Telling the future has been big business throughout history. The Greeks had the Oracle at Delphi, a mysterious woman who would tell the future accurately, except that the understandings or desires of the supplicants often got in the way - a very Greek way of understanding the Fates, those weavers of spider-like webs they viewed with dread. For dread was life, all doomed to become shades in the afterlife, slowly loosing the last of soul vitality in a morbid gray-zone before they disappeared altogether. It was no wonder that the Gospel was named as it was, "Good News," for it promised eternal life, and with that, meaning in life and actions beyond the whim of the fates. In the new religion, there was free will that could be modified by belief and prayer - and when that failed, it still made sense under the heading of suffering, as Jesus had done, to gain access to Heaven.
Eventually, fortune telling among Christians got a bad name, as the Fates began to be viewed as deceitful demons. Still, it persisted well into the Christian era, Queen Elizabeth herself often consulting with John Dee, a noted scholar, religious figure and alchemist. Oddly, for a complex of reasons that are still not well understood (at least by me), it was during this time, which coincided with the Reformation, that witches began to be burned, and anything to do with the occult was labeled "demonic." The fear was genuine, far exceeding the glib feminist theories about demoting women's influence and power, and fortune telling as a respectable art disappeared. It was not until the 19th century, when religion was being overshadowed by science, that fortune telling again became publicly popular -even as it was ridiculed by the scientists themselves. The need to know, to peer into the future was simply too strong a desire. We have choices, but we cannot foresee every possibility. Half our choices are usually met with the cold water of hindsight - damn, Pet Rocks went bust! Damn, I should have invested in Amazon and not Borders!
Yes, I want to know the future, too, and it was for that reason that I bought Joseph McMoneagle's book, "The Ultimate Time Machine." I have talked of him before in the blog - he is the greatest of the 'remote viewers' who worked for US intelligence in the fabled Star Gate project, his paranormal accomplishments verified by every scientific test available. His powers are irrefutable. Surely he can give us an accurate view of what is to come!
The first half of the book was interesting enough, as he talked about time and our misunderstanding of it in fairly ordinary (not theoretical physics) terms, but his "prophesies" leave quite a bit to be desired. He himself states that he has tested wrong about one third the time, still pretty good, and that the future itself is plastic, not set - and that even a forecast for the future, unlike with the Greeks, can change that future. And so we see a little manipulation of his visions, as if he is tweaking our expectations towards his desired future (which he admits he might do from the beginning). His predictions were made in the mid-1990's, putting us at a date now where we can test many of his predictions. While some are right - he got the second Iraq war, although not the most obvious reason, 9/11 - and the near collapse of the world economic system in 2008 - some of his predictions about schools and government seem like empty wishful thinking. He also nailed a few technological innovations - such as GPS in most cars - and perhaps got other ones correct that are still being held secret. In time we will know.
Longer-term future events include a continuing explosion of population, not a leveling off as most now predict, and vast food shortages by the late 2030's. Many species will go extinct. For whatever reasons (he does not mention any), the seas will rise with increases in temperature, and many coastal cities will have to be partially abandoned. However - and this is the greatest concern to this blog - he does not foresee any quantum leaps in consciousness or any major disasters, such that might set technical progress back by hundreds or thousands of years. Even though we will have bases on the moon and on Mars by the end of this century (later than I thought), we will still be the same old human community, fighting, arguing, struggling, watching TV and dreaming of love and success. In the next hundred years, in other words, things will change but largely remain, in terms of consciousness, the same. [I have to add that we will find evidence of former intelligent life on Mars in this century, and will be contacted by aliens from a different space/time. This, apparently, will not dramatically alter our trajectory]
His last chapter speculates about the year 3,000, which we understand to be a distant future where we will have had a fundamental change for the better. But for now, and at least the next 100 years, it will be wars, innovations and hardships dealt with in a recognizable manner. We will not perish, but we will not really evolve, either. This may well be true, and it certainly is the easiest route to take. McMoneagle makes the point that our ancestors from a thousand years ago are still recognizable, and that is true. But they are also unrecognizable - burning witches, for instance, or placing sour milk on a doorstep to make someone fall in love. On the other hand, many in the world still believe in such things. Is he not then right?
I cannot tell the future, but it seems to me that things are moving far faster than at any other time in known history. Those from even 300 years ago - let us stay with Western Europe and its colonies - are in many ways startlingly different, and the world that they and we have made is even more stunningly so. 300 years ago, buffalo roamed where this house stood; the Salem trials were less than two decades old; travel was by sail or horse or foot; 2/3rds of children died before adulthood; slavery had been re-introduced; women were legally chattel, although no common citizen had the vote; and the existence God was assumed by everyone. Forget about electronics.
But were we fundamentally different? The next hundred years will see more changes as far as environment and technology goes, or so it appears now, than the last one thousand years. Even if our consciousness changes only as much as it has since 1,000 years ago, if will happen in a much shorter time. Might not this be called a major change?
Still, the question remains: will it be a fundamental change, where reality is perceived and dealt with in a new manner, or will it be a change of a thousand cuts, startling at first glance, but only superficial? Intellectually, I have to agree with McMoneagle that this is the most probable; but my gut agrees with the prophets of consciousness change. Perhaps, like McMoneagle, my vision of the future - perhaps most of our visions of the future - are so colored by hopes and fears that we cannot understand the clear truth that the Oracle, McMoneagle or someone else, is laying before us. FK
Eventually, fortune telling among Christians got a bad name, as the Fates began to be viewed as deceitful demons. Still, it persisted well into the Christian era, Queen Elizabeth herself often consulting with John Dee, a noted scholar, religious figure and alchemist. Oddly, for a complex of reasons that are still not well understood (at least by me), it was during this time, which coincided with the Reformation, that witches began to be burned, and anything to do with the occult was labeled "demonic." The fear was genuine, far exceeding the glib feminist theories about demoting women's influence and power, and fortune telling as a respectable art disappeared. It was not until the 19th century, when religion was being overshadowed by science, that fortune telling again became publicly popular -even as it was ridiculed by the scientists themselves. The need to know, to peer into the future was simply too strong a desire. We have choices, but we cannot foresee every possibility. Half our choices are usually met with the cold water of hindsight - damn, Pet Rocks went bust! Damn, I should have invested in Amazon and not Borders!
Yes, I want to know the future, too, and it was for that reason that I bought Joseph McMoneagle's book, "The Ultimate Time Machine." I have talked of him before in the blog - he is the greatest of the 'remote viewers' who worked for US intelligence in the fabled Star Gate project, his paranormal accomplishments verified by every scientific test available. His powers are irrefutable. Surely he can give us an accurate view of what is to come!
The first half of the book was interesting enough, as he talked about time and our misunderstanding of it in fairly ordinary (not theoretical physics) terms, but his "prophesies" leave quite a bit to be desired. He himself states that he has tested wrong about one third the time, still pretty good, and that the future itself is plastic, not set - and that even a forecast for the future, unlike with the Greeks, can change that future. And so we see a little manipulation of his visions, as if he is tweaking our expectations towards his desired future (which he admits he might do from the beginning). His predictions were made in the mid-1990's, putting us at a date now where we can test many of his predictions. While some are right - he got the second Iraq war, although not the most obvious reason, 9/11 - and the near collapse of the world economic system in 2008 - some of his predictions about schools and government seem like empty wishful thinking. He also nailed a few technological innovations - such as GPS in most cars - and perhaps got other ones correct that are still being held secret. In time we will know.
Longer-term future events include a continuing explosion of population, not a leveling off as most now predict, and vast food shortages by the late 2030's. Many species will go extinct. For whatever reasons (he does not mention any), the seas will rise with increases in temperature, and many coastal cities will have to be partially abandoned. However - and this is the greatest concern to this blog - he does not foresee any quantum leaps in consciousness or any major disasters, such that might set technical progress back by hundreds or thousands of years. Even though we will have bases on the moon and on Mars by the end of this century (later than I thought), we will still be the same old human community, fighting, arguing, struggling, watching TV and dreaming of love and success. In the next hundred years, in other words, things will change but largely remain, in terms of consciousness, the same. [I have to add that we will find evidence of former intelligent life on Mars in this century, and will be contacted by aliens from a different space/time. This, apparently, will not dramatically alter our trajectory]
His last chapter speculates about the year 3,000, which we understand to be a distant future where we will have had a fundamental change for the better. But for now, and at least the next 100 years, it will be wars, innovations and hardships dealt with in a recognizable manner. We will not perish, but we will not really evolve, either. This may well be true, and it certainly is the easiest route to take. McMoneagle makes the point that our ancestors from a thousand years ago are still recognizable, and that is true. But they are also unrecognizable - burning witches, for instance, or placing sour milk on a doorstep to make someone fall in love. On the other hand, many in the world still believe in such things. Is he not then right?
I cannot tell the future, but it seems to me that things are moving far faster than at any other time in known history. Those from even 300 years ago - let us stay with Western Europe and its colonies - are in many ways startlingly different, and the world that they and we have made is even more stunningly so. 300 years ago, buffalo roamed where this house stood; the Salem trials were less than two decades old; travel was by sail or horse or foot; 2/3rds of children died before adulthood; slavery had been re-introduced; women were legally chattel, although no common citizen had the vote; and the existence God was assumed by everyone. Forget about electronics.
But were we fundamentally different? The next hundred years will see more changes as far as environment and technology goes, or so it appears now, than the last one thousand years. Even if our consciousness changes only as much as it has since 1,000 years ago, if will happen in a much shorter time. Might not this be called a major change?
Still, the question remains: will it be a fundamental change, where reality is perceived and dealt with in a new manner, or will it be a change of a thousand cuts, startling at first glance, but only superficial? Intellectually, I have to agree with McMoneagle that this is the most probable; but my gut agrees with the prophets of consciousness change. Perhaps, like McMoneagle, my vision of the future - perhaps most of our visions of the future - are so colored by hopes and fears that we cannot understand the clear truth that the Oracle, McMoneagle or someone else, is laying before us. FK
RSS Feed