to disclose to you whether this was an interior mental experience or creative fiction. Unless the premise demonstrates itself to be provable its origination is not relevant. Also, given the time lapse in the production of creative output coming out comprehensively, this actually took four years to demonstrate the first time I tried to make it a public experiment.
(There is an inevitable time lapse from creation to production to release; due to the Covid shutdown hampering group studio session recording and touring/public performance the delay is exceptional at present. For example, Damon Albarn’s pending November release was begun at the start of the Covid shutdown, and Coldplay’s “Higher Power” was written January 2020 for the Music of the Spheres release this October. The delays mess with overall timing in a way that has never happened before, which means that a much larger (time) frame of reference is being produced than normally would, and this will reach back to the state of personal loss and devastation that was resonating through the collective awareness before the last rebirth. These two examples happen to fall into this assumption, which is not the same as asserting I’m right about them.)
Given the number of artists I list below where this has the potentiality of occurring with (based on the last twenty-eight years of it occurring), this should not come as a surprise. Twenty one years ago when I performed this exercise for one individual (Corgan) I was able to reference about a dozen different albums (and there were more I didn’t cite) by the time I left off (that seems pretty conclusive), some albums almost entire. That naturally can take a while to happen. (It may or it may not.) It is the comprehensive nature of the universal unconscious inspirational feedback that demonstrates, when grounded in specificity.
As for arch types, I’ll give you some, as in a try. Bear in mind though that the symbology attached to the arch-types is often exclusive in the sense that it is created in real time over time, meaning the list is by and large self referential to what has already occurred in the lyrical feedback and in the main created by what the artists have done inspirationally over time, and therefore changes in time, meaning there are an array of specific symbols that arise and fade in and out of usage and are applicable to certain points in time, with new ones getting created over time, and no way to know what will come into expression for the first time (or on the other hand disappear, or what will resurface). Ones that are self referential in the collective sense to prior creative output may come up; -in that case the eBook can be used to reference them. And yes, I have given these arch-types or arch-typical attributes specific characteristics, (as in specificity), below. That is the point of the exercise (I hope).
Male arch-type: Sun/Son/Lion, bright appearance (blond, blue eyes); there are a lot of terms (anyone who has problems with that one hasn’t registered the contest between King David vs. Michal)
Female: Moon (One, two, three, four, also red moon, (Smashing Pumpkins at 0:42, Jack White)), Star (-Also here: -when in tarnation does a personified “Polaris” appear to “start the inspection of the line”-? This does exactly that by listing them.) Eclipse (U2, Bowie), Rose/Pearl/Mercury (astrologically based-Gemini), Rain/snow (as opposed to Sun), dark appearance (pale with dark hair (1:24), brown eyes), “Lamb” might be new, (name based), the colour blue, white appearance or white robe (black and white stripes have also been a thing). Past terms include Porcelain, Lemon, Sister, Salome (dancer) -one, two at 3:03, three (the video is deliberately playing off the play by Oscar Wilde by inverting it)); -there can be unusual combos on the above symbolism.
Dual: Lotus (lotus/moon combination) Tree of Life (might as well bring up the bee/honey analogy while we’re at it), King/Queen, Groom/Bride->Church->collective consciousness, marriage (I’d like to point out that partners are meritocratic selection, as opposed to progeny/genetic inheritance being an heredity based hierarchy pattern), star, the colour blue (here), white robe, Orpheus and Eurydice (this was penned by Salman Rushdie in conjunction with his book, which was a rock riff on the myth), dancing, the garden, consummation.
Universal: the universal unconscious and the connectivity therein are represented by either the sea or the river, more often the sea. This is manifold (and graphic; -you get mermaid symbolism because inspiration as object is in the feminine, arising from the universal unconscious sea (same goes for dolphins, as well as vessels from rowboats to galleons); -I can list a lot of these. There is also a cosmological analogy where all the participants are stars, and this is a broader human universal. There is also an understanding in conjunction with this of existing as eternal spirits/souls. Birds, as in songbirds, usually represent songwriters’ inspiration or songwriters themselves. There’s a train (as in gospel train). There is also a city. We’re also pissed enough with the planet and humanity’s sacrifice on the altar of the malign “amoral” inverted “growth” economy to bandy about announcing it's Armageddon or the end of the world. We’re done: “All the money junkies are running out of veins, If you are one of them yourself you've got no one else to blame” - “Eden (To Find Love)”.
And we’re announcing it’s the rapture. (Let’s just make the biggest grand mal bet with future lyrics I can possibly make; -if I’m right, then y’all can maybe begin to digest what that means.) In the past it’s recurred lyrically here, here, and here; (-if the song is “Waiting for the Rapture”, then logically the lyric is “to save me for the rapture” (you can hear it), not “from”, especially if that’s not the only time he’s referenced it). If you understand the nature of the term, expect more of this (in the mono). Now you know why he got a letter twenty seven years later. Because this time around there will be more than just him, and I have already invited him to fire walk with me, as an observer, for the very first time. The Rapture is really the raising of human collective consciousness.
The presentiment there is a book has also come up a number of times. (One, two, three (at 4:18), four, and U2’s makes five.)
I am going to give you a list of artists who I’ve considered historically linking over time, some much longer or much shorter or more erratically than others; -some are stream of consciousness. There are presumably more than I am presently aware of (-sure the next generation(s) will kick my ass):
U2, The Smashing Pumpkins/William Patrick Corgan, Nick Cave (& the Bad Seeds), Depeche Mode/Martin Gore, R.E.M. (which currently means Michael Stipe), Radiohead/Thom Yorke/Atoms for Peace/The Smile, Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Stone Roses/Ian Brown, Love & Rockets/Daniel Ash, Bjork, The Cult/Ian Astbury, P. J. Harvey, Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor, The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Charlatans/Tim Burgess, Coldplay, Florence & the Machine, Arcade Fire, Jane Siberry, Tori Amos, Underworld, The Waterboys/Mike Scott, Coldplay, Oasis/Noel Gallagher/Liam, Blur/Damon Albarn/Gorillaz, Terence Trent D’Arby/Sananda Maitreya, The Arctic Monkeys, Suede/The London Suede and The Raconteurs/Jack White. Past artists were David Bowie, Soundgarden/Chris Cornell, Poe, Tom Petty, World Party/Karl Wallinger, Semisonic, Live, Sloan, Collective Soul, Spacehog, The Black Crowes and The Tea Party. Artists regularly appear incidentally who I do not know about. Sometimes it’s a matter of one song, or one interesting incidence album. For example Sting (he did this once before when it was absolutely key; -this is how he’s now doing the river now, so wow, look out), Pearl Jam, Beck, Regina Spektor, The Rolling Stones/Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney and Madonna have been in that category, but there are many more. The passage of all of these has been recorded in the book, many over multiple albums, (some over their whole catalogue), with the requisite explanations over time as they developed, time dating depending (the book ends in 2007, a rare few are post book - Richard Ashcroft got Jesus, which is not the same as going on the list, but definitely gets him this honourable mention).
In the lead are the four big fish. By those I mean some manner of consistent potentially connecting correspondence in the three (plus) decade range, a couple arguably even with every album release in that span. (Cave’s by contrast was sparse, but when he hits, he hits big.) All four have received or been sent written communication (and actually I did try to email Michael Stipe about the book; I don’t think he got it but he penned this anyhow). Three out of the four appear to have reacted by assimilating what they received into their (then future) artistic output in a serious way, which distinguishes them as ones to watch now, though Nick Cave’s is already a recently past tense precedent, which prompted me to do this. As mentioned, the fourth only got a missive December 2020. The first three received letters twenty one years ago, with WPC’s paper communications continuing up to 2005. Of those three, Nick Cave received new communication starting October 2019. Bono received new communication in June 2011, which was to give him the first draft of the book to where it was written by then. He then song wrote about reading a book.
William Patrick Corgan is the only individual I engaged in the exercise of proving the existence of a transcendent universal consciousness by demonstrating the existence of an inspirational feedback loop within musical creative output, using a number of albums. I did this because of the album Machina/machines of God. Specifically via written communications I cited R.E.M’s Reveal, Red Hot Chili Peppers’ By the Way, Radiohead’s Hail to the Thief, Daniel Ash’s self titled solo album, Depeche Mode’s “Dream On” video, David Bowie’s Heathen and Reality, Sting’s Sacred Love, Starsailor’s “Music Was Saved”, and U2’s How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, with a couple song citations from Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds’ Abattoir Blues/The Lyre of Oprheus. But there was also The Cult’s Beyond Good and Evil, Depeche Mode’s Exciter, Bjork’s Vespertine and P.J. Harvey’s Uh Huh Her. And then to mark the end conclusion there was Tori Amos’s The BeeKeeper, also a writ delivered in person.
My first entry for the narrative exposure of this public experiment is “Valentine’s Day”, a short introduction.
The main entry is “The Revolution is My Boyfriend”. These entries are all archived as web pages to prove they were written prior.
The rest of the entries will be expositions of future musical releases and how they inexplicably link into this particular content.
The first will be Coldplay’s Music of the Spheres. I want to thank them for giving me a reason to intercept the existent musical feedback loop with an actual deadline. That said, I didn’t include Coldplay on this list until I learned about their pending release. This is because Coldplay’s lyrics are so broadly generalized I’ve hardly referenced them historically, as there has been almost zero specificity. “Higher Power” adequately makes my point in terms of the higher power having a specific identity in my own head, which means the berth between the inspiration that is the song and the event I’m thinking it references is worlds apart, enough that I really can’t assert anything about it. Nonetheless, I’m giving it a go. We’ll see if I’m right or not about the revolution.
The deadline is NOW. As in today and not a day longer. Tik Tok.