Ens not End
The Real Certainty
In First Space, a universe defined with only billions of
galaxies is small and cozy. A star for every grain of
sand on the seashore* - Abraham knew that and he
didn't have a telescope. Abraham was never awed by
this information like a modern astronomer. Abraham
was awed by the Creator not the creation.
Reality (the Universe) has an infinite number of
Spaces. Existence dominates Nonexistence. Each
eternal sequence is a point on another eternal
The Void did not make room for Existence;
Existence made room for the Void;
God always was and always will be.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God....(John 1: 1)
* "...as the stars of heaven and as the sand on the seashore."
(Genesis 22: 17)
Initial Mass Displacements - 4-page PDF
The Lost - 23-page PDF
California Mayor Letter on the Lost - 6-page PDF
The hypothesis of "Solar System evolution" (i.e., formation by
random events) is in dispute with Reality. Random events do not
dominate the Universe.
Point of Logic: In order for an event to be truly random, the event
needs to be Sub-Natural (i.e., an event of Chaos). Once the
Sub-Natural event has entered the Natural Template, it becomes
confined and directed; it loses the true randomness of Chaos.
Therefore, there can be no Natural theory of evolution - only a
Sub-Natural theory of evolution. Thus: "from the realms of
pretense into the world of reality," the best lie is the subtlest lie.
The Natural Template is not a random event. The Polarized,
First-Space template was designed to use both Sub-Natural and
Supernatural events. In the Initial Mass Displacements, random
events are useful as a ground for exercising Free Will. Each
individual is responsible for separating their Closed System of
analysis from the Reality of their existence. Those individuals that
insist on attaching themselves to their Closed System of analysis
will fall with that analysis when the template breaks.
Although entropy is the primary characteristic of a Closed
System, any increased randomness in a Closed System is
irrelevant to the Open System. The Initial Mass Displacements
are not random events. Also, in each Mass Displacement, the
increase in complexity and diversity is not a random event.
PLEASE NOTE AGAIN:
The Pluto/Neptune anomaly of the Titius-Bode progression is
predicted in the Initial Mass Displacements. The anomaly is not a
The planet definitions and planet formation theories of random
events are based on a Closed System of analysis. In polarized
First Space, such definitions and theories are not simply wrong
ideas - they are irrelevant ideas. However, these ideas have
become polished idols to the educated elite and are used as
references in any discussion of the Solar System. Thus, the
weaning process from a Closed System to the Open System is
slow and difficult. It requires courage to leave the familiar comfort
of a Closed System for the reality of the Open System.
Therefore, the Objective Uncertainty in the math sequence is the
How long can you maintain Objective Uncertainty before you fall
back to an illusion of certainty? Indeed, are you able to take just a
moment away from your illusion of certainty?
(A moment of Objective Uncertainty to explore the Universe:
a child's moment - Matthew 18:1-14.)
Ironically, it is the agnostic that finds this task to be most difficult.
The agnostic will not admit to having any certainties. Agnostics
have trained themselves in the timid use of doubt to avoid conflict.
Thus, they can "doubt" the process of doubt without exploring the
logic of their position. The agnostics are neither hot nor cold. They
are lukewarm. I prefer to work with atheists. They will, at least,
fight for their belief. A moment of Objective Uncertainty for an
atheist is their moment of opportunity to find the Truth.
To anyone restricted to a Closed System of analysis, the familiar
Solar System names (Ceres, Pluto, and names of planets, etc.)
are useful in identifying areas of Mass Displacement. Such
familiar names do not immediately disrupt an illusion of certainty.
However, such familiar names are of no practical use in the Open
System. It is not objectivity that restricts an individual to a Closed
System. It is fear and pride; and the resultant misplaced need for
Although Ptolemy thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, he
also concluded the Earth should be treated as a mathematical
point in the Universe. Now, since a mathematical point is infinitely
smaller than a "pale blue dot," do we conclude that Ptolemy must
be humbler and wiser than modern astronomers? Well, maybe
I'm being nasty and objective, when I should be misty-eyed and
subjective. I might be a candidate for sensitivity training.
Unlike "pale-blue-dot" astronomers, I don't try to feel the pain of
the robbed (nor do I try to feel the pleasure of the robbers). To
pretend to know the pain of others is to belittle the pain of others.
From a comfortable armchair or a speaker's podium, all human
trials (pains, pleasures, joys, loves, etc.) can only be reduced to a
"pale blue dot" by exceptional pride - not insightful thinking.
Trying to synthesize people with their planet is called Pantheism -
Reality demands a separation between people and their planets:
people should be cherished and planets should be used. People
that cherish planets tend to use people. Once a planet has
served its function as a playpen or cradle for a developing people
- it's dumped. Those individuals that have cherished the planet
rather than the people will remain attached to the dumped planet.
The "pale-blue-dot" astronomers are wrong when they insist that
there is no hint of help in the Universe. Some of them are now
30 E. 33rd Ave, #50355
Eugene, Oregon 97405
U. S. A.