1. The Unified Intention of Symbol
To understand how the
difference in formulas works, and to understand how the formulas
require some external check or grounding, let us return to the
plasma cosmology and the observations of physicist Anthony Peratt
and the ancient petroglyphs.
While Peratt’s
interpretations of petroglyphs as symbols of plasma stabilities and
instabilities are compelling, and give new weight to the plasma
cosmology from the paleographical context, there is a significant
problematic, which presents itself in two fundamental ways: (1) a
cosmological and physics component, and (2) a textual
component.
The cosmological and
physics component may best be examined by noting one implication of
the “catastrophist” interpretation of plasma cosmology, for during
the age of the “interplanetary discharges,” a very different
picture of celestial mechanics would have been necessitated:
According to Talbott, what the ancients worshipped and feared as powerful gods were planets positioned extremely close to the Earth. This close congregation of planets appeared as huge powers in the sky. Their instabilities and unpredictable movements gave rise to one of the most common themes of myth - the wars of the gods. In these dramatic stories, the gods pounded each other with cosmic lightning while fire and stone descended on Earth.140
This is as succinct a
statement of both aspects of the problematic as one could wish
for.
In it, one encounters
the familiar catastrophist theme of the interpretation of the names
of gods as metaphors for planets. But note the implication of this
interpretation for the rest of the textual evidence of ancient
mythologies, for the metaphor “bleeds into” that of the “wars of
the gods,” a common theme in ancient myths. As I noted in my book
The Giza Death Star Destroyed, this
would be a plausible interpretation were it not for the fact that
many of these same mythological cultures then continue the “story”
by having these gods marry and sire, or mother, children.141 This too, as I
noted there, would be capable of a plausible catastrophist
interpretation were it not for the fact that these children,
through similar marriages, eventually become the ancestors to very
real, very human, flesh and blood ancient kings. In other words,
the metaphor was “mixed” in the very worst fashion, reminiscent of
the most hackneyed and clumsy schoolboy compositional exercise. So
much, for the moment, for the “textual” component of the
problematic.
What is of great
significance is the cosmological component alluded to, for as is
clear, in the standard electro-dynamic plasma cosmology view of
these “wars”, the planets were once, in the very distant past, much
closer to each other and therefore much more electrically active
and unstable. And this highlights the difficulty, for if this were
the case, then what mechanism would have led from this initial
chaotic condition to the condition of the relatively stable
celestial mechanics in evidence now? More importantly, what process
of extrapolation, from the observable existing “stability” of the
local celestial system backwards to the paleoancient chaotic one,
could have led the myth makers to such an exact and apparently
accurate description of these ancient events? Talbott and Thornhill
state this problem in the following way:
How stable was the solar system in the past? In the pioneering work of Hannes Alfvén and his successors, orbital instability is a virtual certainty in the long-term evolution of an electrical model. In the birth of stellar and planetary systems, the electric force will typically dominate. But as the system dissipates electrical energy, it will reach a transitional phase at which a shift toward gravitational supremacy will occur, with potentially violent consequences. A chaotic system will then move toward stable electrical and gravitational equilibrium. Once planets achieve predictable orbits, no computer simulation based on later motions of the planets can provide even a clue as to the earlier system or its disruption.142
In answer to this
problem, we are left with two choices: (1) either the celestial
science of the ancients was considerably more advanced than we
realize, such that it possessed such a theoretical model that
allowed such extrapolations to be made, a thesis that, if true,
would make their science much more advanced than our own;
or (2) human myth-makers were telling
stories that they had received, and
ultimately the events that the myths described were therefore
observed by intelligent entities
(and/or mankind) and passed down to subsequent
humanity.
This last possibility
raises two further, and equally important, and equally problematic
questions. Either the events were (1) observed by humans, or (2) were observed by non-human intelligent life (either in conjunction
with human observers, or not) and then subsequently communicated to
man. The first is problematical for the simple reason that it
implies an antiquity and cultural
sophistication for humanity quite at variance with standard
academic theory of the biological and cultural evolution of
mankind, since the events described would be on the order of
millions if not billions of years old. The second is problematic
for a similar reason, and additionally so, for it implies an
“interventionist” origin for human culture, and perhaps for
humanity itself. But additionally, it is problematic for the simple
reason that this interventionist view is what
most of the ancient myths themselves state!
The two components of
this problematic - the cosmology-physics and the (con)textual - are
not unrelated nor even loosely so, for lacking a plausible
physical model of celestial mechanics
that could bridge the gap between the paleoancient “chaos” to the
present “order”,143 the texts and
mythical traditions themselves indicate the answer to this question
in no uncertain terms, for a real war
would be able to do just that.
But that, of course,
implies real people to fight the war, and real weapons of truly
cosmic proportions, to fight it with.
To appreciate the
significance of the war scenario, one may refer to the
chronological questions it both resolves and the new chronological
questions it raises. On the one hand, if one takes the “war”
scenario seriously, then there is no need to assume the “cosmic
catastrophes” that the myths describe as having to do with the
initial chaotic conditions of the entire universe. In other words,
there is no need to push the events back into the remotest past of
billions of years ago, during the electrically stormy period of the
universe’s initial formation. Indeed, the “chaotic” conditions it
describes need not indicate anything at all about the “normative
celestial mechanics” of the period in which the events described
occur, since such chaotic conditions could be imposed upon the otherwise normal and regular celestial
mechanics of any local solar system by a society possessed of a
sufficiently advanced physics to do so, and a technology capable of
weaponizing that physics. Such physics, if it existed at
all, could be imposed on any regularly ordered celestial system,
including our own, thus making it appear for the moment to be
chaotic. We may therefore not be dealing with events that
transpired some billions of years ago, but with events that
occurred “mere” millions of years ago.
Once this highly
speculative concept is entertained, it opens the door to a
resolution of other chronological issues, for it allows the war to
have occurred at any stage that such a society might have emerged.
In short, and barring the consideration of other types of evidence
for the moment, the door is open for the cosmic cataclysm to occur
anywhere from millions, to mere thousands, of years ago. And as has
already been seen from the evidence presented in this chapter,
there are two loci around which a chronological resolution must be
orbited: on the one hand, it must account for the existing
planetary data of such a catastrophe, from the asteroid belt as
remnants of a missing exploded planet in our solar system, to the
electrical discharge scarring on the various moons and planets -
most notably Mars - in our solar system. The evidence, in other
words, precludes that catastrophist
interpretation which would see the myths as describing the chaotic
conditions at the origins of the solar system. The evidence
necessitates a much later dating, for once one adds intelligent
observers into the mix to observe and record these events, one
perforce cannot be dealing with the primordial conditions of the
solar system. As will be seen eventually, the petroglyphic
evidence compiled by Peratt, and the textual evidence of the myths
themselves, fix another terminus a few thousands or tens of
thousands of years ago.
When these thoughts
are seriously entertained, they lead to an almost inexorably
inescapable conclusion: if one must take such texts and cultural
traditions seriously when it comes to planetary cataclysm, as the
catastrophists consistently maintain, then perhaps it is time to
take the same texts and traditions equally seriously and
consistently when they talk of the wars that caused the
catastrophes in the first place, and when they refer to the
motivations and consequences for those wars.
a. Further Considerations of The Unified Intention of Symbol
This raises the
question of what is meant by “the unified intention of symbol.”
Basically, I mean this terminology to indicate that the
multi-leveled nature at which mythological symbols operate were
originally chosen and intended to operate in
such a fashion by the creators of those myths. The phrase
means, then, the exact opposite of what one encounters in Alan
Alford’s work. Where Alford would have us reduce and identify several symbolic motifs and
implied layers of meaning to one layer of meaning - that of the
exploded planet - the ancients employed individual symbols or
motifs in constellations and arrangements designed to unfold into several layers of meaning.
In this respect it
would be useful to review what I wrote concerning this very same
subject in The Giza Death Star
Destroyed.
What are we to make of all this textual ambiguity that permits of so many different, well-argued interpretations? One could maintain that each hypothesis remains open until more evidence is known, until such time as a determination may be made between them. However, it is my belief that this interpretive ambiguity is intentional and original to the case, the deliberate contrivance of some paleoancient “elite” to preserve knowledge. That is to say, it would appear that the gods’ names, lengths of reigns, genealogies and bloodlines, the record of an interplanetary war and resulting recurrent catastrophism, and paleophysical astronomical and quantum and sub-quantum-mechanical “secrets” were all deliberately combined in a densely packed, multi-leveled symbolism designed to convey accurate knowledge of all of these things simultaneously. These densely packed symbols are a device to preserve simultaneously the bloodline records, the interplanetary war and the origins of the current structure of the solar system, the necessary astronomical, physical, mathematical knowledge (and, by implication, the technology) by initiates into the Egyptian mysteries who doubtless did not know the full significance of their own religious esoteric tradition. That the texts intentionally combine all the religious, cosmological and quantum mechanical data along with dynastic wars is itself a corroboration of the type of unified physics I believe the Great Pyramid itself attests to. That ambiguity results from their interpretation should come as no surprise.144I call this resulting, and intentional ambiguity the ‘Unified Intention of Symbol,’ since one of its implications is that the contradiction between the interpretation of real war and that of naturally recurring catastrophe is only an apparent contradiction.” 145
b. The Emergence of the Unified Intention of Symbol from the Analogical Method
One may easily see
how this unified intentionality of the complex and interrelated
layers of mythological symbolism might have arisen from the
analogical habit of thinking of ancient cultures itself. Indeed, if
that habit of thinking in turn arose out of the sophisticated
physics of its paleoancient precursor Very High Civilization, then
it is also relatively easy to see why the spiritual and physics
components of those myths were blended almost from the
start.