The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

Among the very minuscule number of individual human beings who have ever gained access to The Eighth Paradigm of human experience among the 12 Billion human beings who have lived over the past millions of years, these few Fully Realized human beings have come to realize that the physical universe which we “see,” “touch,” “taste,” “smell,” and “hear” is fully and completely subject to “Intention.”

This means that such Fully Realized human beings can alter the Natural Laws of our physical Universe.  Such Fully Realized human beings can manifest physical mass out of simple Energy Fields. They can turn one element of physical matter into a different element of physical matter.  They can levitate; They can walk on water; They can change water into wine; They can manifest bread & fish; They can heal the sick simply by touching them. Indeed, they can raise the dead to life.

BUT, there have been only a very few of these Fully Realized Beings. But they have existed. And one or more probably exist in the world today.  Said few Fully Realized human beings can move their conscious energy between the Eighth Paradigm vibrational frequency within our octave of Being and the first “vibrational frequency” of the next octave of Being, which exists within our physical Universe.

Thus the COSMOLOGY known to these few Fully Realized Human Beings is a Cosmology within which there exist multiple vibrational fields (each field of which is made up of an “octave” of frequencies) which can be discerned [i.e., directly experienced] by living Sentient Beings who exist within that field via experiences which are analogous to “seeing”, “hearing”, “smelling”, “touching” and “tasting” but which are different than “seeing,” “hearing,” “smelling,” “touching,” or “tasting.” And within these various fields (or spectrums) of frequencies, there exist certain Sentient Beings who can speed up or slow down those frequencies to cause them to manifest different experiences to the other Sentient Beings within that field of vibrations.

This COSMOLOGY is a huge (indeed Cosmic) fugue of experience – NOT just Sound; NOT just Light; NOT just Smell; NOT just tactile experience; NOT just Taste; NOT just differing experiences of Consciousness… BUT ALL OF THESE EXPERIENCES… AND MANY, MANY MORE.  Within this COSMOLOGY, there are “Sentient Actors,” functioning on an entire octave of “levels of Consciousness,” all of whom directly effect the manifestations which occur within these bands of frequency… some effecting said vibrations greatly and consciously, some effecting said vibrations only minutely and with absolutely minimal consciousness.

This is a COSMOLOGY of fantastic vibrational harmonies, of periodic and localized vibrational cacophonies, of brilliant displays of beautiful colors, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, smells, experiences of consciousness, and other experiences entirely unknown to our human species…ALL of which are subject to varying degrees of control on the part of Sentient Beings of differing degrees of concentrated Consciousness throughout the Universe.

These harmonies generate overtones and undertones of sound, light, smell, tactile sensation, taste, and of Consciousness (therefore of BEINGS) and of the other experiences of which we human beings are totally ignorant…these overtones and undertones of BEING(S) themselves being capable of effecting the vibrational frequencies which they encounter…thereby generating additional overtones and undertones of experience….including additional overtones and undertones of other levels of BEING.

These fully realized human beings who have accessed this Eighth Paradigm of human existence have ALL come to share the uniform COSMOLOGICAL BELIEF that the sum total of ALL of the overtones and undertones of ALL of these experiences which are taking place within our physical Universe generate (and are generated by) ONE HUGE ALL-ENCOMPASSING OVERTONE OF CONSCIOUS BEING.

THIS is the COSMOLOGY of The Eighth Paradigm Worldview.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

It is the Teleological Belief…and teaching… of those few fully realized human beings who have accessed this Eighth Paradigm of human existence that this fugue of CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE ALWAYS IS and that its Teleology is symphonic… that is: this “fugue of Consciousness” progresses and regresses pursuant to principles which the fully realized human beings have attempted to convey to we other less Conscious human beings through the analogy of the principles of MUSIC. Symphonic music manifests the principles of the teleology of the Universe.

The Teleology of the Eighth Paradigm Universe is also mathematical; that is, it is: algebraic, geometric, algorithmic, and calculus-like.  It is also spectral. But it is ALWAYS BEING.  Therefore, its Teleology is a matter of perspective. From within each band of vibrational frequency within the Universe, the Teleology of the Universe will appear differently… depending entirely upon the vibrational frequency from within which one experiences it.  But, in its ultimate Teleology, the Universe of The Eighth Paradigm is harmonic and symphonic. That is: It consists of wave-function sets, and the frequencies within that “set” are integral whole-number multiples of the frequency of one fundamental wavelength which is contained within that “set.”

(See, e.g., The Mysticism of Sound: The Cosmic Language by Hazrat Inayat Khan.)

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

It follows from the Cosmological and Teleological Beliefs of Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview that the Ontological Belief of Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview is that Consciousness within our physical Universe is a direct harmonic and symphonic OVER TONE wave function of the fundamental frequency of The Consciousness of The Cosmos… and the “Fundamental Frequency” of The Consciousness of The Cosmos is an overtone of The Fundamental Frequency of the single wavelength phenomenon which occurred between the first two SINGULARITIES (or voltage differentials) which occurred within the original (Eternal and Infinite) Sea of Entirely UN-differentiated CONSCIOUSNESS.[1]

Thus, simply put, Human Consciousness occurs within our physical Cosmos because its vibrational frequency is an integral whole-number multiple of the fundamental wave length of CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR COSMOS.  This fundamental wavelength is, in turn, an overtone projected into our physical Cosmos of the Fundamental Frequency of the single Wave Length phenomenon which originally occurred between the first SINGULARITIES (or voltage differentials), which occurred within the original (Eternal and Infinite) Sea of Entirely Un-Differentiated CONSCIOUSNESS. But human consciousness is only one such whole-number multiple of the fundamental wavelength of CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR COSMOS. There are others. These others manifest as animals, plants, bacteria, molecules, atoms, all the way down to “Inchoate Quantum Fields,” indeed within every naturally-occurring entity in our physical Universe.  Each entity is the manifestation of CONSCIOUSNESS in ONE of its whole-number multiples of the ONE Fundamental Frequency.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the “facts” that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, possess eight biological senses (not just the five which Adherents to the four Center & Right of Center Worldviews believe we possess…and not just the six which Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview and Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that human beings possess.)

Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, possess one biological sense for each Chakra which exists within our human body. Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that each such human Chakra generates a specific vibrational frequency within our human body, which is an integral whole-number multiple of the Chakra which resides within our physical body immediately below that Chakra (from the base of our spine upward in our human body… all the way to the Eighth Chakra [which exists above our material body, at the high-point of the reach of one’s arm.]) Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that each of these seven internal Chakras generates an egg-shaped “vibrational envelope” around our body and that these seven egg-shaped, Chakra-generated “envelopes” fits inside the envelope which is generated by the next higher frequency generated by the Chakra immediately above it. Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that an Eighth Chakra exists at the apex of the seven concentric vibrational “eggs,” which enclose our physical body, thus existing outside our material body.

Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that these seven egg-shaped “vibrational envelopes” which surround our human body together generate an “OVER TONE,” which sets up an EIGHTH vibrational field around the seven envelopes.

Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that this Octave Set of vibrational fields (each of the eight vibrational frequencies is one whole-number multiple of the vibrational frequency of the field which is immediately inside and below it) together constitute an OCTAVE SET, the vibrational phenomenon of which actually precipitates our whole BEING out of the “Quantum Foam” which vibrates at one integral whole-number multiple rate of vibrational frequency above the rate of vibrational frequency of the Eighth Field of vibration (which is generated as an OVER TONE of the seven inter-acting vibrational frequencies which occur within the egg-shaped envelope formed around our physical body generated by the functioning of the Chakras within our body).

Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that we, as human beings, have access to a unique biological experience by directing our Conscious human attention directly into each one of the discrete vibrational fields which are generated by each Chakra within our human body and/or by directing of conscious attention directly into each of the discrete vibrational envelopes which surround our human body. The unique experience which we access when we direct our conscious attention into each of these discrete vibrational fields within our body and/or immediately surrounding our body is ONE of our human senses. These are:

• • “Smell” (within the vibrational field generated by our FIRST CHAKRA);
  • “Taste” (within the vibrational field generated by our SECOND CHAKRA);
  • “Sight” (within the vibrational field generated by our THIRD CHAKRA);
  • “Touch” (within the vibrational field generated by our FOURTH CHAKRA);
  • “Hearing” (within the vibrational field generated by our FIFTH CHAKRA);
  • “INTUITION”: DIRECT UNITIVE EXPERIENCE OF THE ENTIRE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE (within the vibrational field generated by our SIXTH CHAKRA); and
  • “INTELLECTUAL PERCEPTION” (i.e. the ability to distinguish the difference between [our “SELF” and other “things” and between one “thing” and an “other” thing] thus generating our experience of Self Consciousness and within the very same experience generating an apparent separateness from all of the rest of “Reality” out there, within the vibrational field generated by our SEVENTH CHAKRA);
  • “DIRECT UNDIFFERENTIATED EXPERIENTIAL ACCESS TO THE INFINITE & ETERNAL SEA OF TOTALLY UN-DIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS – and MANIFESTATION” (within the vibrational field generated by our EIGHTH CHAKRA.)

Thus, it is the Epistemological Belief of Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview that we, as human beings, possess eight separate and distinct experiential sources by means of which we can gather, discriminate and then integrate data both inside and outside our physical Universe by means of which we can discern patterns manifesting within this sensory data, AND BY MEANS OF WHICH WE CAN (INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY) FUNCTION AS A CAUSATIVE SOURCE OF CHANGE WITHIN OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

Adherents to The Eight Paradigm Worldview believe that once one has perfected the vibrational frequency of each of the EIGHT human Chakras which are located within one’s own physical body [2], one should direct one’s physical body (and all of one’s material and non-material vibrational fields) to the task of maintaining… or to re-integrating into symphonic harmony all of the disparate multiples of CONSCIOUSNESS occurring within the specific time period of the physically incarnated Life into which one finds oneself born within this physical Universe – because these multiples of CONSCIOUSNESS are supposed to be vibrating in symphonic harmony with one another as stepped whole-number multiples within ONE OCTAVE of the ONE fundamental wavelength of THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR COSMOS which is occurring within our physical Universe.[3]

Therefore, Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that the ONLY truly ethical human conduct is conduct which is directed to the task of either bringing into perfect symphonic harmony ALL Eight of the Chakras within one’s own human body or (that having been already achieved) directing all of one’s conscious attention to the task of maintaining… or re-integrating into symphonic harmony all of the disparate multiples of Consciousness occurring in one’s world during one’s lifetime.

The Eighth Paradigm Cosmology necessarily implies that our physical Universe is filled with Intelligent, Sentient Life. The Latin root of the word “Intelligence” is intellectus, the ability to distinguish the difference between. Intrinsic to The Eighth Paradigm Cosmology, Intelligent Life exists within each band of vibrational frequencies; indeed, such Intelligent Life is the Conscious organizer of experience within each such band of vibrational frequencies. Thus, for there to be other Sentient, Intelligent Life Forms within our galaxy – who/which have developed technological means of entering the band of vibrational frequencies in which WE abide is entirely foreseeable, indeed likely.

Therefore, the fact that we, as human beings, have been encountering other mysterious Life Forms…which seem to come into our world from somewhere else is entirely compatible with the Cosmological assumptions of The Eighth Paradigm. And it is also entirely compatible with the Cosmological assumptions of The Eight Paradigm that these other Beings would display abilities significantly different from the physical abilities which we human beings are physically capable of performing, “trapped” as we are within the simple three dimensions of our limited physical experience.

[1] As to why this first singularity (or initial voltage differential) occurred within the theretofore otherwise Infinite And Eternal SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS is the ultimate Teleological Question… or Question of Purpose and Ultimate Direction of Manifest Reality. (The ONLY sound answer for this question I have been able to discern is this: That this original dis-equilibrium was initiated by The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Un-Differentiated CONSCIOUSNESS because the ONLY WAY to improve upon the theretofore eternal and theretofore monolithic experience of ABSOLUTE & ETERNAL BLISS was to generate a temporary dis-equilibrium (the negative experience of which would have generated an increased dimension of “BLISS” to the prior State of ABSOLUTE & ETERNAL BLISS which had preceded that temporary negative experience. This is an extra- Cosmic explanation of the “purpose of evil” (disequilibrium or imperfection).

[2] until which point in time ALL of one’s human time and attention should be spent and directed toward the task of “perfecting” the vibrational frequency of ALL EIGHT of the Chakras located within one’s own physical body.

[3] which is, in turn, an OVER TONE projected into our physical Cosmos of The Fundamental Frequency of the single Wave Length phenomenon which originally occurred between the first two SINGULARITIES (or voltage differentials) within the original (Eternal and Infinite) Sea of Originally Entirely Un-Differentiated CONSCIOUSNESS.

 

The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

With regard to the functioning of the physical Universe, Adherents to the Left‑Systemist position on Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph, like Adherents to the Right-Systemist position, believe that our physical Universe began in a blinding flash of the Big Bang, at which point all matter in the Universe began to expand out-and-away from every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter and that this expansion of the Universe will continue until the impetus imposed upon all matter by this Cosmic event is spent.

However, Left-Systemist Adherents believe that our physical Universe originally issued forth from an Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated CONSCIOUSNESS. This Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness simply IS.  And it always has been existing.  In this regard, the Cosmological Belief of Adherents to the Seventh Paradigm Worldview differs from the Cosmological Belief of the First Paradigm Worldview, which holds NO such specific Belief about the initial Source of the physical Universe. And this Cosmological Belief of Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm (“Theistic”) Worldview differs from the Cosmological Belief of Adherents to The Second Paradigm (“Dialectical”) Worldview in that Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that the physical Universe has always existed.

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm (“Theistic”) Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that the physical Universe was created at a specific point by The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness and that the physical Universe will exist for a finite amount of time, just once, from its creation (or “Emanation”) by The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness until “The Purusia” (a point marked not by some physically preordained event but, instead, a point marked by the achievement of a specific Theological event… the achievement by our human species (or our progeny) of “Perfect Consciousness” and (at that point) either our success or our failure in some Cosmic Test which is the ultimate purpose of the Creation of the physical Universe (and our human species) by The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness.[3]

This is a Cosmological Belief which differs fundamentally from the Cosmological Beliefs of both Adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview and Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview.

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview believe that the original pre-cursor unit of “matter” evolved out of an initial discontinuity (or singularity) in the sea of eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness.  In this singularity, the Infinite and Eternal Sea of Un-differentiated Consciousness is, therefore, BEING.  But it is not a noun. It is, rather, a non-transitive verb of “being.”  Most importantly, however, this BEING is not a function of the physical inter‑play of Mass and Energy, which makes up the physical Universe.

Rather, the physical Universe is a function of this CONSCIOUSNESS.  Indeed, according to the Cosmology of The Seventh Paradigm Worldview, this CONSCIOUSNESS enfolded into being the physical Universe in the form of the original dis-continuity which pre‑existed the “BIG BANG.”  Pursuant to the process which was discussed in the First Paradigm Cosmology, Adherents to this Seventh Paradigm Worldview believe that this original dis-continuity evolved into the original unit of matter, and this unit of matter contained within it all of the sum total of all “Matter” in the Universe (compacted down into a state of Absolute Mass).

This CONSCIOUSNESS exists outside of the physical Universe. But the physical Universe is, indeed, made up of Consciousness, merely manifest in a different form, i.e., matter.

This CONSCIOUSNESS is infinite in volume, filling all space beyond the physical boundaries of the physical Universe (whether the physical Universe is manifesting itself, at any given point in time, in its Ultimately‑ Expanded form of Absolute Energy, in its Ultimately‑ Contracted form of Absolute Mass ‑ or in any of its many interim forms of MIXED‑Mass and Energy).

This “CONSCIOUSNESS” of The Cosmos (which is not actually of The Universe at all ‑ because it preceded, indeed, pre‑existed the physical Universe) stands above and outside of “Time,” merely observing all “Time.”

Adherents to the Left‑Systemist position along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph are, then, “THEISTS.”

Very importantly, such Theists believe that this INFINITE SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS is capable of Physically INTERVENING in the material Universe ‑ to set aside or to temporarily abridge, the functioning of the natural laws of physics, which otherwise operate automatically within the Universe.

One needs only request The Deity to so intervene on one’s behalf.  The most thorough recent explication of this “Emanationist” Cosmological Belief has been set forth by Professor Robert Boehm in his work entitled The Implicate Order.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

The human species stands in a unique relationship to the Universe ‑ and to The Infinite Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness from which the physical Universe was enfolded into being. Indeed, all of “history” is simply the unfolding of the consciousness of the human family into unity with The Infinite Consciousness of The Universe. Thus, the very reason for the Universe is to provide a medium within which the human species can draw itself into the state of “perfection,” which will manifest itself at the point in history at which a critical mass of the human family reaches the self‑conscious state of knowing that our self-consciousness is ONE WITH THE INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS. The Left‑Systemists are, indeed, the Ultimate Champions of the idea of “The Perfectibility of The Species in God”. Indeed, it is the arrival at this point in history which will mark the ONLY true “End of History.”

Indeed, while The Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness is not a “human being,” it is “BEING” and, from outside Itself, It would be perceived as A “BEING” (i.e., a NOUN) even though it is only a VERB. However, perceived as a Noun, this Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness (or “BEING”) intends that our Human Species perfect ourselves. As if It wills it. Whereas, in actuality, It merely causes this to occur.

The question occurs as to The Direction this Consciousness into Matter Process is taking.  This question of purpose, in the classical Theological Worldview, translates into the following Myth. The question is; What does this ‘Myth’ mean?

First, The Myth:

It is asserted, within the Teleological Belief System of the Classical Theist, that The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Un-Differentiated Consciousness, i.e., “The Godhead”; i.e. “The ONE ‘Thing’ That Is NOT a ‘Thing’ Among Other ‘Things’ ”; “The Unbegotten Being” generated the initial singularity so that BEING might experience infinite & eternal Unitive Being “More Abundantly.”

The only way to do this was to experience differentiation (along with its intrinsic anxiety and tension) so that, after the differentiation, Infinite & Eternal Being would be capable of experiencing more than in its original Infinite and Eternal configuration.

However, as a remnant of that original experience of differentiation, the Infinite & Eternal Un-differentiated Consciousness generated the present Physical Universe, along with Sentient Beings.  This experience is The Creation of THE BEING OF LIGHT (Lucifer), a differentiated BEING which possessed total Free Will from The Infinite & Eternal BEING and who fell prey to THE TEMPTATION to exercise the ability of Infinite Being (to manifest whatever form of physical “reality” said Being wished to manifest) BUT WITHOUT PAYING HEED TO the fact that said Infinite Being was, in fact, “Created Being” (Created by Infinite & Eternal BEING) indeed, without acknowledging that said Infinite Being ought to exercise its Infinite Power of Manifestation only in accordance with The Will of THE INFINITE & ETERNAL BEING, as an act of complete Free Will (as the perfectly appropriate response to the “Awe & Worship”) to which INFINITE & ETERNAL BEING was entitled as a matter of Cosmic harmony.

So, when the “Created” failed to recognize, through “Awe & Worship,” that it should exercise even its perfect FREE WILL in full accord with THE WILL of INFINITE & ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS, said “Created” was banished forever from the presence of INFINITE & ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

However – even though the “Created” could never, through its own action, redeems itself, INFINITE & ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS chose to try it one more time, again generating a singularity in THE FIELD of INFINITE & ETERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS, and allowing this second “Created Being” to have access to the same temptation and, by experiencing this same temptation and overcoming it, have an opportunity to know compassion through the original “Created” and, through the second “Created Being’s” demonstration of love and compassion toward all of those who know the temptation of true evil, and succumb to it, including toward the original “Created” grant to the original “Created” the forgiveness of which IT had not been originally capable.

THIS, then, is the purpose of The Creation (or the Teleological objective) of the Universe, according to the Left-Systemist Worldview.

Now, what does this Myth mean?  What it means is this:

Adherents to the Classical Theist Worldview believe that temporally[4], and prior to the initial physical incarnation of previously Infinite and Eternal Consciousness into the very first unit of physical matter (i.e., into the very first “Choate” quantum field which condensed out of the “quantum foam” of The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Un-Differentiated Consciousness into the very first “Singularity”), the Infinite & Eternal Sea of undifferentiated Consciousness had previously generated a differentiation of consciousness which had NO physical dimension whatsoever, but which did have some degree of separateness from the original Infinite & Eternal SEA of previously Totally Undifferentiated Consciousness. This was LUCIFER.

This Initial Being was capable of creating other Beings, which it did, in the form called “Angelic Beings.” This Initial Being (which existed only in a non-physical dimension prior to the creation of our physical Universe) became so enamored of its ability to create other “Beings” and phenomena that this “Initial Being” actually began to perceive itself as not dependent upon The Infinite & Eternal SEA of Previously-Undifferentiated BEING (i.e., Undifferentiated Consciousness).  This perception on the part of this Initial Being caused a cleft – or separation – to occur between The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Previously-Totally Undifferentiated Consciousness and this Initial Being.  Experiencing this cleft, this Initial Being had the choice of turning back toward Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness (thereby yielding itself back to Infinite & Eternal Un-Differentiated Consciousness) through the act of “AWE & WORSHIP” and thereby losing its “SELF,” or choosing to turn away from Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness, re edifying its “SELF” as separate and apart from Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness. This was done simply by withholding the conscious act of “AWE & WORSHIP” from Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness (which remained with, indeed within, the Initial Being – even while it was able to experience being a separate & distinct Consciousness.)

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Theist Worldview hold the Teleological Belief that this Initial Being chose the second course of action because it became enamored in being able to create manifestations out of “Consciousness,” not of the experience of Being “separate and apart.”

This is “THE GREAT LUCIFERIAN TEMPTATION, according to the Belief system of Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Theist Worldview.  It is the will to power, the attachment to wanting to be GOD… i.e., loosing one’s immediate experience of “AWE & WORSHIP” of Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness while still being in an actual state of de facto “separateness.”  And nothing will threaten to bring on this state of loosing one’s direct and immediate experience of “AWE & WORSHIP” of Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness quite like the act of creating actual manifestations out of Consciousness (i.e., directly out of the “Quantum Foam” of The Infinite & Eternal SEA of Undifferentiated Consciousness.)

And this is the next step in biological evolution, which our human species, homo sapiens, is on the very brink of entering upon, as we reach into the very heart of matter in our quest to explore the Quantum Field.  This quest is a search for a source of power and the source of “Infinite BEING.”  Or, more to the point, seeking the source of “Infinite Being” to re-experience the original LUCIFERIAN TEMPTATION and, this time, succeed where Lucifer and his followers originally failed[5] by overcoming the temptation.

This will be accomplished by being able to love every other human being and every other sentient Being, no matter how evil (or “Fallen”) they appear to be (i.e., how attached they appear to be to asserting their power over created reality) because we can continue to perceive within them Infinite & Eternal BEING no matter how masked this BEING is from us in our apparently separate state.

Or we, as homo sapiens, may fail – as The Initial Being and its followers failed… casting ourselves into eternal separateness… by physically destroying ourselves through an errant attempt to direct the technology through which we access this realm of the “Quantum Foam” toward physical destruction of some “Ultimate Other” or, perhaps, even through an errant attempt to direct this technology toward a creative act (of creating material manifestations out of the realm of the Inchoate Quantum Field into material reality… and become so enamored of our power that we create the source of our own destruction in a manner which separates our Consciousness from The Infinite & Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness… thus causing us, as The Infinite & Eternal’s Second Creation, not only to fail in our intended mission (of potentially redeeming the Being of Light and its fallen followers) but to join the fallen in a self-created eternal state of separateness from Infinite & Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness.  

The most thorough recent explication of this Theistic evolutionary Teleological Belief has been set forth by the Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin in the following work: The Phenomenon of Man (Harper, New York, 1959);

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

As one can foretell from the above discussion of the Cosmological and Teleological Beliefs of Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Theistic Worldview, the Cosmic Question as to how human consciousness came into being is answered in the Seventh Paradigm Worldview by the belief that each manifestation of human consciousness is, indeed, a node of the Infinite & Eternal Sea of previously Undifferentiated Consciousness… which, Itself, has always existed.  The dynamic by means of which these apparently separate nodes of human consciousness came into separate materially incarnated physical being is explained by the answer to the Teleological Question. The ultimate source of human consciousness is explained by the answer to the Cosmological Question governing the source of the physical Universe.  Human Consciousness, like the physical Universe in which we presently find human consciousness incarnated, is made up of a temporarily differentiated portion of the original Infinite & Eternal Sea of previously Undifferentiated Consciousness. But IT has always existed… even though said consciousness has not always possessed a physical manifestation.

This, then, is the answer which Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Theistic Worldview provide to the Ontological Question as to the source of human consciousness.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the facts that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

Adherents to the Left‑Systemist position, along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph (The Seventh Paradigm Theistic Worldview), believe in the utilization of every means which is available to the human being by means of which to determine the facts, truth, and reality. This would include one’s own individual experience through all five of the traditional physical human senses acknowledged by Adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview; the core Intellectual insight recognized by Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview as an additional source of factual data; the four additional Epistemological means recognized by Adherents to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Paradigm Worldviews [6], and also the phenomenon of personal and collective recourse to prayer to gain access to the truth. This practice of prayer takes the form of personally asking The Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness to communicate what the facts are.

A second form which this practice of prayer takes is the undertaking of a very special practice of Adherents of the Left‑Systemist position of engaging in a conscious effort of allowing the boundaries of their individuated consciousness to “dissolve away” and to, thereby, open themselves to the Unitive Consciousness of The Infinite and Eternal Sea [which these adherents believe pervades not only the infinite reaches of Space outside of the physical parameters of the physical Universe but which is also located within every point of the manifest material Universe as well ‑ therefore being always and everywhere present and available as a source of factual knowledge of the data relating to all material things and events within the Universe – as well as outside the physical Universe.

It is this additional access to purely factual data pertaining to the internal events and goings on inside and outside of the physical Universe that the adherents of the Left‑Systemist position bring to the task of determining the facts which set them apart, categorically, from others engaged in this same inquiry.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological belief that our physical universe began as the intentional emanation into physical manifestation from and by the Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness. 

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological belief that this single intentional act on the part of the Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness resulted in the manifestation, within the theretofore Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness, of first one, and then two singularities (i.e., two distinct points of dis-equilibrium), one “positive” and the other “negative.”

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview believe that immediately following the manifestation of these two points of voltage differential within the otherwise entirely homogeneous Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness, there flowed between these points a wave of energy. This wave of energy set up a field of discontinuity in the vicinity around its pathway through the Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness. This field then collapsed into the first particle of mass.  This first mass constituted an even greater discontinuity within the otherwise perfectly homogeneous Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness, thereby generating around itself an even greater field of discontinuity. This greater field of discontinuity thereupon collapsed into a second particle.

This process repeated itself, over and over again, until there existed a large number of sub-atomic particles which eventually condensed into hydrogen (and some helium and lithium) atoms in the Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness.

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview, like adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview, recognize that every complex combination of matter is ultimately disintegrating into their smaller constituent, ultimately non-divisible units of matter).

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview believe, further, as do adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview, that each such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe is, at the same time, repelling itself out and away from every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe.

However, while adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview believe that this contemporaneously-occurring expansion and disintegration of all matter in our physical universe has been going on since very early in our physical universe and that this will continue to go on up to the point in time at which every single ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe (of which adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview believe there exist only a fixed and finite number which were created at the instant of the original “Big Bang”) will stand separate and apart from each and every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe;

while adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, at that precise point in time, the expansion of our physical universe will STOP expanding out and away from the original locus of the Big Bang, stopping our physical universe from ultimately disintegrating into nothingness for all the rest of eternity, and believe that, after stopping its theretofore X billion-year expansion, our physical universe will stand in a state of equilibrium for a brief moment and it will then begin to collapse back in upon itself, thereupon re-constituting itself back into singularities; waves of energy; particles of mass, all the way back into planets; stars; solar systems; star clusters; galaxies, etc.;

while adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview believe that neither of these two alternative options is a predetermined fact but, rather, believe that whether our physical universe will expand forever or will ultimately stop and collapse back in upon itself is the function of an existential choice which is being made every day by individual human beings by their either lending the power of their mind to the holding of the universe together through an exercise of their existential hope followed up by their actions taken in accordance with that hope or their lending the power of their mind to the ultimate disintegration of our universe through their embracing of despair and their engaging in conduct every day that puts their despair into action; and adherents to the Fourth Paradigm Worldview believe that any one of these three alternative hypotheses might well be true – and that some fourth hypothesis might just as well be true depending entirely upon what the most up-to-date physical data confirms to be true, adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview believe that the ultimate destiny of our physical universe is escatological – that is, that our physical universe is unfolding toward a single end, this being THE ESCATON.

This Teleological Belief of adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview is best articulated by Catholic Jesuit Priest Teilhard de Chardin in his work entitled “The Phenomenon of Man.”

Pursuant to this Teleological Belief, adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview believe that the individuated nodes of Consciousness which are transformed from the Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness through the conditioned state of a singularity (or an “inchoate quantum field”) into physical units (in the form of “energy” or “mass”) rise into more and more complex entities of combined mass, energy and consciousness until such complex collectives become, first, minimal consciousness, then SELF-Conscious collectives, then SELF-Conscious and conscious (at the same time) of The Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness from which they came (and of which they are still a mere manifestation), then finally, SELF-conscious, conscious of the Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness, and capable (at the same time) of one-to-one UNITIVE CONSCIOUSNESS WITH The Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness.[2]

This Worldview entails a belief in a type of reincarnation of a single individuated nodule of Consciousness from an initial primitive degree of consciousness into more and more complex (i.e., more-and-more highly conscious) confluences of mass, energy, and consciousness until such point that our Earth (our Solar System?, our Galaxy?, our Universe?) is inhabited by Sentient Beings, a critical mass of which have all reached a state of consciousness at which the individual members of this species are capable of manifesting material objects out of pure consciousness – and, thereby, directly effecting physical reality by means of their conscious attention.

This conscious intentionality, pursuant to this Seventh Paradigm Worldview, plays a direct role in the Teleology of the physical universe.

Pursuant to the Teleological Belief of adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview, if a sufficient number (i.e., a “critical mass”) of these sentient species have reached the point in their biological evolution such that individual members are able to directly effect the physical matter of the universe through the intentional direction of their consciousness and, at that point, heed the WILL OF THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS that each such Being:

(A) Love THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL with whole mind, with whole heart, and with whole soul;

(B) Love each and every other Being as THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL loves each such Being; and

(C) Seek to do the will of THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL in all things, then this love will supply the added bonding force in the physical universe such that the physical universe will not expand out and away forever but will, once it reaches the state of Absolute Energy (into which the physical universe will eventually expand) , instead will be drawn back into forming a physical universe of harmony, beauty, love, happiness and abundance in sympathetic resonance with the love vibrations sent out into the physical universe by members of this (these) species during the time of their physical existence within the universe.

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview adhere to an Ontological Belief that Human Consciousness is, in fact, an intimate emanation of THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS which existed before the emanation of Consciousness into matter.

Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, have access to a greater truth than that which we can experientially obtain from raw materialist data which we can directly physically experience through our own personal five physical senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.  This is because we not only have the ability, through the exercise of our human mind, to discern patterns within the data which we can then project out beyond the confines of our five physical senses to ascertain a more complete (i.e., more “perfect”) possible Reality.  This projection constitutes data pertaining to reality which is beyond the reach of our five physical senses and which reveals more than a mere random function of the inter-play of purely physical forces in a random universe, indeed more than just a mere dialectical pattern which underlies – and supersedes – the otherwise apparent chaos of the random universe, so as to present us the dialectical choice between two available options at each juncture of human decision, thereby providing us a psychology of choice, a much more satisfactory psychological state of mind than being mere flotsam of random consciousness in an entirely chaotic physical universe – and, indeed, more than just a simple physical unity among all of the physical units of matter within the physical universe. Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, have access to total truth by opening the self in prayer to the very INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS from which we came into this physical universe and within which we still remain in perfect union.

In its Higher Manifestation, the Seventh Paradigm Worldview generates the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of The Mystics.

Pursuant to this Mode of Ethical Reasoning, one seeks, through prayer, to know The Will of The Infinite and Eternal and then one, as an empty vessel, undertakes to act as a mere agent of The Infinite and Eternal Consciousness.

Because of these combined Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological beliefs on the part of adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview, adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview adhere to an essentially Theist Philosophy.

The Lower Manifestation of the Seventh Paradigm Worldview generates the Philosophy of Theism such as that which was championed in Zoroastrian Arabia.

The Higher Manifestation of the Seventh Paradigm Worldview generates the Philosophy of Theism such as that which was championed in Sufism.

In its Lower Manifestation, The Seventh Paradigm Worldview generates the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of “Adherence to the Religious Rules of a Divine Order.”

In its Higher Manifestation, The Seventh Paradigm Worldview generates the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of “The Discernment of The Will of Allah,” espoused by Sufism.

The Mode of Spiritual Expression of adherents to The Seventh Paradigm is Theism. This Worldview is manifested in ZOROASTRIANISM and in SUFISM, and other religions which believe in the existence of an “I – Thou” relationship between an individuated Being in Mystical Unity with THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS (the “I”) and THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS itself (the “Thou.”)

In its Social Form, The Seventh Paradigm Worldview manifests itself, in its Lower Manifestation, in the form of a THEOCRACY.

In its Higher Manifestation, The Seventh Paradigm Worldview expresses itself in the Social Form of a THEISTIC UTOPIA.

 

[1] Though this “process” may need to progress through the “phases” of generating, first, “nutrinos”; “meuons”; “leptons”; “quarks” etc.

[2] At this point in their “evolution”, such complex “entities” will be capable of “manifesting” material objects of their own choice out of pure consciousness (just like the original INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS “created” THEM out of pure consciousness.) The arriving at this point in “evolution” will, of course, “confront” such “entities” with “THE ‘LUCIFERIAN’ TEMPTATION” (i.e. the “temptation” to confuse their-“selves” with THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS of which they are, in fact, a mere manifestation.)  If, at that critical moment when these complex “entities” have arrived at the moment in their “evolution” at which they realize that they can “manifest” material objects of their own out of pure consciousness, a complex “entity” remembers to express “AWE and WONDER” at her or his state of existence and engages in the act of “AWE and WORSHIP” of THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDEIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS and then “opens her or his -“self” to the flow of the ‘will’ of THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL” as the “referent” in accordance with which she or he chooses to exercise her or his new-found power to manifest material objects out of pure consciousness, then such “entities”, upon their death in the material universe, will manifest in a beautiful, harmonious, happy and abundant world (of their own manifestation) – known as PARADISE. They will, therefore, be “released from” the physical universe. IF, on the other hand, at that specific moment, others of these complex “entities” forget to recognize THE ININITE AND ETERNAL as the “referent” in accordance with which said “entities” should make their “choices as to WHAT“manifestations” to manifest out of pure consciousness, they will have succumbed to “The Luciferian Temptation.” At the point of their death in the physical universe, those complex “entities” who succumbed to “The Luciferian Temptation” will “manifest” back into a new “cycle” of the physical universe…a universe of their own collective making. Such Beings will be able to enter into the “Paradise” of the making of those who did “submit” their will to the will of THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL only when they too have done so during the next “cycle” of the universe.

[3] See the discussion of the “Teleological” Belief of Adherents of The Seventh Paradigm (“Theistic”) Worldview below at pp.   .

[4] i.e. within the period of “Time” between the generation of the original initial “singularity” within the previously totally “un-differentiated” SEA of Infinite & Eternal Consciousness and the initial “incarnation” of the first “nodual” of previously un-differentiated Consciousness into the very first unit of physical “Matter” (i.e. into the very first “choate” quantum field)

[5] And to, thereby, come to learn true “compassion” for the plight of “Lucifer” and his “Fallen” fellow “Angelic Beings” (who “followed” Lucifer in “The Fall” into “Separateness” from Eternal Undifferentiated Consciousness) and to, thereafter chose to “forgive” them their “trespass” and to “welcome them back” through our action of un-conditioned Love toward them, finally knowing what it is that they experienced.

[6] Each of which will be discussed below under the topic of the “Epistemological” Belief of each such Worldview.

The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

Adherents to the Left‑Marginalist position along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph are not THEISTS ‑ as are Adherents to the Left‑Systemist Worldview. That is, they do not assert an affirmative Belief that there exists an Infinite & Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness which enfolds into being our Physical Universe and which inputs into our Physical Universe the normative data in accordance with which we, as human beings, ought to comport our ethical judgments and conduct.

However, neither are Adherents to the Left-Marginalist Worldview ATHEISTS ‑ as are Right Systemists, who affirmatively believe and declare that there exists no such Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness outside of (or inside of) the Physical Universe which lends any coherent meaning to the Universe.

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that our Physical Universe is holographic.  This means that Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that every single inchoate quantum field of potential matter which exists within the physical universe contains within it the identifying data which determines THE ENTIRE CONTENT & STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE … that is: that our Physical Universe is indeed a fractal macro-function of the content and internal structure of each inchoate quantum field within our Physical Universe.  Also, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that each inchoate quantum field within our Physical Universe is a fractal micro-function of our physical Universe.

What this means is that Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Left-Marginalist Worldview believe that ALL OF THE DATA (or information) WHICH IS NECESSARY TO MANIFEST THE ENTIRE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS CONTAINED WITHIN EVERY INCHOATE QUANTUM FIELD which exists within the physical boundaries of our Universe …i.e., that data does not need to come from outside our Physical Universe.

Dr. Juan Maldacena of Harvard University first conjectured such a relationship between each inchoate quantum field in our universe and our Physical Universe itself in 1997. His hypothesis was later affirmed by Dr. Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. and still later by Dr. Steven S. Gubser, Dr. Igor R. Klebanov, and Dr. Alexander M. Polyakov of Princeton University.

This holographic correspondence between each inchoate quantum field and every larger manifestation of quantum reality in our Physical Universe exists on ever-larger material planes (including the entire Physical Universe) where individual planes of existence are designated as space-times with a variety of different dimensions… including the largest of all possible space-times, the space-time which constitutes our entire Physical Universe. See, Scientific American, Volume 289, Number 2, “Information in The Holographic Universe”, by Jacob D. Bekenstein, pp. 59-65.

The most recent modern explication of this specific Cosmological Belief of the Sixth Paradigm Worldview is referred to as “The Holographic Paradigm.” A number of works explaining this “New Paradigm” are set forth in a work entitled “The Holographic Paradigm: Exploring The Leading Edge of Science,” edited by Kenneth Wilber and published by Shambala Press in Boston in 1985.[4])

This specific Cosmological Belief is explained, in detail, in the cover story article published in Scientific American Magazine in August of 2003.  This article is entitled “Are You A Hologram? Modern Quantum Physics Says The Entire Universe Might Be.” Vol.289, Scientific American, Number 2, August 2003, pp. 58-65.

Pursuant to this specific Cosmological Belief, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that our Physical Universe is made up of a finite number of ultimately‑irreducible integers of matter and that these integers are bound together into a single, unitive Universe (or MONAD) by an explicit physical bonding phenomenon (like magnetism or gravity) which functions as a wave-like phenomenon (just as do light waves and sound waves which were, also, at one time, not directly discernable by the un-evolved forms of life which existed here on our Earth billions of years ago.) Through the medium of this specific physical bonding phenomenon, Adherents to this Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that each such ultimately‑irreducible integer of matter in our Physical Universe is directly bonded with each and every single other such integer in the entire physical Universe.

This ultimately-irreducible integer of matter is an “inchoate” Quantum Field which does NOT exist in any specific material form (as “matter.”) However, this bonding phenomenon manifests itself to us (in a form which is physically discernable to us, given our limited state of technological development) when such an otherwise un-manifest Quantum Field manifests itself in the form of a wave function of flow along a differential existing between any two such inchoate quantum fields. Thus, Cosmologically, Adherents to the Left‑ Marginalist position along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph are MONISTS. Indeed, they are RADICAL MONISTS.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

Adherents to the Left‑Marginalist position believe that every member of our Human Species possesses a latent biological faculty which is directly analogous to our faculty of sight or hearing, which is evolving TELEOLOGICALLY (that is: progressively, one small step at a time in a measurable direction into the future).

Adherents to the Left-Marginalist Worldview believe that the positively-progressing direction of the evolution of this biological faculty which is latent within each and every human being is a direct physical function of the data which resides within each and every ultimately irreducible inchoate quantum field located within our Physical Universe (this Teleological Belief is a direct function of the Cosmological Belief of this Sixth Paradigm Worldview).  It is this data, this universal information, which drives the evolution upward into a more and more complex and integrated form of life, taking a new evolutionary step in the positive development of human life, pursuant to a set of NATURAL LAWS which are purely PHYSICAL in their nature, (though not yet fully comprehended and not yet fully explicated by our still limited human scientific community.)

Through the physical exercise of this faculty, every human being will, eventually, become physically capable of experientially discerning (just as they now see the physical phenomenon of light waves or hear the physical phenomenon of sound waves.) the “waves” which are generated by each such inchoate quantum field, which taken collectively, make up a single unified field which constitutes the unistic phenomenon which bonds every irreducible integer of matter in our entire Physical Universe into one, single harmonious relationship with every other such integer of matter in the entire Universe. This collective of inchoate and choate quantum fields form one MONISTIC UNITY.

VERY IMPORTANTLY, Adherents of the Left‑ Marginalist position believe that the physical existence of this latent biological faculty within our human species has been adequately discovered by our human family – through an exercise of the basic scientific tests of trial and error and through direct physical experience – so that we realize that this specific latent biological faculty can be CONSCIOUSLY accessed by every individual human being; can be CONSCIOUSLY made the central focus of one’s entire conscious experience; and can, thereby, be CONSCIOUSLY strengthened through exercise (just as one can is able to consciously increase one’s ability to hear or to see) ‑ if one directs ALL of one’s conscious attention to the physical experience and to exercising this physical faculty. The strengthening of this specific new faculty can be achieved, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview explain, by means of several very widely known physical exercises. These physical exercises include MEDITATION; FASTING; CELIBACY; YOGA EXERCISES; THE SELF‑INFLICTION AND RISING ABOVE OF CERTAIN PHYSICAL PAIN; THE INGESTION OF CERTAIN NATURAL HERBS AND PLANTS, and other activities.

Through the conscious undertaking of these specific exercises to consciously strengthen this specific biological faculty, Adherents to this Left-Marginalist position believe that each human being can strengthen this specific latent human faculty to the point at which each person can personally accelerate this development to the point at which he or she can directly physically discern the physical phenomenon which bonds every unit of matter in the entire Physical Universe into a single unitive entity ‑ and, thereby, enable such an individual to be in direct experiential contact with the harmonizing phenomenon of the Universe in accordance with which harmony, or in discordance to which, every such human being can judge the right-ness or the wrong-ness of any given human action, by experientially determining whether that conduct is harmonious with or – disharmonious to this Universal Physical Harmonious Phenomenon.

EQUALLY IMPORTANTLY, Adherents to this Sixth Paradigm position believe that General Principles of Human Conduct and even Specific Forms of Human Conduct ‑ both INDIVIDUAL and COLLECTIVE ‑ can be identified as being harmonious with or disharmonious to this Universal Harmonizing Phenomenon. And, they believe that if human beings can be voluntarily persuaded to comport their conduct ‑ both individual and collective ‑ in accordance with these General Principles of Human Conduct and with these Specific Forms of Human Conduct, and by a greater and greater number of individual human beings, it will itself physically accelerate the arrival of the point in time at which our entire human family will make, together, a quantum leap, evolutionarily, to the next step of human biological evolution toward which the natural laws of our Physical Universe are drawing us.

Thus, the Adherents of the Left‑Marginalist position see the conscious identification and voluntary compliance on the part of members of our human family with the principles of natural law to be the method or practice by means of which our human family can ‑ and ought ‑ to use our natural faculty of the INTELLECT to become FULLY CONSCIOUS PARTNERS and PARTICIPANTS in our own physical, biological human evolution to the next step in our biological evolution from Homo Sapiens (Thinking Man) to Homo Divinis (Discerning, or Divining Man).  Indeed, this is THE ULTIMATE GREAT IDEA which Professor Crain Brinton accepted to be known and understood by the greatest mind in Western Civilization as being latent within all human beings at the Conclusion of his 50‑year teaching career at Harvard University in April of 1968.

One of the most thorough recent explications of this Sixth Paradigm Belief has been undertaken by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the French Jesuit and Paleontologist in his 1959 work entitled The Phenomenon of Man.

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

Our human species is an integral material (i.e., Mass and Energy‑ composed) phenomenon which has NATURALLY occurred within our physical Universe as a direct consequence of the functioning of the NATURAL LAWS of our Universe pursuant to which, and in accordance with which (as we can observe through our physical senses and our rational intellect) the mass and energy within our physical Universe always function.

However, according to the Ontological Belief of Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview, there resides within each and every ultimately-irreducible inchoate quantum field within our Universe a specific datum which physically generates within each human being seven Energy Fields and immediately above the head of each human being an eighth energy field. These energy fields are identified in the Sanskrit language as Chakras.

Each of these eight distinct Human Chakras has a specific size and a specific shape. The energy out of which each such Chakra is made up vibrates at a specific datum-determined frequency of vibration.  Each such Chakra also spins, within our human body, at a specific, datum-determined rate of rotation. Each such Chakra is tilted to the ecliptic to a specific, datum-determined degree. And each such Chakra generates an egg-shaped subtle-energy envelope around our human body which vibrates in sympathetic resonance with the specific vibrational frequency of the Chakra, which generates that energy field.

When each of these eight Chakras is: vibrating at the exact frequency rate which is designated by the datum which resides within each inchoate quantum field in the Universe (constituting that ideal information) and when each of these eight Chakras is rotating at the exact rate of physical rotation which is designated for that specific Chakra by the datum which resides within each inchoate quantum field in the Universe, and when each of these eight Chakras is tipped at the exact degree of physical tilt to the ecliptic which is designated by the datum which resides within each inchoate quantum field in the Universe constituting that ideal information – then the Eighth Chakra Energy Envelope which surrounds the physical human body which contains those eight specific Chakras will vibrate at a frequency which will be in direct sympathetic resonance with the specific frequency at which THE BONDING PHENOMENON OF THE ENTIRE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE vibrates thereby causing that human body to function exactly like a classical Crystal Radio Receiver, sending from the Eighth Energy Envelop surrounding that human body a set of energy vibrations which draw the energy vibrations of each of the other seven Energy Envelops up into perfect sympathetic vibration with that Eighth Chakra frequency.

These sympathetically vibrating eight Subtle-Energy Fields surrounding that physical body will then cause each of the respective seven other Chakras within that physical body to vibrate at the ideal frequency of that Specific Chakra (originally directed by the datum governing that Chakra, which is contained within each inchoate quantum field.)  This will result in that human body being surrounded in a holographic field which the human brain will read (since the human brain functions like a holographic field recorder).  This experience occurring inside the human brain within that human body will cause that human being to directly experience a direct link into the Unified Field, which bonds the entire physical Universe together into one, unified harmonic (indeed Holographic) entity.

Therefore, according to the Ontological Belief of Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Left-Marginalist Worldview, the Consciousness of each one of us and of our entire Human Species is a NATURAL LAW FUNCTION of the Cosmology which is obtained within our Physical Universe ‑ which is, therefore, in a sense, a purely MECHANICAL phenomenon.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the facts that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

As RADICAL MONISTS, Adherents of the Left‑Marginalist Worldview are operationally certain that we, as human beings, are capable of learning TRUTH ‑ and NOT just some relative, partial truth – but ULTIMATE TRUTH – if we are willing to utilize ALL of our human resources by means of which to discern the Facts.  This would include the employment of one’s entire personal Intellect, all of one’s academic or scholastic learning, which one is able to obtain from the secular academic world; via the consultation of academic experts in the specific field of study in which the Facts which are desired arise; State authorities charged, by the Government of the collective community, with obtaining and evaluating data concerning various factual issues; credible persons with first‑hand knowledge of the Facts (if this is applicable) and direct personal investigation through the application of all scientific methods of ascertaining the Facts;

BUT ALSO, ACCORDING TO ADHERENTS TO THE SIXTH PARADIGM LEFT-MARGINALIST WORLDVIEW, by recourse to persons who have developed their latent biological faculty of discernment to an adequate degree by means of which to access The Unified Field constituted by the Unitive Phenomenon of The Universe… which Adherents to this Left‑Marginalist Worldview believe contains, in some retrievable or discernable form, ALL OF THE DATA CONTAINED IN THE ENTIRE PHYSICAL COSMOS (present, past AND FUTURE); AND very importantly, by recourse to THEIR OWN latent faculty of discernment (in the form of their own INTUITION).  It is, indeed, this specific unique Epistemological Belief of Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview, which many identify as the distinguishing characteristic of Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm.  Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, possess seven biological senses (NOT just the five which Adherents to the four center & right of center Worldviews believe we possess.)

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the “Epistemological” Belief that we, as human beings, possess one biological sense for each Chakra which exists inside our human body. Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that each such human Chakra generates a specific vibrational frequency within our human body, which is an integral multiple of the Chakra which resides immediately below that Chakra (from the base of our spine… all the way to the Eighth Chakra which exists above our material body, at the high-point of the reach of one’s own arm).  Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that each of these seven internal Chakras generates an egg-shaped vibrational envelope around our body and that each of these seven egg-shaped, Chakra-generated envelopes fits inside the envelope which is generated by the next step higher frequency generated by the Chakra immediately above that Chakra. Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that an Eighth Chakra exists at the apex of the seven concentric vibrational energy-field “eggs” which enclose our entire physical body, thus existing outside of our physical material body.

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that these seven vibrational envelopes which surround our human body functioning together generate an OVER TONE which sets up an EIGHTH vibrational FIELD around the entire set of seven envelopes.  And that this octave set of vibrational fields (each one of the eight frequencies of which is a whole number multiple of the vibrational frequency of the field which is immediately inside it) together constitute an OCTAVE SET, the vibrational phenomenon of which actually precipitates our whole BEING up out of the “Quantum Foam” which vibrates one octave higher than the rate of vibrational frequency of the Eighth Field of vibration which is generated as an overtone of the seven inter-acting vibrational envelopes formed by the seven fields which are generated by the functioning of the Chakras within our body.

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that we, as human beings, can experience a unique biological experience by directing our Conscious human attention directly into each one of the discrete vibrational fields which are generated by each Chakra and/or by directing our conscious attention directly into each of the discrete vibrational envelopes which surrounds our human body.  The unique experience when we direct our conscious attention into these discrete vibrational fields within our body and immediately surrounding our physical body is, in fact, (according to Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview) one of our human senses. These are:

• • “Touch” (within the vibrational field generated by our FIRST CHAKRA);
  • “Taste” (within the vibrational field generated by our SECOND CHAKRA);
  • “Smell” (within the vibrational field generated by our THIRD CHAKRA);
  • “Sight” (within the vibrational field generated by our FOURTH CHAKRA);
  • “Hearing” (within the vibrational field generated by our FIFTH CHAKRA);
  • “INTELLECTUAL” PERCEPTION (i.e., the ability to distinguish the difference between [our SELF and other things, and between one thing and another thing], thus generating our experience of SELF Consciousness and within the VERY SAME experience generating our experience of apparent separateness from all of the rest of “Reality out there”) within the vibrational field generated by our SIXTH CHAKRA; and
  • “DIRECT UNITIVE EXPERIENCE OF THE ENTIRE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE” (within the vibrational field generated by our SEVENTH CHAKRA).
    Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview take no position as to a human being’s ability to obtain DIRECT EXPERIENTIAL ACCESS TO ANY INFINITE & ETERNAL SEA OF TOTALLY UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS.

Thus, it is the Epistemological Belief of Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview that we, as human beings, possess seven separate and distinct experiential sources by means of which we can gather and then integrate data from within our physical Universe to discern patterns manifesting within this sensory data AND BY MEANS OF WHICH WE CAN (INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY) FUNCTION AS A FIRST CAUSATIVE SOURCE OF CHANGE WITHIN OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

The distinctive aspect of the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of the Sixth Paradigm Radical Monist Worldview is that they believe that this FACULTY OF INTUITION (experienced through the Seventh Chakra) should play a CENTRAL ROLE in each individual human being’s Normative decision-making or as their Mode of Ethical Reasoning.

Substantively, Adherents to the Left‑Marginalist Worldview believe that, when faced with a range of alternative choices by means of which to address a given public policy problem, one should choose the form of human conduct which is most harmonious with the NATURAL LAWS of the physical Universe. The methods by means of which one goes about determining exactly what specific form of human conduct is harmonious with NATURAL LAW (and what forms of conduct are expressly dis-harmonious to NATURAL LAW) are determined by the utilization of the various Methods of Determining The Facts which are set forth above.

However, the central means which should be employed in making this specific decision is to resort to one’s own personal Intuition.

HOWEVER, Once this factual determination has been made by each individual who is a member of the community which will be directly effected by the public policy choice chosen, Adherents to the Left-­Marginalist Worldview insist that a specific procedural process must then be employed by means of which the Community ought to determine which choice among the several available will be chosen. And the utilization of this specific procedure by means of which to make such an inherently community choice is integral to the Mode of Ethical Reasoning which is advocated by Left‑ Marginalists.

The procedure is this:

Every person who is going to be directly or indirectly effected by the public policy choice which is being made on behalf of the Community must be informed concerning all of the component elements pertaining to the decision, then be afforded an adequate time period prior to his or her having to render this decision to educate himself or herself as to what he or she will need to know to make a fully‑prepared choice concerning the matter. Thirdly, every such person must be given a fair opportunity to express his or her views on the matter and to attempt to persuade others that his or her view should be adopted by the Community.  And then, finally, every such person who is going to be directly effected by the decision made must be given the opportunity to vote on which specific public policy choice is going to be chosen by the community.

This is referred to as a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC decision­-making process. (This process does NOT require that all such votes be unanimous. Such votes may fairly be determined by a specific, previously–agreed‑upon percentage of the total votes cast or of the total eligible voting members of the community. This may be a simple majority of one‑half plus one; a plurality; a two‑thirds majority, a three‑fourths majority – or whatever percentage is deemed fair by a prior agreement reached by the community prior to the undertaking of this vote).

The need to undertake this process by means of which to make every major public policy choice effecting each member of the community is the product of a substantive NATURAL LAW PRINCIPLE itself. So, to Adherents of the Left‑Marginalist Worldview, the utilization of this process is a Natural Law value in and of itself. In effect, this value dictates that there are instances in which it is ethically preferable to have NO decision made by means of which to address a given public policy problem which will be enforced by the community upon the individuals in the community (if no single alternative choice available generates the support of a specific percentage of the community members) rather than to have a clear choice made which might solve that specific public policy problem at issue but which is actively opposed by [or is not affirmatively accepted by] an unacceptably-high percentage of the members of the community effected.

Thus, there are two equally important aspects of the distinctive Mode of Ethical Reasoning which is believed in by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview. The first, which is substantive, is that a Natural Law Ethic be employed (and that each individual utilizes, as the central means by which he or she determines whether a given option is harmonious with Natural Law, that individual person’s Faculty of INTUITION.) The second, which is procedural, is that the procedure employed by the community to make its collective decision be Social Democratic (as defined above).

One will remember that Dr. John Rawls, the long-time Chairman of the Department of Philosophy of Harvard University, identified the Intuitionist School of Justice as the source of the philosophy which functioned to caveat the otherwise strictly Utilitarian School of Justice within Western Civilization to generate a School of Justice which Dr. Rawls believed to be the Liberal School of Justice. However, even Professor Rawls, one of Western Culture’s true philosophical giants of recent history, was unable to identify in meaningfully clear and concise terms why this Intuitionist School of Justice was not, itself, an adequately-preeminent School of Thought as to enable IT (in its own right) to be the source of an integrated ethic which ever rose to a status capable of governing Western Civilization. 

Indeed, from direct personal interviews with Professor Rawls, it is clear that, while Professor Rawls appeared to comprehend the fact that it was some form of Intuitive experience which constituted the core source of the authority to the Intuitionist School of Justice, Dr. Rawls, as an Adherent to the Fourth Paradigm philosophy of Scientific Logical Positivism, was not willing to credit the intuitive experience with being an adequately legitimate category of human experience to be cited as the key phenomenon when discussing The Intuitionist School of Justice.

While located next to the Left‑Systemist Worldview on Professor Talcott Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph, Adherents to the Left‑Marginalists Worldview do NOT assert a COSMOLOGICAL belief in the existence of an Infinite and Eternal Sea of Un-differentiated Consciousness existing out beyond the physical parameters of our Physical Universe as the Source of our Physical Universe – as do Adherents to The Left‑Systemists Worldview.

The Answer which Adherents to the Left-Marginalist Worldview provide to the EPISTEMOLOGICAL Question is the Key belief which MOST IMPORTANTLY distinguishes Adherents to the Left-Marginalist Worldview from the Adherents to all of the Worldviews located to the right of Middle Marginalists (who reside at The Center of the Sociological Bar Graph.)

For, starting with the Left-MIDDLE-Marginalist Liberals, Adherents to the three Worldviews which are located on the Left half of Dr. Talcott Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph all hold a unique Epistemological Belief that:  There exists a biological human faculty which is operative within each member of our human species which to a greater or lesser degree merits being granted a direct and active role in one’s Mode of Ethical Reasoning and decision-making.[2]

However, the answers given by the Adherents to the Left‑Marginalist position (to the Cosmological Question and the Epistemological Question) generate a different Answer to both of the other two Cosmic Questions, the answers to the four of which determine the position to be taken by an Adherent to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview on public policy issues.

This difference in the answers provided by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview to these FOUR QUESTIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT is of ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE to our present undertaking ‑ because these differences generate the fundamental difference between the public policy positions which will be taken by Adherents to the Left‑Marginalist Position and the positions which will be taken on these same public policy issues by Adherents to each of the other Worldviews.

The major reason why the public policy positions taken by Adherents to the Left- Marginalist Worldview will be different from the public policy positions which will be taken by the Adherents to the Left-Systemist Worldview is that the public policy positions of the Left-­Marginalists Worldview will be clearly CONSTITUTIONAL when they are openly proposed and advocated ‑ IN A CONSTITUTIONALLY‑ MANDATED SECULAR LEGISLATIVE SETTING (such as obtains in the United States) – while the Public Policy positions which are taken by Adherents to the Seventh Paradigm (Theistic) Worldview are totally dependent upon one’s believing in the existence of an Infinite Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness as the Source of The Physical Universe AND as the Source of the NORMATIVE VALUES upon which one predicates one’s public policy choices.

The utilization of such a predicate for the public policy choices which one makes as a public official (and, therefore, as an Agent of The State) can be argued – and, indeed, will be argued by many – to violate the Establishment of Religion Clause of our American Constitution, the clause which is set forth as the very first provision of the very First Amendment to our American Constitution. This clause expressly prohibits our Federal Legislature from making any law respecting an establishment of (state) religion.[3]

What, therefore, are the answers the Sixth Paradigm Worldview provides to the COSMIC QUESTIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT upon which the platform of the Sixth Paradigm Worldview rests, which distinguish this Worldview from the potentially un-Constitutional Theistic Seventh Paradigm Worldview?

And do these answers constitutionally distinguish the Principles, the Public Policies, and the Public and Private Programs which are generated by this Sixth Paradigm Worldview from answers which are provided to these same FOUR COSMIC QUESTIONS by Adherents to the Seventh Paradigm Theist Worldview which are constitutionally questionable?

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological belief that our Physical Universe has always existed – just as do Adherents to The Second, Third, and Fifth Paradigm Worldview – and in the same manner that Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS which emanated our Physical Universe into material existence has always existed.

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that our Physical Universe expands and contracts, just like the heart of a Living Being, expanding out from a state of Absolute Mass into a state of Absolute Energy and then back into a state of Absolute Mass and then back out again into a state of Absolute Energy – just as do Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview and Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview.

However, whereas Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview hold the Teleological Believe that we, as human beings, can have absolutely no effect whatsoever upon the otherwise entirely materially predetermined course of events which will take place within each oscillation of our Physical Universe (all of which are simply re-enacted, over and over again, throughout all of Eternity in strict accordance with the entirely pre-determined and unalterable mechanical laws of physics);

whereas Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview hold the Teleological Belief that we, as human beings, can effect the otherwise entirely materially physically pre-determined events which are going to occur strictly in accordance with the physically pre-determined physical laws of our Universe by exercising our Intellect (which Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview believe, as a function of their Epistemological Belief, we possess as the only additional means which we possess beyond our five physical senses through which can discern Reality and then make the existential choice to alter the otherwise pre-determined patterns by means of directly applying physical forces at our disposal to the matter in the Universe through mechanical means);

and whereas Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that we are capable, through the exercise of our faculty of INTUITION, to make metaphysical judgments guiding our every-day conduct and that our conduct can constructively alter the otherwise pre-determined dialectical or chaotic pattern our Physical Universe would be in at each juncture of human decision, but that these constructive alterations can be undertaken only by means of traditional purely mechanical means by our actions undertaken on the strictly physical and mechanical plane;

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, possess not only the faculty of meta-physical discernment or Intuition (over and above our five physical senses of sight, touch, smell, hearing, and taste); they believe, additionally that we, as human beings, can directly and experientially discern the physical phenomenon which bonds together every single ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the entire Physical Universe into one, single, harmonic – indeed holographic – entity.  This is categorically different than the objective metaphysical source of data to which Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe our human Intuition is effectively directed. Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that the source of data toward which their faculty of Human Intuition is directed is a set of Ideal Forms of potential material objects which exists within a Fifth Dimension of Reality (i.e., in The Realm of The Forms), which Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe exists just outside of our four-dimensional world but which is not contiguous to our four-dimensional world.

Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe, categorically differently, that the source of data into which one directs the exercise of one’s faculty of Human Intuition is the Unified Field which consists of a physical phenomenon similar to the phenomena of gravity or magnetism (just as the phenomena of light and sound are directly experientially accessible to we human beings through our faculties of sight and hearing.) The Unified Field within which this bonding phenomenon exists, and functions is believed by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview to be directly contiguous to our four-dimensional world. Indeed, this physical phenomenon is believed by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview to pervade our entire four-dimensional world, holding it together. It is, indeed, the “glue” of our four-dimensional world.

However, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that this Unified Field also contains substantive data constituting information about every single other ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe, data which we human beings are capable of directly experiencing by means of our Intuitive faculty.

Moreover, in addition to adhering to this critical Epistemological Belief, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview adhere to the Teleological Belief that, through the exercise of this same unique additional human physical faculty of Intuition, we human beings are capable of directly physically effecting every inchoate quantum field of incipient matter which will manifest itself up and out of the Inchoate Quantum Realm in the form of energy or mass  – thereby enabling every individual human being to potentially directly physically alter “Reality” by means of his or her intentional direction of human intention toward said inchoate quantum fields.

THIS is an absolutely unique Teleological feature of The Sixth Paradigm Worldview[1].

Further, in the same manner in which Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that we human beings, as individuated confluences of mass and energy, manifest consciousness, they hold the Ontological Belief that our Monistic Physical Universe is itself conscious.  In effect, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that thoroughly pervading the total of mass and energy which together make up THE MONAD which is our Physical Universe, there exists an entirely non-material field of totally UN-differentiated CONSCIOUSNESS.

However, unlike Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview (who hold the Ontological Belief that there exists [and always has existed] an INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS out beyond the physical parameters of our Physical Universe – extending out and away from the exterior physical boundary of our Physical Universe into an entirely open-ended INFINITY (and which SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS, Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Theistic Worldview believe emanated into physical existence our entire Physical Universe).  Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Ontological Belief that there exists an entirely FINITE Field of Consciousness which thoroughly pervades the FINITE collective of mass and energy which constitutes our Physical Universe – and that out and beyond the totally FINITE physical boundary of our Physical Universe there exists absolutely nothing at all other than totally empty space, i.e., “The Void.”

Thus Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe that Mass, Energy, and Consciousness exist as a finite TRINITY, if you will, abiding within “THE VOID” of Space.

The Epistemology and Theory of Human Psychology, which is generated by this Sixth Paradigm Worldview, is, thus, intensely Sensory, Intuitive and Effective.  That is, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that we, as human beings, have access to Absolute Truth, a completely holistic Truth, much greater than that which we could ever possibly obtain solely and exclusively from the mechanical compilation of the total composite of raw materialist data that we might be able to directly personally physically experience through our generally accepted five physical senses, and also much greater than we could ever possibly simply calculate algorithmically through the application of our Intellect to the raw data obtained by our simple Five Physical Senses.

While Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe, as do Adherents to The Third, Fourth and Fifth Paradigm Worldviews, that we, as human beings, possess the ability, through the exercise of our human MIND (i.e. our Intellect), to ascertain patterns within the data which we can physically access – which patterns we can then project out beyond the confines to which our five physical senses are confined in order to conceive of possible manifestations of Reality which lie beyond the experiential reach of our five physical senses – but which bear a specific relationship to the ultimately Real World, Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview believe additionally that we, as human beings, have direct physical access to Absolute Truth (which Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview deem to be the sum total of all of the present manifestations of all of the existent inchoate and choate quantum fields which exists within the physical parameters of THE MONAD which is our Physical Universe)… to which we each have direct, physical access through the exercise of our additional physical faculty of Intuition.

Thus, the Cosmology of an Adherent to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview is a FINITE physical configuration of the explicitly finite number of inchoate and choate quantum fields which exist at this moment – and which have always existed (each of which possesses, at every moment, the potential of manifesting into a wave of energy or a particle of mass) the sum total of which quantum fields always co-exist within a spherical Field of Consciousness (while Consciousness holds this finite number of quantum fields into one, unified holographic MONAD) and which Unified Field of Consciousness, therefore, constitutes the Netter of the Reality which physically manifests itself within this physical holographic MONAD, and which Consciousness contains within it The Implicate Order of All Reality.

In its Lower Manifestation, the Sixth Paradigm Worldview generates a Mode of Ethical Reasoning which inveterately seeks absolute physical harmony within the Physical Universe.

This is the Mode of Ethical Reasoning pursuant to which an individual human being, when faced with a choice among a range of alternative forms of human conduct, will choose that specific form of human conduct which, both individually and collectively, will generate the highest possible degree of physical harmony within The Natural Order of Being within THE HOLOGRAPHIC MONAD of our Physical Universe. This harmony is discerned primarily through one’s direct intuitional experience of the harmonic tone which exists within the interplay of all of the vibrational frequencies which are intrinsic to each and every collective of mass, energy and consciousness which exist in the entire Physical Universe and the exercise, in the midst of this experience of this harmonic tone, of one’s intuitive sense of what action on one’s part perfectly harmonizes with that harmonic tone which is generated by the sum total of all of the vibrational frequencies in our Physical Universe.

In its Higher Manifestation, the Sixth Paradigm Worldview generates the Mode of Ethical Reasoning pursuant to which each individual human being directly accesses THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COSMOS itself and melds one’s seemingly individuated Consciousness into THE UNISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COSMOS and then acts out of this UNISTIC Consciousness.

This Mode of Ethical Reasoning is not so much physical (even to the degree of being able to intuitively discern the physically harmonious action which one must take in any given circumstance), but is, rather, “MONIC”, in the sense that one’s action flows, instead, directly from the Monistic Consciousness of The Cosmos itself.

The Lower Manifestation of the Sixth Paradigm Worldview generates the Philosophy of Pythagoras.

In its Higher Manifestation, The Sixth Paradigm Worldview generates the Philosophy of Epimenides of Ancient Greece – or Theravadin Buddhism of Asanga who established, in the Fourth Century B.C. the Yogacara School of Philosophy (World Religions, p. 141) and of Mahayana Buddhism of Nararjuana who established, in the Second Century A.D. the Madhyamika School of Philosophy (World Religions, p.140.)

The Mode of Spiritual Expression of Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm is, in its Lower Manifestation, therefore Pythagorean or Epimenidean.  In its “Higher” Manifestation it is Zen Buddhist.

The Social Form in which The Sixth Paradigm Worldview manifests itself, in its Lower Manifestation, is the form of The Ancient Greek Pythagorean Community, such as those which were actually established in ancient Greece between 530 B.C. 470 B.C. and the paradigmatic Sixth Paradigm Community known as “ATLANTIS.”

In its Higher Manifestation, The Sixth Paradigm Worldview has expressed itself in the Social Form of Tibet.

[1] While adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview believe that “Shamans” are capable of “accessing” certain subtle physical forces which reside in nature and “directing” those forces to influence physical events within our four-dimensional world, adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that each and every human being possesses the metaphysical capability to reach into the very heart of “inchoate” Reality itself and alter the next moment of physical Reality itself in accordance with that individual human being’s WILL.

[2] It is simply the degree of “centrality” which this “faculty” should play in one’s ethical decision-making that differentiates the specific “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” on each of these “Left-of-Center” Worldviews one from the other. Fifth Paradigm Adherents maintain that its role should be “marginal” (so as to merely “caveat” one’s otherwise strictly “rational” Fourth Paradigm “Scientifically-Logically-Positive” Mode of Ethical Reasoning.)  Seventh Paradigm Adherents maintain that its role should be effectively “exclusive” (allowing the data obtained from this “other realm” to govern all of one’s “ethical” decisions.) And Sixth Paradigm Adherents maintain that the role of this “Intuitive” faculty should be “central” to one’s ethical decision-making, though NOT “exclusive.”

[3] More sophisticated Constitutional Scholars would argue (quite persuasively) that predicating mere legislative proposals to our Federal Legislature, which are predicated upon “data” secured by Adherents to The Seventh Paradigm from “Prayer,” would NOT transgress the principle prohibiting the “establishment” of religion by our Federal Government so long as any mere “proposal” made by such Adherents was put to a completely open and democratic vote on its substantive merits as a “secularly”-effective manner of addressing a specific “secular” public policy problem. However, the “opponents” to any such “proposal” would, almost certainly, assert that the legislative enactment of any “public” proposal which was itself “predicated upon” data purportedly secured through “prayer” would constitute “a law respecting an establishment of religion” thereby generating a perfectly “good faith” substantial public controversy over any such public policy proposal.

[4] See, e.g., “A New Perspective On Reality”, pp.5-14; “The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation With David Bohm, by Renee Weber; pp. 44-105; “Reflections On The Holographic Paradigm” by Kenneth Dychtwald,

105-113; and “The Holographic Model, The Holistic Paradigm, Information Theory and Consciousness” by John R. Battista, pp. 143-150.

The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

Plato is the undisputed Philosopher of the Fifth Paradigm Liberal Worldview.  Thus we must look to Plato for an articulation of the Cosmology of The Fifth Paradigm.

The most significant aspect of Plato’s Cosmology (which distinguishes his Cosmology from the Cosmology of The Fourth Paradigm Worldview articulated by Aristotle) and from each of the other Worldviews discussed to this point is Plato’s insistence that there exist two distinct and NON-“Contiguous” realms of REALITY.

While Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview projected out an intellectually potential Realm of Reality and then chose to conduct their human conduct as though THAT potential Reality were true (thereby existentially making THAT Reality TRUE) and while Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview projected out a mathematically probable realm of Reality which probably exists out beyond our present physical capacity to access this realm of Reality through our five presently acknowledged physical human senses but then choose to confine their human conduct strictly to the physical world which they “know” for certain – that is to the world which they are able to confirm scientifically.  Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold an Epistemological Belief which sets them apart from Adherents to ALL of the Worldviews from the center of Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph to its extreme right which causes Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview to hold a fifth, categorically distinct, cosmology.

This unique Epistemological belief will be discussed in detail immediately below. However, for purposes of introducing the unique “Cosmology” of Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, it will be necessary to simply introduce this Epistemological Belief here.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as a human species, possess a SIXTH SENSE. This is a Sixth biological human sense – like “seeing”, “hearing,” “touch,” “taste” and “smell” – by means of which each human being is capable of directly experiencing the physical phenomenon which bonds together every irreducible “integer” of matter (i.e., every single inchoate quantum field) in the entire physical Universe to every other such inchoate quantum field.  In other words, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that there exists within the physical Universe a REAL phenomenon which is not material (that is, which has no “mass” and also is not any form of “energy”) which bonds together – INTO ONE SINGLE UNITARY MONAD – every single solitary individual “Inchoate Quantum Field” of “Matter in the entire physical Universe.

This NON – material phenomenon, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe to be “CONSCIOUSNESS.”

In other words, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that the physical Universe is made up of TWO essentially distinct phenomena.  One is a finite number of Inchoate Quantum Fields (which manifest in the form of a singularity within the otherwise entirely undifferentiated FINITE “FIELD” OF CONSCIOUSNESS, which constitutes the “Netter” of the physical Universe. These “Inchoate Quantum Fields” generate “Energy” and “Matter.”[1]) The interplay of “Energy” and “Matter” make up one of TWO essentially distinct phenomena which make our Universe.  The other is the entirely undifferentiated FIELD OF CONSCIOUSNESS which constitutes the “Netter” of the physical Universe.

Pursuant to the Cosmological Belief of Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, one Realm of REALITY is the Material Realm of physical matter. This is the three-dimensional Physical World, which is made up of physical manifestations of “Matter,” which make up all of “material” reality.

The second Realm of Reality is the “Realm of Consciousness” – an entirely NON-material Realm…but a Realm which exists just as REAL as the Material “Realm” of Reality.  To Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, however, this is NOT the merely intellectually – projected potential reality of the Third Paradigm Existential Worldview.  NOR is this Cosmology of The Fifth Paradigm Worldview merely the Intellectually – Projected, Theoretically – Real Cosmology of The Fourth Paradigm “Scientific Logical Positivist” Worldview. This second, NON-material “Realm of Consciousness” is REAL. It EXISTS! It is, therefore, directly accessible.

This Realm, Plato argues, is just as “real” as is the material realm in which every person plays out his or her day-to-day life of eating, sleeping, working, reproducing, and walking around. Indeed, Plato goes so far as to assert that this “Realm of the Forms” is, in a very real way, MORE REAL than the simply material world (comparing the material world to a mere “shadow play” cast upon the wall of a cave by the “REAL” actors and dancers…who exist in…indeed who find their very source of “being” in this other REALM OF THE FORMS.)

This ancient Greek idea insisted upon by Plato in his Republic indeed foreshadows the discovery, some 2,300 years later, by Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Werner Heisenberg, and Neils Borr of the non-material “Inchoate Quantum Field,” out of which all “material” objects “manifest.”

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

Since Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that this other NON – Material Realm actually exists AND since Adherents to this Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that we human beings Epistemologically possess an explicit biological faculty by means of which we can directly acquire real knowledge from this other realm, Adherents to this Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the “Teleological” Belief that all human conduct CAN, through the exercise of GOOD CONSCIOUS HUMAN JUDGMENT, be BROUGHT INTO CONSCIOUS ALIGNMENT WITH THE IMPLICATE ORDER WHICH ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THIS OTHER REALM AS AN IDEALLY STRUCTURED PHYSICAL REALITY.

This ideally structured Reality abides in this physically real “Realm of The Ideal Forms” to which adequately well-informed individual human beings can acquire access through adequate training – and can, then, govern their conduct in accordance with the knowledge of the IDEAL “FORM” garnered from The Realm of The Forms – and can govern others in accordance with this special knowledge to draw our human culture, more and more, into complete alignment with the structure of the “Ideal Forms” which abide in The Realm of The Forms.

This elite-governed activity, then, constitutes the teleological dynamic by means of which our human world will, step-by-step, be drawn into alignment with The Ideal… while these TWO distinct Worlds shall forever remain separate and distinct.

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Ontological Belief that, while human Consciousness is the product of a purely physical interaction between “Mass” and “Energy”… human consciousness has the real ability (NOT just potential and NOT just theoretical) to become EXACTLY LIKE the IDEAL CONSCIOUSNESS which abides within the other Realm of The Ideal Forms which must, however, remain forever separate and distinct from the Material Realm.

Thus, while Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview hold the Ontological Belief that human Consciousness IS one and the same WITH the Consciousness which exists as the cosmological Bonding Phenomenon (or “Netter”) of the entire physical Universe (therefore there being no “essential” difference between the “Consciousness” of The Cosmos and human “Consciousness”, since there is only ONE radically “Monistic” Reality), Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold an essentially dualistic Ontology believing that, while human beings can imitate the Ideal Consciousness of The Cosmos, human beings can NOT share directly IN the Consciousness of The Cosmos.[2]

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the “facts” that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

As indicated above, it is the unique Epistemological Belief of Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview which distinguishes Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview categorically from the Adherents to ALL of the “Worldviews” from the center of Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph to the extreme right of this Bar Graph.  For NONE of the Adherents from the center to the extreme right of Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph believe that we, as human beings, possess any means by which we can obtain “access” to Absolute Reality itself.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that human beings have access to a genuine NON – material Realm of Reality which actually Exists to which we, as human beings, can gain access to definitively REAL data which enables us to make ABSOLUTE decisions about Reality (as compared to merely relative “good” decisions [Second Paradigm decisions], potentially “good” decisions (Third Paradigm decisions] or theoretically “good” decisions [Fourth Paradigm decisions]). This is the truly distinguishing characteristic of The Fifth Paradigm “Epistemology.” It is also characteristic of The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, which causes Adherents to ALL of the “other” Worldviews to the right of this Worldview to view Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview as “Fuzzy-Headed”, “un-grounded” (in physical Reality) and at the same time “self-righteous.”

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview exercise all of the purely “Scientific” criteria of Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview in gathering their data, but since they hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, have direct experiential access to the very real “Realm of The Ideal Forms,” Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview supplement their data derived from their exercise of “Scientific Logical Positivism” with an exercise of “Intuition,” causing them to modify their otherwise purely “Majoritarian Utilitarian” Mode of Ethical Reasoning with an “Intuitive” supplement. This “Intuitive supplement” causes Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview to select options which, while these choices do generate the greatest good for the greatest number, these choices also at the same time generate at least something for the least well-off. This Fifth Paradigm “Liberal” Mode of Ethical Reasoning is discussed, in detail, by Professor John Rawls in his famous work entitled A Theory of Justice published, in 1972, by Harvard University Press.

Professor Rawls attributes the adoption of this specific “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” by Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm “Liberal” Worldview to the influence upon otherwise rigid Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview of the “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” adhered to by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm “Intuitionist” Worldview.[3]  In fact, the adoption of the Fifth Paradigm Mode of Ethical Reasoning, which attributes merely a supplemental importance to the data obtained via the human “Intuitive” faculty, is the product of an entirely distinct Cosmology, Teleology, Ontology, and Epistemology on the part of Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview. They attribute a merely supplemental role to this data NOT as a Utilitarian judgment, but, instead, because Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, as distinct from The Sixth Paradigm, experience the human “Faculty of Intuition” as merely supplemental to their otherwise strictly Intellectual Faculty.

This is because their ONTOLOGICAL Belief informs The Fifth Paradigm Worldview that we, as human beings, are capable ONLY of imitating the “Ideal Consciousness of The Cosmos,” NOT of Being AT ONE WITH the Consciousness of The Cosmos. For this reason, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm are willing to place ONLY a supplemental degree of reliance upon the data obtained via this imitation of “Ideal” Consciousness.[4]

One will recall that Plato, the ultimate “Philosopher” of The Fifth Paradigm, places the “Ideal” human observer in the position, in his “Allegory of The Cave” (in his Republic), in between the Fire and the REAL “Players,” thereby being uniquely capable of recognizing that the shadows cast by the fire upon the wall of the cave are only shadows. But even this “Ideal” observer is NOT “THE” REAL Player. Therefore, pursuant to the Ontology of The Fifth Paradigm, even the “Ideal” human observer is ONLY capable of imitating the conduct of the REAL Player. So, such an “Ideal” participant in Reality is ONLY an imitator and NOT entitled to have the ABSOLUTE confidence in his judgments which a REAL “PLAYER” would have. He is only somewhere in between a “Shadow” and a REAL “Player.” So, he should act in moderation on the basis of his perception of “The Ideal.” Thus, for the Adherent to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, the “Intuitional” experience functions solely as a supplement to his otherwise entirely reason-based “scientific” judgments … NOT because an Adherent to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview is nothing more than a more practical Utilitarian (as Professor Parsons’ asserts) but because he holds a profound Ontological Belief that his Faculty of Reason holds him forever separate and apart from the fully-engulfing Intuitive Experience which would allow (or compel) him to give to this “Intuitive Experience” the truly “Central” role in his or her decision-making process.

The defining and distinguishing belief of the “Liberal” Fifth Paradigm Worldview is the fact that The Liberal Worldview is the first of the “Worldviews” (moving from the “Right” to the “Left” along Professor Talcott Parson’s Sociological Bar Graph) which actually acknowledges the bona fides of the “Intuitive” human experience. However, Adherents to the merely “Liberal” Worldview grant to this “Intuitive” Experience, nothing more than a merely ancillary – or supplemental – role in the ethical decision-making process of our human family.

This belief in the bona fides of the “Intuitive” human experience as a legitimate category of experience is the distinctive feature of the Epistemological Belief system of adherents to the “Liberal” Worldview, which distinguishes the Epistemological Belief from the Epistemological Beliefs of the Adherents to all of the Worldviews which exist from the Center to the Right extreme end of Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph. This Epistemological Belief is a function of the determination on the part of all Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview that there does exist a bona fide “Intuitive” human experience which gives an individual human being genuine access to an objective dimension of “Reality”, so as to legitimatize the inclusion of the data ascertained by means of this “Intuitive” Experience as one to be taken into account when making all of one’s personal and public ethical decisions.

The locus of the Fifth Paradigm “Left Middle-Marginalist” “Liberal” Worldview, along the linear Worldview “Spectrum”, is then the “dividing line” between “materialists” and “spiritual” human beings.

However, Adherents to the “Liberal” Worldview refuse to allow the “data” accessed by means of this “Intuitive” Experience of a human being to play a dominant … role in their decision-making process.  Such data is allowed to play merely an ancillary or supplemental role as compared to the role which is allowed to be played by the “data” obtained through the “materialist” process of “Scientific Logical-Positivism” (the “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” of The Fourth Paradigm Scientific Rationalists.)

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold a Cosmological Belief, which is similar to the Third Paradigm Worldview Cosmology. Like adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, adherents to Then Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the “Cosmological” belief that, while our physical universe is made up of real physical “matter”, this matter takes on its FORM of specific physical manifestation as a result of the three-way interaction among “Energy,” “Mass” and “MIND.”

However, while adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview attribute to the human MIND only the ability of the “Intellect,” adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview attribute a specific metaphysical capacity to the human MIND.  It is NOT a metaphysical capacity which is able to directly effect matter (which is a distinctive belief of adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview). However, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that we, as human beings, have direct metaphysical access to a unique dimension of “Reality,” which is an intimate part of their Cosmological Belief.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, like adherents to The First, Second, and Third Paradigm Worldviews, recognize that all matter which comes into physical manifestation at The Beginning of Time is dis-integrating into their smaller constituent, ultimately NON-divisible units of matter.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe, further, that each and every such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe is, at the same time, repelling itself out and away from every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that there exists in a NON-contiguous dimension (the NON-material substance of which vibrates at a frequency which is an “octave” higher in its rate of physical vibration than actual material “wave functions” of physical energy and material “particles” vibrate within our physical world of four “dimensions”) and that it is up and out of this “Quantum Realm” that our physical universe “manifests.”

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the further Cosmological Belief that what it is that determines the form our physical universe will “manifest” on this physical plane up and out of this “Quantum Realm” is the function of two inter-acting phenomena. The first is the “Ideal Form,” in which all of the aspects of the Universe exist within this NON-contiguous DIMENSION.  And the second is the degree to which a given creative human mind can “access,” or conceive of, the sum total of the specific items which exist within this dimension as close as possible to their “Ideal” form and then “create” this specific “ideal” item here, in our physical world of four dimensions with his or her physical actions having been guided by his or her “vision” of this item in its “Ideal” form in the “Quantum Realm” (or “The Realm of The Forms”) of this Fifth Dimension of Reality.

While this Belief is, at base, an Epistemological belief (pertaining to how one, as a human being, comes “to know” certain aspects of Reality), there is a specific Cosmological dimension to this Belief as well.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological Belief that our physical universe is drawn up into physical manifestation, out of this Fifth Dimension “Quantum Realm,” as the beginning of a new cycle of the physical universe in a form which directly manifests THE IDEAL UNIVERSE WHICH EXISTS IN THE FIFTH DIMENSION to the exact degree to which that “IDEAL” was “grasped,” believed in, AND MANIFESTED THROUGH THE MECHANICAL ACTIVITIES of the total mass of human beings who lived in the four-dimensional physical world during the previous “cycle” of the physical universe. Thus, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that the “new” Universe (which “begins” with each new “cycle”) gets to “begin” where the “old” Universe “left off.” This is a very distinctive and idealistic Cosmology.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, like adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, adhere to an Ontological Belief that Human Consciousness is an absolute eternally-existing PARTNER (with “Energy” and “Mass”) in the eternal interaction between the “Positive” and the “Negative” forces in the physical universe and between “Mass” and “Energy.”  However, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview do not attribute any metaphysical or psychic power to our human Mind to be able to directly effect physical matter.  Rather, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that our individual and collective human actions taken as a result of decisions made through an act of our human Mind guided by our metaphysical perception of “Ideal” forms which actually exist in the Fifth Dimension, taken in their aggregate, can effect the “material” universe – but only through our strictly “normal” physical activities.

The “Epistemology” and “Theory of Human Psychology” which are generated by The Fifth Paradigm Worldview are strictly “Sensory” and “Metaphysical” – but are “metaphysical” only with regard to our perception, NOT with regard to our ability to directly effect physical matter. That is, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the “Epistemological” Belief that we, as human beings, have “direct metaphysical perceptual “access to” a greater “Truth” than that which we might otherwise obtain merely from a compilation of the total composite of raw materialist data which we can directly experience through our own personal FIVE physical senses – because adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that, as human beings, we have the ability, through the exercise of our HUMAN FACULTY OF INTUITION, to directly metaphysically discern, out beyond the confines of our the personal experience of our five physical senses, real “data” pertaining to the “IDEAL WORLD” which actually exists in a Fifth Dimension of Reality.

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview hold the Psychological Belief that the functioning of our human “Mind” is more than a mere material activity. It is a metaphysical activity as well since our “Mind” possesses a “faculty” of “INTUITION” as well as “INTELLECT.” They believe that we, as human beings, are, therefore, capable, through the exercise of our “faculty” of “INTUITION,” to make metaphysical judgments guiding our moment-to-moment conduct and that our metaphysically-“guided” conduct can constructively alter the otherwise strictly pre-determined dialectical or chaotic “pattern” in which our physical universe would otherwise occur at each juncture of human decision (though these constructive alterations can be undertaken only by traditional mechanical means by our actions on the strictly physical plane). However, this additional “meta-physical” capacity of discernment provided us with an “Intuitional Psychology ”, a much more satisfactory psychological state of mind than our being simply

(A) a mere “flotsam” of “random” consciousness in an entirely chaotic physical universe (pursuant to The First Paradigm Worldview),

(B) a mere slave to an entirely physically pre-determined, eternally-repeating, dialectical existence (as is the belief of adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview)

(C) a mere “Intellect” which has no “greater” access to aspects of Reality which exist “out beyond” the reach of the direct physical experience of our mere five physical senses than that that which we can “calculate” through our “Intellect” by intellectually discerning “patterns” within the physical data obtained through the direct experience of our five physical senses and then “projecting” these “patterns”(intellectually) “out beyond” the immediate physical reach of our five senses (even our “reach” amplified by technology).

Instead, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview adhere to a “Theory of Human Psychology,” pursuant to which we are

(D) “Intuitional” Beings, possessing a metaphysical faculty of “Intuition” by means of which we, as individual human beings, can directly access an additional dimension of “REALITY” itself which contains the “data of an “Ideal” Reality which we can then metaphysically decide to “construct”, here within our four-dimensional world of space and time.

However, unlike adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview who believe that this additional faculty of “Intuition” should play a central role in our human “Mode of Ethical Reasoning,” adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview believe that the direct experience which we, as human beings, experience by means of this additional faculty of “Intuition’ should be relegated to a merely “supplemental” role in contributing to our “epistemology.” This is the key belief of adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, which distinguishes them from the adherents to ALL “Worldviews” to their “Right” (all of whom believe that there are NO “epistemological” means which we have at our physical disposal, as human beings, by means of which we can acquire direct “access to” Absolute Reality.) This “Belief” on the part of adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview to the effect that this human faculty of Intuition should play only a supplemental role in one’s determination of facts distinguishes the Fifth Paradigm Worldview from all “Worldviews” to their “Left,” all of whom believe that we have direct experiential access to Absolute Reality.   And that the “Absolute Reality” to which we have direct experiential access as human beings (either through an exercise of our Intuition as adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview or through an exercise of our Spiritual Facility as adherents to The Seventh Paradigm Worldview) should be given absolute CENTRALITY in the process of our making determinations of FACT and in our “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.”

Because of these combined “Cosmological”, “Teleological,” “Ontological,” “Epistemological,” and “Psychological” beliefs on the part of adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview adhere to a “Philosophy” which is “Idealistic.”

In its “Lower” Manifestation, the Fifth Paradigm Worldview generates the “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” of Plato, this being the IDEALISTIC Mode of Ethical Reasoning.

Pursuant to this Mode of Ethical Reasoning, one merely supplements one’s “Intellectual” projection of the “patterns” discerned within the physical data obtained by means of one’s five physical senses by the additional means of a purely “Intuitional” experience by means of which one intuitionally accesses THE REALM OF THE FORMS, which is an actual “dimension” of Reality – though it is not physically contiguous to the four-dimensional physical Reality in which we dwell. In this “REALM” resides TRUE “Reality”, in its IDEAL and PERFECT form.  Utilizing this “Ideal Form” as one’s “model”, one then undertakes to replicate here, within our four-dimensional material world, that “Ideal” form.

In its “Higher” Manifestation, The Fifth Paradigm Worldview generates the “Philosophy” of “Theosophy” of Alice Bailey, Anne Bessant and Helen Blavatsky.

The “Mode of Spiritual Expression” of adherents to The Fifth Paradigm is, in its “Lower” Manifestation, Hindu. In its “Higher” Manifestation, it is Fakir.

In its “Social Form,” The Fifth Paradigm Worldview “manifests” itself, in its “Lower” Manifestation, in the form of PLATO’S REPUBLIC, in the Greek City State of ATHENS, or in Alexander The Great’s 331 B.C. City of Alexandria in Egypt.  In its “Higher” Manifestation, The Fifth Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in the “Social Form” of The Hindu “Raj.”

[1] When two of these otherwise “inchoate” (i.e., un-“manifest”) Quantum Fields “manifest” themselves (or “differentiate” themselves) within the otherwise entirely UN-“manifest” AND UN-“differentiated” FINITE “FIELD” OF “CONSCIOUSNESS” in the “form” of a “SINGULARITY” (i.e. a mere “voltage differential”), there suddenly “occurs” flowing “between” these two suddenly “existent” points a single “wave function” of “Energy.” This single “wave function” of “Energy” is the first “unit” of “Matter” in the Universe. This is an “Electron Volt Unit.”

[2] Pursuant to this Belief, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview engage in a “Mode of Spiritual Expression” which holds the belief that, while the Physical Cosmos (being itself a confluence of “Mass” and “Energy”) does possess “Consciousness” of ITself (in the same way that we, as human beings – being a confluence of “Mass” and “Energy” – possess “Consciousness”), the Consciousness of The Cosmos remains “separate” from our Consciousness…while, at the same time, constituting an “IDEAL” Consciousness which we, as human beings, can bring our Consciousness into “alignment with” by IMATATING this “IDEAL” Consciousness…like all Ideal” forms within the Realm of The Forms.

[3] Functioning as true “Utilitarians,” Professor Rawls argues, in his A Theory of Justice, that some Adherents to the strictly “practical” Fourth Paradigm “Scientific Logical Positivist” Worldview “take into full account” the potential bone fides of the Sixth Paradigm “Intuitionists” assertions that they, as human beings, are capable of “directly experiencing” another dimension of Reality which generate bona fide data and, therefore, according to Professor Rawls, some Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview simply add in the data obtained by the Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview to the data obtained from their strictly “Scientific Logical Positivist” sources as Fourth Paradigm Adherents generating a “Hybrid” (as distinct from a genuinely generic) Fifth, “Liberal” Worldview. However, according to Professor Rawls, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview do NOT attribute “central” importance to this Sixth Paradigm “intuitive” data. They treat this Sixth Paradigm data as simply “supplemental” to the data they have garnered via their Scientific Logical Positivist “Epistemology.”

[4] One will recall that Plato, the ultimate “Philosopher” of The Fifth Paradigm, places the “Ideal” human observer in the position, in his “Allegory of The Cave” (in his Republic), ONLY in “between” the Fire and the REAL “Players,” thereby being uniquely capable of recognizing that the “Shadows” cast by the Fire upon the wall of the cave are only shadows. But even this “Ideal” observer is NOT “THE” REAL Player. Therefore, pursuant to the“Ontology” of The Fifth Paradigm, even the “Ideal” human observer is ONLY capable of “imitating” the conduct of the REAL Player. So, such an “Ideal” participant in Reality is ONLY an “imatator” (an “Actor”) and is NOT entitled to have the ABSOLUTE confidence in his judgments which a REAL “PLAYER” would have. He is only somewhere “in between” a “Shadow” and a REAL “Player.” So, he should act “in moderation” on the basis of his perception of “The Ideal.”

The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

While often publicly professing to believe in the classical Theist Cosmology because it is the useful (utilitarian) thing to do in a culture in which the majority of people espouse this belief, adherents to the MIDDLE-MARGINALIST position along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar graph do not really believe in such an “Emanationist” Cosmology in which:

(A) Every point of “space” outside of the physical boundaries of our physical universe is filled by an infinite & eternal sea of undifferentiated Consciousness;

(B) This Consciousness also pervades every unit of “matter” within the physical Universe;

(C) The infinite & eternal sea of undifferentiated consciousness can alter our universe’s natural laws of physical science in response to “prayers”; and

(D) Every single human being is capable of achieving direct conscious access to the infinite & eternal sea of undifferentiated consciousness through the act of “prayer.”

However, they are not certain that something like this is NOT going on ‑ even if they cannot rationally determine what the “something” is.

Conversely, Adherents of the MIDDLE‑Marginalist position are NOT entirely convinced that every single ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the physical Universe is simply expanding out and away from every other such integer of matter in the Universe into ultimate nothingness resulting in there being no meaning whatsoever to any act other than insofar as that act generates the most immediate short‑term material physical gratification of the biological needs of one’s own personal self and one’s own immediate family.

However, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview suspect that this might be true – even if they do not wish to admit this to themselves – or to the public.

Therefore, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Middle-Marginalist Worldview do not stand with those who take (what the Middle-Marginalists perceive to be) such “IDEOLOGICAL”, or “Extreme” positions on these Four Cosmic Questions of Ultimate Fact and adopt, in practice, a merely provisional position on the “Cosmological” Question as to the existence of, or non-existence of this “Infinite & Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness” which is the source of the physical Universe – as well as refraining from taking any fixed position as to the Answer to any of the other three Cosmic Questions which might provide them with a consistent “Worldview.”

INSTEAD OF believing in, or attempting to comport their conduct in accordance with, any specific “Cosmological” Belief – Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm “Middle-Marginalist” Worldview operationally adopt whatever THEORY is PRESENTLY supported by the latest scientific data ascertained solely by our five human senses (amplified or enhanced by our human technology) and then processed through our human intellect. This conduct generates a position on the issue of Cosmology which is fundamentally different from simply averaging the data provided by the Cosmological Answers espoused by the two Systemic Worldviews and the two Marginalist Worldviews.

Thus, Adherents to The Middle Marginalist Worldview believe in a Cosmology which is the product of the data gathered solely through an exercise of their five commonly-acknowledged physical senses and extrapolated by their Intellect. However, such intellectual extrapolation generates a model of what the physical is beyond that which they can actually see, touch, taste, feel or smell (enhanced by technology).  So, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview do NOT take any position other than an entirely theoretical position as to the Cosmology of our physical Universe beyond that portion of the Universe which has been “proven” by scientifically – verifiable means (meaning that data which can be confirmed by our five human biological senses enhanced by scientifically accepted means of physical technology).

Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm relegate all study outside the known universe to theoretical sciences.  This position on the part of Adherents to the MIDDLE‑ Marginalist position along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph causes Adherents to this Middle-Marginalist Worldview to be comparatively UNGROUNDED, un‑linked to any truly Cosmic referent, thus, very much without any over-arching consistent moral and ethical framework.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

Adherents of the Middle‑Marginalist position are not wedded to the Right-Systemist position that human beings are essentially the same as we have been for hundreds of thousands of years: territorial, predatory, selfish, violent, untrustworthy, etc, and that our species is essentially unalterable in this regard.

Nor, however, do Adherents to The Middle Marginalist Worldview believe in the Left-Systemist position that there is some natural phenomenon at work from outside of the physical Universe which is operating within the physical Universe which will naturally evolve our human species into a more and more “perfect” status, both biologically or ethically.

Adherents to this Middle-Marginalist position DO, however, believe that individual human beings can, through the exercise of their intellect, improve the lot into which they were born – so long as one does not form any firm beliefs based strictly upon intellectually – projected theories beyond those which can be confirmed through direct observation by means of one’s five physical human senses.

Thus, Adherents of this position are vigorous in their advocacy of education and the making educational opportunities available to ALL persons ‑ regardless of those persons’ race, ethnic background, class or place of national origin. But, this educational opportunity must train persons who receive such education to restrain their beliefs strictly to those which are rational and scientifically verified. This, indeed, is an absolutely essential aspect of the education to which Fourth Paradigm Worldview Adherents believe that every person should be entitled… indeed, should be legally-compelled to be subjected to… in order to make the world a strictly rational place.

Pursuant to such an education, Adherents to The Middle Marginalist Worldview believe that we, as human beings, can influence the teleology of our physical Universe by inserting our rational conduct into the physical Universe to alter the otherwise natural physical events of the Universe which are otherwise governed by the physical laws of science. The criteria to determine what human action we will insert into the otherwise natural “Teleology” of the physical Universe are, by an Adherent to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview, strictly rational actions in accordance with the Mode of Ethical Reasoning which is generated by a strictly rational judgment.[3]

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

Aristotle represents the Philosopher of The Fourth Paradigm Worldview.  Aristotle’s discussion of perception overlaps with two contemporary debates about consciousness: the first over whether consciousness is an intrinsic feature of mental states or a higher-order manifestation of which we are merely vessels, and the second concerning the qualitative nature of experience. In both cases, Aristotle’s views cut down the middle of an apparent dichotomy in a way that does justice to each set of intuitions while avoiding their attendant difficulties. With regard to the first issue, he argues that consciousness is both intrinsic and higher-order due to its reflexive nature. This, in turn, has consequences for the second issue, where again Aristotle seeks out the middle ground. He is committed against qualia in any strong sense of the term. Yet he also holds that the phenomenal quality of experience is not exhausted by its representational content.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the “facts” that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

Adherents of the Middle‑Marginalist position, like persons who are located on the right side of Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph, are disinclined to believe that there is any method by means of which we, as human beings, can determine any Absolute Truth.

However, unlike the Adherents of the Right‑Systemist and Right‑ Marginalist positions on the Bar Graph, Adherents of the Middle‑ Marginalist position will NOT maintain that THERE IS NO TRUTH OR REALITY (which would mean that we are free to conduct ourselves as though there was NO TRUTH or that we are free simply to blindly give ourselves over to some purely mechanical dialectic.)

Like persons who are located on the left side of Professor Parsons’ Bar graph, Adherents of the Middle‑Marginalist position along the Bar Graph are inclined to go searching for THE Truth (with an expectation that “IT” exists out there somewhere).  Thus, Adherents of the Middle-Marginalists position along the Bar Graph endorse the utilitarian tactic of a dialectical methodology for searching out the Truth (more accurately, perhaps, “groping toward” the truth).  However, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview do not grant to this dialectical process an end-game ULTIMATE value (as do Right‑Marginialist Dialecticians).

Instead, Adherents to the Middle-Marginalist position on the Bar Graph remain ready and willing to adjust the truth generated by an attachment to the outcome of a purely dialectical process to accord with new physically-verifiable scientific data.  In the meantime, Adherents to this Fourth Paradigm Middle Marginalist Worldview are always willing to accept a less-than-perfect “truth” to accommodate the pragmatic needs of the moment at which “truth” needs to be determined.

In order to determine this presently-operative Truth, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview engage in the intellectual process of “Scientific Logical Positivism” to determine “The Facts.” They systematically gather scientific data, then subject this data to their human intellect,  discerning patterns within this data. They then project out (arithmetically, geometrically,  algorithmically and through calculus) this data to determine how these strictly physical patterns might project themselves out into the physical realm beyond the parameters in which we, as human beings, can presently physically discern the presence of these physical phenomena.

BUT, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Scientific Logical Positivist Worldview, confine this intellectual extrapolation strictly to the realm of theory, and they confine their beliefs strictly to that portion of the totality of Reality to which they can gain direct physical access through their five physical, biological senses (enhanced by scientifically-verified technology.) Because of this, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview explicitly and expressly acknowledge that they do NOT “know” everything. Indeed, they expressly acknowledge that even that which they profess to “know” is strictly provisional… that is subject to change.  All Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview stand ready to amend what they “know” by adjusting their knowledge to accommodate new discoveries made through the process of Scientific Logical Positivist physical research.

Thus, Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview are consistently tentative about their beliefs, causing every one of their existent Physical World beliefs to be contingent upon the acquisition of new data and causing every one of their Cosmic Beliefs to be strictly theoretical.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

When faced with a number of choices from amongst which to select, an Adherent to the Middle-Marginalist position will always select that choice which generates “the greatest good for the greatest number,” the classical Utilitarian choice.  They are not ideological. They are pragmatic … almost mathematic in their ethical decision-making.

They do not attach metaphysical values to data. They are strictly rational. They are the Mentants of Frank Herbert’s DUNE. They are the Dr. Spocks of Gene Rodenberry’s STAR TREK.

Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview hold the Cosmological belief that our physical universe might have begun as the result of the Big Bang, as is believed by adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview. On the other hand, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe might have begun as a result of the manifestation of two “singularities” within the theretofore entirely homogeneous “Void,” as is believed by adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview – and that all of the other incremental steps might have occurred just as they are believed to have occurred by adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview, strictly as a matter of purely physical forces. Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview also believe that our physical universe might have begun as it is believed to have begun by adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, as a function of the inter-play of “Energy,” “Mass,” and “Mind.” 

Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview believe simply that the three conclusions about the historical origin of the Universe, which are firmly held by adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview, The Second Paradigm Worldview, and The Third Paradigm Worldview, constitute three merely different hypotheses as to how our physical universe might have originated. However, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview are strict empiricists, so they are, therefore, willing to positively affirm only those portions of any one of these (or other) hypotheses as can be positively confirmed through the compilation and analysis of physical data which they can measure, weigh, taste, touch, smell, see or hear (though adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview DO allow their five physical “senses” to be “magnified” or “extended” through mechanical technology). Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview are willing solely to hypothesize as to further aspects of any thesis beyond the limited physical data which can be confirmed by physical means. And they will remain open to altering their hypothesis as to how the physical universe came into being to accord with their future acquisition of any further measurable data. For adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview are “Scientific Logical Positivists.” Their “Reality” is made up only of “facts” which they can “prove.” And they deem as having been “proved” only those “facts” which can be confirmed through means of physical measurement.

Thus, the Cosmology of adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview is a purely physical Cosmology. Indeed, nothing else is deemed to exist.

Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview, like adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview, like adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview, and like adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, recognize that all “matter” which was created at “The Beginning of Time” (whether this be a de novo “beginning” or simply the beginning of a new cycle of the universe) is expanding, and they, too, believe that every combination of matter more complex than the smallest unit of “matter,”  are disintegrating (into their smaller constituent, ultimately NON-divisible units of matter.) And adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview believe, further, as do adherents to The First, Second, and Third Paradigm Worldviews, that every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe is, at the same time, repelling itself out and away from every other such integer of matter in our physical universe. They believe that all three of these phenomena are taking place – because they can observe and measure all three of these physical phenomena.

However, while adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview believe that this contemporaneously-occurring expansion and dis-integration of all matter in our physical universe has been going on since the very beginning of our physical universe, and that this contemporaneously-occurring expansion and disintegration will continue to go on forever causing our physical universe, inevitably to dis-integrate into nothingness; while adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this expansion of our physical universe will STOP and then begin to collapse back in upon itself, thereupon reconstituting itself back into complex combinations (waves of energy; particles of mass etc. re-form planets; stars; solar systems; star clusters; “galaxies”; “nebulae” etc.) and while adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview believe that neither of these two alternative options is a pre-determined fact but, rather, that whether our physical universe will expand forever or will ultimately stop and collapse back in upon itself is the function of an existential choice which is being made every day by individual human beings by our either lending the power of our mind to the holding of the universe together through an exercise of our existential hope combined with our existential actions taken in accordance with that hope, or our lending the power of our mind to the ultimate disintegration of our universe through our embracing of despair and our then engaging in conduct every day that gives this despair effect – adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview believe that any one of these three alternative hypotheses might well be true – OR that some fourth hypothesis might just as easily be true depending entirely upon what the most up-to-date physical data is confirms to be “true.”

In the broad field of Cosmology, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview, therefore, HAVE NO PRESENT FIXED BELIEF. They simply view the present amount of physically confirmed data which our human family has in our collective possession to be statistically insufficient to enable our human family to come to any fixed conclusion as to how our physical universe came into being. The state of the Cosmological belief of adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview is the result of two causes. The first is that, confined by the present state of our scientific technology; we simply have not yet been physically able to project our sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, or “measuring” undertaken by means of our five physical senses out to the very farthest edge of the expanding universe so as to experience the physical data which contains the secrets of the physical process which gave rise to the origin of our physical universe. The second is that there is a distinct possibility (i.e., there is a credible, specific hypothesis to the effect that) that our physical universe might possibly have originated from some kind of entirely NON-physical (NON-material) process. If this “Hypothesis B” turns out to be the case, then the scientific technology which is employed by adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview – (technology which is designed to ascertain and measure ONLY material or physical phenomena) – will have no means of discerning, measuring, or otherwise physically detecting any NON-physical data pertaining to, or bearing witness to the phenomena of creation until such phenomena generates one or more physically measurable qualities (in the form of energy or mass).  Therefore, the earliest data which could be discerned by adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview would be only after its manifestation into matter has already happened.

Thus, the process of the creation of matter itself would remain a total mystery to adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview, effectively invisible, because it exists out beyond the physical discernment and measurement of the technological devices developed and fielded by adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview.

Thus, if “Hypothesis B” proves to be the case, then adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview will never be able to scientifically confirm this fact. They will be able to say nothing more than: “At one moment, nothing was there. And, the very next moment, there “it” was (or is.) Anything more would have to remain forever, a mere hypothesis or a mere intellectual surmise.

Such a Cosmological Belief would then, of course, bear a great deal of resemblance to the Cosmological Belief that is adhered to by adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview called the Big Bang. For that matter, this is the same Cosmological Belief that is adhered to by adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview – with the only slight modification that adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview adhere to the Cosmological Belief that, rather than the Big Bang originating simply from nothing, it was “The First Singularity” which simply manifested from nothing (from some NON-material dimension) and then a second singularity (again, from the same NON-material dimension). Then, “The First Unit of Matter” (a WAVE FUNCTION OF ENERGY consisting of one electron volt unit) simply MANIFESTED into Material being, again, out of nothing, and so on.   Nor, for that matter, do adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview maintain that the human “MIND” is the source of the first unit of physical “matter.” Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview maintain, rather, that “Mind” is a mere “Co-Partner” with “energy” and “mass” after the human “MIND” comes into existence. Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview simply believe that “energy” and “mass” have ALWAYS EXISTED (in the “form” of an ever-oscillating Universe, “oscillating” back and forth between a state of Absolute Energy and Absolute Mass.)  It simply has no “beginning.”

While adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview adhere to some aspects of the Teleological beliefs adhered to by adherents to The First, Second, and Third Paradigm Worldviews pertaining to the laws pursuant to which physical matter within our universe functions in between its origin and the “Moment of Ultimate Expansion,” adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview adhere to NO SPECIFIC TELEOLOGICAL BELIEF AS TO WHETHER OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS GOING TO GO ON EXPANDING FOREVER INTO NOTHINGNESS OR WHETHER IT IS GOING TO COLLAPSE BACK IN UPON ITSELF, RECREATING THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.  Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview maintain that our human family simply does not yet have enough of the necessary pertinent physical data on the basis of which to make such a factual determination.

As to the Ontological Belief of adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview, adherents believe that consciousness and human life manifest themselves within the processes of the physical universe – but they have no present set of physical data which enables them to determine exactly how sentient consciousness came into being out of NON- sentient matter. So, once again, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview possess no fixed or determined Ontological Belief. They merely have various hypotheses.

Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview – because of their lack of any specific Belief in the fields of Cosmology, Teleology, and Ontology, are identified almost exclusively by the Master Identifier of their Epistemology.

Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview hold the Epistemological Belief that the only means which are at our disposal, as human beings, by means of which we can determine TRUTH are:

(A) the exercise of our five physical senses (reinforced by technology) and

(B) the application of our “intellect” to the physical data experientially perceived by means of our five physical senses which has been directly given by actual physical objects.

Thus, like adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm explicitly agree that one can intellectually hypothesize as to possible aspects of Reality which lie out beyond the present actual experience of our five physical senses reinforced by technology, (even to the point of being able to project certain probable aspects of this “Ultimate Reality”). However, unlike adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview come to NO conclusions, or even set beliefs, pertaining to any aspect of “Reality” which has not yet been actually seen, smelled, touched, tasted, heard, measured or weighed.

In this regard, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview are similar to adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview. However, whereas, due to an overwhelming “cosmic frustration” (or  “Cosmic Angst”), adherents to The Third Paradigm Existential Worldview choose to seize upon one specific intellectually – projected Reality as THE Reality which they wish to bring into being (by means of their existential choice and action) and they then act on that specific projected Reality as if it were established to be TRUE, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Scientific Logical Positivist Worldview refrain from seizing upon any one specific Reality and merely project a variety of possible “hypotheses.”

When compelled to act upon an element of Reality which remains still beyond their having measured it, adherents to the Fourth Paradigm Worldview will act in accordance with the specific hypothesis which possesses the highest probability projection of being true. This is done through the application of a process which they identify as Bayh’s Theorem. [1]

To the degree to which adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview strictly adhere to their refusal to come to any explicit conclusion of fact beyond data which has been already seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, this Epistemological Belief has come to be regarded as the Master Identifier Belief of The Fourth Paradigm Worldview.

Thus, while adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview are quite rarely wrong because they come to hold specific empirical beliefs on such a limited portion of Reality, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm, conversely, often miss out on very important aspects of “Reality”… simply because so many important aspects of genuine “Reality” presently lie out beyond empirical physical verification, due to the insufficiencies of our present state of technology.

In its “Lower” Manifestation, the Fourth Paradigm Worldview generates the “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” of elite Intellectual Majoritarian Utilitarianism.

This is a process by means of which a choice is made between alternative options available by a majority of those individuals who are deemed to possess an adequately “high” level of intellectual capacity – and the “choice” which is usually made pursuant to this Mode of Ethical Reasoning is that choice which generates the greatest good for that intellectual “majority” (which is often [though not always] viewed, by these elite, as providing some ancillary “utilitarian” trickle down “benefit” to those who are intellectually-disqualified from participating in the decision-making process.)

In its “Higher” Manifestation, the Fourth Paradigm Worldview generates the “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” of “Majoritarian Utilitarianism,” which was espoused by John Stewart Mill.

Pursuant to this “Mode of Ethical Reasoning,” every “choice” to be made is made by all of the individuals who are going to be effected by that choice, and the “choice” which is made pursuant to this Mode of Ethical Reasoning is that choice which will generate the greatest good for the greatest number of those individuals who are directly effected by that choice.

Because of these combined Cosmological, “Teleological and Ontological beliefs on the part of adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview, adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview adhere to the Philosophy of “Scientific Logical Positivism”, a Philosophy exemplified, in its “Lower” Manifestation by ARISTOTLE.

In its “Higher” Manifestation, this Fourth Paradigm Worldview generates the philosophy of “The Golden Rule” of “Brotherly Love” (“Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”) espoused by The Christian Social Teachings.

This is viewed as being the truly Utilitarian Salvation Dynamic of the human family, the dynamic of Heart-Felt Human Affection.

The “Mode of Spiritual Expression” of adherents to The Fourth Paradigm is Christian.

In its “Lower” Manifestation, The Fourth Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in the Mode of Spiritual Expression of “Medieval Catholic Logical Scholasticism.”

In its “Higher” Manifestation, The Fourth Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in the Mode of Spiritual Expression of Thomas Aquinas in his latter days of life (Jesus & Marian Christian Egalitarianism.)

In its “Social Form,” The Fourth Paradigm Worldview “manifests” itself, in its “Lower” Manifestation, in the form of “Continental Federation”, such as The Christian Democratic European Union.  In its “Higher” Manifestation, The Fourth Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in the “Social Form” of Continental Christian Social Democracy.

Many have accused Adherents to the Middle-Marginalist Worldview (located at the exact physical “center” of Professor Talcott Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph) of simply adopting a neutral (or “Agnostic”) position on each of the FOUR COSMIC QUESTIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT – and of then adopting a “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” which simply mechanically averages the positions taken by all of the other Worldviews, and thereupon simply back-engineering a mechanically reductionist lowest common denominator position as an answer to each of these Four Comic Questions.

However, it is the position of Professor Parsons that Adherents to the Middle-Marginalist position along his Sociological Bar Graph have done something MORE…and at the same time LESS… than simply averaging out the lowest common denominator resulting from an analysis of the answers provided to these Four Questions by the Adherents to the two Systemic and the two Marginalist Worldviews.

Rather, Professor Parsons asserts that Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Middle Marginalist Worldview, have generated their own answers to these Four Basic Questions. These “Answers” are, however, only Provisional Answers.

The Paradigmatic Exemplification of the Lower Manifestation of the Fourth Paradigm Worldview

Medieval Scholastic Catholic Culture

The Paradigmatic Exemplification of the Higher Manifestation of the Fourth Paradigm Worldview

Aristotlean Greek Culture

 

[1] (Set forth Bahy’s Theorem.)

[2] At the present moment, this “position” seems to be that: There are numerous locations within the physically- perceivable physical Universe where “matter” is disappearing into “Black Holes” (into the inside of which our presently-technologically-augmented five physical human senses cannot gain access. And there are a number of locations within our presently-physically-perceivable physical Universe where “matter” seems to be “coming into physical existence. And, thirdly, we have mathematically determined that there must exist a HUGE quantity of “Dark Matter” (or “Anti-Matter”) within our physical Universe. But, at present we cannot physically see, measure or weigh enough physical “Matter” within our physical Universe to convince ourselves that our physical Universe is going to stop expanding and dis-“integrating”. So, at present, we tentatively believe that our physical Universe is heading toward “chaos.” (So, for the moment, we “in the Middle” will support those who believe in the First Paradigm Worldview.)

[3] This specific “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” is set forth under the rubric of The Fourth Paradigm “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.”

The Cosmological Question

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that we live in an inherently chaotic and entirely random (and therefore meaningless) universe. Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that we live in a perpetually oscillating universe in which all actions are totally predetermined by purely mechanical physical forces. This oscillating dialectic dynamic of the second paradigm lends a clear mechanical dialectical dynamic which constitutes at least some meaning or direction in which one can act, though only in response to some purely physical predetermined tropism, to an otherwise entirely chaotic and meaningless universe. In contrast, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview hold the cosmological belief that an individual, through the exercise of the mind, is able to modify the otherwise rigidly-absolute mechanical dialectical cosmology of the Second Paradigm Worldview and the otherwise entirely chaotic cosmology of the First Paradigm Worldview.

Adherents to the Third Paradigm (Right Middle-Marginalist) Worldview hold the cosmological belief that, through an exercise of the mind, each individual human being can existentially escape from this predetermined or utterly chaotic physical universe, although the purely physical universe always exists outside of the human mind. The exercise of the human mind in such a way enables each human being to make choices as though he or she were free.

According to Immanuel Kant, while unavoidably and unalterably conditioned by his or her physically predetermined talents, specific cultural conditioning, unique personal experiences, and uniquely conditioned perspective on reality, each human being still possesses some degree of human freedom from these preconditions to enable each such person to choose relatively freely between alternative choices, even if those choices are limited by one’s culture, historical time period, and experiences.

The nature of this peculiar degree of freedom is discussed by Kant in his Critique of Judgment in which he argues (somewhat unconvincingly to some) that an individual human being is capable of making comparative discernments between what he terms comparative magnum and absolute magnum, the former being capable of being discerned through a sensible experience, but the latter being capable of being discerned through a concept of pure reason, which conducts the notion of nature to “a supersensible substrate (which lies at its basis and also at the basis of our faculty of thought). As this, however, is great beyond all standards of sense, it makes us judge as sublime not so much the object, as our own state of mind in the estimation of it.” (Kant, § 26)

At one point, Kant warns his followers to beware of supposing that the absolute and even the comparative better is nothing more than an idea which might more effectively direct and regulate our purely rational search for empirical knowledge. However, at another point in the Preface of the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Kant asserts that he succeeded in showing that the reality of an unconditioned cause—hence a source of human freedom—could be proved by means of an apodictic law of practical reason, thereby constituting the keystone of an entire edifice of a system of pure (though speculative) reason.[2]

While subject to objection—even rejection—by adherents to other worldviews, this postulate categorically distinguishes the cosmology of adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview from the cosmology of adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding? If there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

The unique cosmological belief of adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview generates an equally unique teleological belief. Looking out upon the otherwise chaotic or purely random universe of the First Paradigm and the physically predetermined universe of the Second Paradigm, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview look over these two different concepts and tell themselves that, while we as human beings possess no biological means of which we can, to an absolute degree of certainty[3], sense what reality is absolutely true, we are capable of choosing (by an exercise of our unique mind[4]) which reality we can mathematically project as being potentially real. In addition, we are then capable of existentially choosing to comport our human conduct in accordance with the projected reality rather than remaining a mere unwilling object, subject to the purely mechanical, predetermined mandates of the physical universe (either in the form of the chaotic mandates of the universe of the First Paradigm or in the form of the mechanically, predetermined dialectical mandate of the Second Paradigm.)

Through such an act of the assertion of our existential mind, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that we can assert a certain degree of existential human freedom—although, since it is impossible to escape from our preconditioned state of physical experience, we must make these choices existentially—knowing that we cannot ever get outside of our physical conditioning to know, to an absolute certainty, what is actually the truth.

The insertion of this added factor of human freedom and choice on the part of adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview adds a new dimension of direction to the physical universe, thus, changing its otherwise chaotic or dialectical and predetermined teleology.

The teleological belief of the Third Paradigm Worldview—our ability to choose a consistent, rationally-projected reality enables us to live as though our projected (chosen) reality were true—is distinguished from the teleological beliefs the First and Second Worldviews.

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that consciousness is a randomly-occurring, material epiphenomenon of the entirely chaotic interplay between mass and energy in a chaotic material universe.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that consciousness is an entirely predetermined mechanical function of the mechanically-determined physical expansion and physical contraction of the universe, like physical sparks thrown up by the mechanical grinding together of two metal balls.

Adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview, on the other hand, believe that because they are capable of accessing a dimension of reality through pure reason, which was not created by the physical universe, but was, instead, created by the mind that there exists a dimension of reality which has no material existence but does exist although we have no access while in our material incarnation, except through mind and then, only as a non-material concept. Since the human mind appears to have been generated by the physical interaction between purely physical mass and purely physical energy, it is reasonable to conclude, as a function of pure reason, that this field of mind (to which we have access purely as a concept through pure reason) was also generated by the purely physical interaction of all of the mass and energy in the entire physical universe which has no physical location but is generated by the physical universe—like our mind is generated by our brain.

However, this phenomenon is not physical. It is not part of the cosmology of adherents of the Third Paradigm. It is, instead, a concept of the mind of our human family, which we know to be true through pure reason alone, but to which we have no intellectual or physical access in our material (conditioned) state as human beings. Thus, this super mind is an ontological, not a cosmological, phenomenon.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the “facts” that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

Believing in the power of the mind as the foundation of some degree of free will, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that human beings have developed the ability to determine facts beyond the reach of five physical senses—not through access to some as of yet scientifically unidentified sixth biological human physical sense, nor through some direct access to a spiritual being beyond the boundaries of the physical universe to which we have no access in our conditioned material state—but instead through the power of our rational mind or intellect.

One such exercise of our human intellectual mind is mathematics, by means of which human beings are capable of, first, discerning patterns, which exist within the material plane we have direct physical access to through our five physical senses. Secondly, in identifying the mathematical formula which exists within this observed physical pattern. Lastly, arithmetically extrapolating the formula that is mentally beyond our material physical senses so we can, thereby, determine, through an exercise of the mind, additional dimensions of reality, which exists beyond the capability of our direct physical senses, which, in fact, need no material existence.

Adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that human beings can do this same thing in the area of human ideas, specifically, intellectually discerning the pattern within a given human idea and then, by intellectually projecting or extrapolating that idea beyond the realm in which we can presently directly experience it. Again, through the exercise of the mind, we can access realms of knowledge that we could not otherwise access were we to remain bound to the physical three-dimensional world through our five physical senses.

Drawing upon data obtained from within such a realm of mind, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview hold the epistemological belief that human beings are capable of making intellectual choices, which would not be otherwise available through the materially-determined physical world of our five physical senses.

The ability of our species to impose choices upon the otherwise physically predetermined world, choices made based upon data discerned from within an intellectually-accessed realm, which exists beyond the three-dimensional world, constitutes an additional epistemological source of data which is available to adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview on the basis of which they can make their choices in the physical world.

This is, therefore, a distinctive epistemological belief of adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

Because of this unique epistemological belief on the part of the Third Paradigm Worldview, adherents employ an equally unique mode of ethical reasoning. The mode of ethical reasoning of the Second Paradigm Worldview is rigidly dialectical, and the mode of ethical reasoning of the First Paradigm Worldview employs a consistent mode of ethical reasoning, which, when faced with a number of alternative action choices to respond to a given problem, will always choose the action which merely maximizes the personal degree of short-term physical pleasure and/or minimizes the personal degree of immediate physical pain.

The unique mode of ethical reasoning of the Third Paradigm (Right Middle-Marginalist) Worldview is that when confronted with a number of optional actions to respond to a given problem, will, first, choose which reality they can rationally project into the future to be potentially (arithmetically) true, and they then choose to engage in or endorse as better, that particular action which will maximize that reality as though that reality were real.

This is an existential mode of ethical reasoning or mode of ethical reasoning that is directed toward making the world into one in which the adherent to the Third Paradigm Worldview can rationally project as being potentially existent.

Adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview hold the cosmological belief that our universe has always existed. However, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that the specific physical form that our physical universe will take on in any given cycle of its physical manifestation is the result of the three-way interplay among energy, mass, and mind.

Adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview, therefore, believe that consciousness, energy, and mass are eternal.

Like adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview recognize that all matter that becomes physically manifested at the beginning of time (within each cycle of the universe) is expanding out and away from every other piece of matter. Adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview (along with the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews) also believe that every complex combination of matter that is more complex than the smallest, and, therefore, ultimately indivisible unit of matter, is also disintegrating into their smaller constituent, ultimately-indivisible units of matter.

Furthermore, as with adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that each and every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe is, at the same time, repelling itself out and away from every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter. However, while adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this expansion and disintegration of all matter in our physical universe will inevitably continue to go on forever until our universe disintegrates into nothingness; and adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, at the moment in time at which every single ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe stands separate and apart from every other such integer of matter in our entire physical universe, the expansion of our physical universe will inevitably stop expanding out and away from the original manifestation of matter, stopping our physical universe from ultimately disintegrating into nothingness and that, after stopping its expansion and disintegration, our physical universe will stand in a state of equipoise and inevitably begin to collapse back in upon itself, thereupon reconstituting itself back into singularities, waves of energy, particles of mass, etc., all the way back into planets, stars, solar systems, star clusters, galaxies, nebulae, etc.; very crucially, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that neither of these two alternatively-proposed realities are inevitable or predetermined facts.

Instead, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that whether our physical universe will expand forever out into nothingness or ultimately stop and collapse back in upon itself, creating a new cycle of physical existence is strictly the function of an existential choice that must be made every day by each human being by either lending the power of our minds directly to holding our physical universe together through an exercise of our existential hope followed by our existential actions taken in accordance with that existential hope, or by lending the power of our minds directly to the ultimate disintegration of our physical universe through embracing despair and engaging in individual and collective human conduct every day, giving effect to such despair.

Adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview adhere to the ontological belief that human consciousness is an absolute preexisting partner in the eternal interplay between mass and energy in our physical universe. However, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview do not attribute any metaphysical or psychic power to this activity on the part of our human mind. Rather, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview believe that human actions, taken as a result of existential, intellectual decisions made within our mind in the aggregate, can affect the material universe, but only through strictly rational and physical actions to physically effect our existential choices.

Martin Heidegger has clearly articulated this ontological belief on the part of adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview in such works as Being and Time (1930) and The Introduction to Metaphysics (1953).

The epistemology and theory of human psychology generated by the Third Paradigm Worldview is strictly sensory and intellectual.

That is, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview hold the epistemological belief that human beings have access to a greater truth than that which we can experientially obtain from the total composite of raw materialist data directly physically experienced through our own five senses because they believe that human beings have an additional ability, through the exercise of our human mind (intellect), to discern patterns within the data that we can then physically discern through the exercise of our five senses, and which we can then project to intellectually determine a range of possible alternative realities that constitute real data pertaining to the real world that lies beyond the direct reach of our five physical senses.

Indeed, adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that the function of the human mind, while, indeed, an entirely material activity, is more than a random function of the interplay of physical forces in a random universe.

They believe, instead, that human beings are capable, through the exercise of our mind, to make existential choices governing our moment-to-moment conduct and that our existential conduct can constructively alter the otherwise strictly predetermined dialectical or chaotic pattern. Our physical universe would then radiate from each juncture of individual human decision, thereby providing to us an existential psychology—a much more satisfying psychological state of mind than being either mere flotsam of random consciousness in an entirely chaotic physical universe, as adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe us to be, or as mere slaves to an entirely physically predetermined, eternally-repeating, dialectical existence, as adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe us to be. This existential psychology is most clearly explained by Swiss psychologist Ludwig Binswanger in a school of psychology known as Daseinsanalyse, described in The Foundations and Cognition of Human Existence (1942).

In its lower manifestation, the Third Paradigm Worldview generates the existential mode of ethical reasoning of John-Paul Sartre.

Pursuant to this mode of ethical reasoning, a human being, faced with the otherwise entirely meaningless world of chaos of the First Worldview or with the only slightly less meaningless world of a rigid, materialistic, pre-determined, perpetually recycling, dialectical reality, one basically makes a heroic choice of choosing to engage in the form of human conduct that one would choose if human life were of supreme value. This philosophy of existentialism dictates that human beings, invested with intellect (intellectus—the ability to distinguish the difference between), are capable of choosing to act as if they possessed free will (the ability to act differently from a form of action that is imposed upon us by the otherwise predetermined physical laws of the universe).

This philosophy is, at the same time, both heroic and foolish because existentialism is rooted in an absolute conviction that human beings have no ability to know what absolute reality is. We are, therefore, necessarily without any absolute referent in accordance with which to make absolutely certain normative (norm-driven) choices or judgments. Thus, according to this philosophy, all judgments made by inherently ignorant human beings must be ultimately arbitrary. However, rather than have such choices be meaningless as well as arbitrary, adherents to the lower manifestation of the Third Paradigm Worldview make choices as if each individual human life were of absolute value and possessing free will (see, e.g., Being and Nothingness (1956) and Existentialism and Humanism (1948).

The mode of spiritual expression of adherents to the lower manifestation of the Third Paradigm is Judaism, projecting Yahweh God onto reality as an existential function of the mind.

In its social form, the Third Paradigm Worldview manifests itself, in its lower manifestation, in the form of the nation-state, such as the nation-state of Israel, the nation-state of The United States, or the nation-state of Sweden.

In its higher manifestation, the Third Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical reasoning of Immanuel Kant.

Pursuant to Kant’s higher Third Paradigm mode of ethical reasoning, one will be able to:

• Discern, through an exercise of one’s mind, the arithmetic, geometric, exponential, or algorithmic pattern that exists within the physical data that one experientially perceives directly through the exercise of one’s five physical senses.
• Project this pattern out into a realm of intellectually-perceived potential realities beyond the reach of one’s five physical senses. By this means, one ascertains the structure of several potential, alternative, existential realities, each of which could logically flow directly from this pattern discerned through the mind.
• Make an existential choice to comport one’s personal conduct in accordance with one (among several) of the projected realities, which action comports with one of the intellectually-possible realities.
• Existentially engage in that chosen form of conduct so as to impose upon an otherwise chaotic or materially predetermined recycling world, one’s mindful, meaningful order and direction (see, e.g., Kant’s Phenomenology of Mind: The Science of The Experience of Consciousness, 1807, and Naturrecht und Staatswissenshaft im Grundrisse, 1821).

Furthermore, the higher manifestation of the Third Paradigm Worldview is characterized by:

• A denial of the ability of an individual to be able to obtain access to ultimate reality through any combination of his or her five physical senses or through any act of sensuous intuition
• The rejection of any sharp division between faith and knowledge or between imagination and understanding
• The championing of the exercise of mind as the means by which one is able to discern patterns within the physical data obtained from the universe through an exercise of one’s five physical senses and by means of which one is able to project these patterns out into a realm not directly accessible to our five physical senses so as to be able to intellectually intuit reality beyond that which could be directly experientially accessed through our five senses
• The belief that human beings can, through our actions, guided by the mind, impose a direct effect upon an otherwise chaotic or dialectically predetermined physical universe.

The mode of spiritual expression of adherents to the higher manifestation of the Third Paradigm is Hebrew Cabalism.

In its higher manifestation, the Third Paradigm Worldview has expressed itself in the social form of Zion, the mythical nation-state governed by the wise King Solomon and a Council of Cabalists.

[1] That is research conducted by undertaking an analysis of the disparate data gathered in the field, and then discerning a developing pattern which that raw data generates.

[2] See below a discussion of how this pure speculative reason functions as an additional epistemological source of human knowledge acquired from a source beyond the physical sense experience at pp. 149-150.

[3] We will discuss this epistemological assumption of the adherents to the Third Paradigm Worldview under the topic of epistemology.

[4] See the above discussion of cosmology for Immanuel Kant’s description of this unique faculty of mind.

The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Right-Marginalist Worldview believe that the physical universe suddenly burst into being at the time of the Big Bang (as do adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview). They also believe, like the adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview, that every confluence of ultimately irreducible integers of matter in the physical universe is disintegrating into its constituent component parts, moving out and away from one another.

However, adherents of the Second Paradigm Worldview differentiate themselves in a fundamental, indeed categorical, way from adherents of the First Paradigm Worldview. Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that the sum total of the finite number of ultimately irreducible integers of matter is adequately large enough for the sum total of the force of attraction that exists between this finite number of integers of matter to be great enough to hold these integers in union, thus, not allowing this finite number of ultimately irreducible integers of matter to continue out and away from one another and the locus of the Big Bang into nothingness.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview adhere to a cosmological belief in which there exists a large enough number of ultimately-irreducible integers of matter in the physical universe to generate an adequate degree of attraction between these integers of matter to come to a full stop in their previous journey out-and-away from one another so as to cause these integers of matter and to remain in a state of perfect stasis for a brief moment. The universe will then begin contracting due to gravity and eventually come back to singularity—a reverse Big Bang.

At that moment at which every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the physical universe is in immediate direct physical contact with every other ultimately-irreducible integer of matter, the polarity (direction of the attraction) possessed by each ultimately-irreducible integer of matter will switch from negative (attracting) to positive (repelling). Then, each and every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the physical universe will immediately repel each and every other ultimately–irreducible integer of matter. In that moment, the Big Bang will repeat itself.

As a result of this process, adherents to this Second Paradigm Worldview believe that the physical universe oscillates between a state of absolute mass and a state of absolute energy (repeatedly entering into an entirely inchoate state immediately after reaching each state of total energy) eternally, generating two generations of stars, galaxies, planets, atoms, and people during every two-stroke cycle of the universe. This is the oscillating cosmos cosmology, distinct from the entropic (dissipating) cosmology of the First Paradigm Worldview.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding? If there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

While the adherents of the First Paradigm Worldview believe that the human species is basically barbaric, territorial, predatory, carnivorous, and selfish (as long as each individual being remains entirely unguided by any referent at all within his or her direct physical experience), adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that a specific teleology manifests itself within each generation of mass and energy generated within each cycle of our universe. This teleology is the directional disintegration of mass into energy and the directional integration of energy into mass (depending upon which specific direction one finds oneself in either an expanding or collapsing teleology within a given cycle of the universe).

Thus, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that an individual human being is able to detect a specific teleology operating on the grand scale of the universe, moving from a contracted state to an expanded state (i.e. toward energy, during an expansive generation of the universe), or from an expanded (energy) state to a contracted (massive) state, depending upon which of the two alternative directions of the universe one is in the midst of within one given cycle of the universe.

However, the teleological belief of adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview is complete determinism. That is, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that every action in the entire history of any given cycle (every action that takes place during the period of time demarked by one full expansion, starting with a Big Bang, passing through one full expansion and then collapsing back into one full contraction up to the moment preceding the switching of the polarity within that contracted universe) of the physical universe is totally and completely determined by the physical laws of matter.[2]

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

Pursuant to this worldview, the manifestation of consciousness occurs as an entirely predictable and naturally-occurring function of the physical universe twice during every two-phase cycle of the oscillation of the universe. Thus, according to the ontological belief of adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview, the manifestation of consciousness is not a random event. It is, indeed, an entirely predictable organic event within each cycle of the universe.

To adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview, there needs to be no question of why, as in, “Why is this repeated event of consciousness is occurring?” It simply does, but it does so predictably and in accordance with a specific pattern. Indeed, it is this discerned pattern of the occurrence and recurrence of consciousness—of human consciousness within the cycles of the physical universe (like the cycle of the seasons on Earth)—which provides meaning in the universe.

Thereby, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview differ in their most profound beliefs from adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview, not only as to their cosmological belief, but also as to their ontological belief.

Thus, the arising of consciousness within the repeated cycling of the physical universe is right in the sense that it is correct or meaningful given the pattern which is supposed to unfold during each phase of the physical universe.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the facts that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that a human being is capable of discerning (beneath and behind the otherwise inherently chaotic and entirely random cosmology, which adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview actually perceive) a dialectical order to the physical universe—an oscillation between opposites, which lends meaning to human life.[3]

While adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview experience no single unitive phenomenon which functions within our physical universe to bond every ultimately irreducible integer of matter into one single harmonious whole[4], adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview do hold a belief that each human being, through the function of the mind (i.e., the exercise of our human intellect[5]), can come to know that the physical universe oscillates between these two alternative physical states.

This is, indeed, an intellectual extrapolation of the most basic of all human experiences: The experience of the separateness of each individuated human psyche from the rest of the physical universe.[5] This experience of alienation from the ultimate otherness of the rest of the physical universe is, indeed, the opposite of the experience of self-consciousness. Intrinsic to the experience of one’s self as separate and apart from the rest of the physical universe is the experience of the otherness of the physical universe from one’s self. The evolution of our faculty of the intellect (i.e., the ability to distinguish) is the very source of our self-consciousness.

If we project this most deeply and most intimately experience of all human experiences, which is at the very core of our being, out onto the physical universe, we can experience—at the very core of our intellect—the fact that our physical universe oscillates in this exact manner—from a state of absolute energy to a state of absolute mass and back again. Working intellectually from this core insight, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview (led by Hegel) have come to the epistemological conclusion that there is an additional faculty by means of which each human being is able to experience the physical universe so as to derive this essential additional data about the universe, which differentiates adherents of the Second Paradigm Worldview from adherents of the First Paradigm Worldview as to their epistemological belief, as well as their cosmological and their ontological beliefs.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

As a result of this specific epistemological belief on the part of adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview, adherents believe that, while every person is capable of articulating his or her own thesis as to what is real and true and is, therefore, capable of asserting his or her thesis as to what the facts are pertaining to any given matter, this thesis will then take its place in the market place of ideas and, since this thesis is only relative, other persons (having a different perspective based upon their different life experiences and different location in relationship to the facts) will generate an antithesis, asserting that the facts are different than those asserted by the proponent of the thesis.

As a result of the dynamic generated by the bipolar expansion and contraction of the physical universe, this thesis and antithesis will struggle in contention with one another and, being only relatively or partially true; each will burn away that portion of the other’s thesis which is not true, generating a synthesis made up of the more truthful portion of each thesis. This synthesis will then become the new operative thesis, which will take the field in the marketplace of ideas, asserting its contention as to what the facts are pertaining to the matter at hand.

It must be understood that truth will never be known to any degree of absolute certainty by simple human beings. However, through this dialectical process of struggle between sequential theses and antitheses, converting into synthesis and a new thesis and antithesis, our human family will struggle toward the truth concerning facts.

The above-described dialectical process, characterized by the struggle between a relative thesis and an opposing antithesis, is the mode of ethical reasoning through which human beings will progress toward that which is right. Right is not to be obtained through the mere imposition of an arbitrary assertion of fact by the most powerful—as occurs pursuant to the First Paradigm Worldview—but rather, through legitimate struggle, pursuant to which the relatively superior thesis will prevail, leading our human family toward relative truth. This mode of ethical reasoning is the utilization of the dialectical method

Thus, given the perpetually oscillating cosmology and the predetermined teleology of the physical universe, the only realistic mode of ethical reasoning that could logically be adopted by one who adheres to the dialectical Second Paradigm Worldview would be to yield to the physical tropism of joining one side or the other of whatever dialectic one is physically cast into by the physical universe or which is physically presented to one by the physical universe.

Thus, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview are intensely fatalistic. That is, they accept, indeed, they actively and enthusiastically embrace, whatever the local dialectic happens to be at their time of birth. Indeed, they internalize the bona fides of their local community’s dialectic and become champions of the specific opinion they were born into.

This is, indeed, the very mechanism of their mode of ethical reasoning. Thus, any and all choices are governed by the simple principle: Which action best serves my side in the dialectical struggle in which my family, my community, or my tribe is engaged with the ultimate other?
Located one full step to the left of the right-systemist position along Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph, one encounters the right-marginalist position. Persons who occupy the right-marginalist position on Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph uniformly espouse right-marginalist positions on all public policy issues.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the cosmological belief that our universe has always existed but that it undertakes a new cycle of its perpetually-oscillating existence as the result of the manifestation within a previously homogeneous void of two singularities (i.e., two distinctive points of voltage differential), one positive and the other negative.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, immediately following the manifestation of these two distinct points of voltage differential within the otherwise homogeneous void, a wave function of energy, in the amount of one electron volt unit, flows between these two distinct points.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this wave function of energy generates a field of discontinuity surrounding its linear pathway through the void. This field then collapses into the first particle of mass. This first mass generates an even greater field of discontinuity that surrounds it within the otherwise perfectly homogeneous void. This greater field of discontinuity then collapses into a second particle of mass. Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this event replicates itself in an exponentially accelerating fashion. These first electrons then interact with the first protons to generate a field of discontinuity around the two particles. These two particles then bond together to form the first atom, an atom of hydrogen, with one proton and one electron. This process repeats itself until there are a large number of hydrogen atoms in the void. A smaller amount of helium and trace amounts of lithium are also created in the initial cosmic furnace.

Adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews believe that every single more complex combination of matter (more complex than the smallest, ultimately-indivisible unit of matter) is ultimately disintegrating into its smaller constituent, ultimately-indivisible units of matter.

Further, adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews believe that each and every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe is, at the same time, repelling itself out and away from every other ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe.

While adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this expansion and disintegration of all matter in the physical universe will continue to go on forever, causing it to ultimately disintegrate into nothingness. Crucially, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that the expansion of the physical universe will come to a stop. It will cease to expand, stopping our physical universe from ultimately disintegrating into nothingness for the rest of eternity. Instead, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, after it stops expanding, the physical universe will stand in a state of equipoise for one brief moment before it begins to collapse upon itself, reintegrating itself back into particles of mass (electrons, protons, neutrons, compounds, mixtures, all the way back into planets, stars, solar systems, star clusters, galaxies, nebulae, etc.).

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that the physical universe’s stopping and collapsing back into physical matter will occur because they believe that there exists enough physical matter so that the phenomenon of the direct physical attraction of every single ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our universe to every other such integer of matter will be strong enough to hold our physical universe together. Because of this specific belief, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe is irretrievably destined to go through a perpetual physical expansion and contraction.

Importantly, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this inevitable contraction of our physical universe will again, inevitably, result in a unique moment in the timeline of our physical universe at which every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter will be in direct physical contact with each and every other ultimately-irreducible integer of matter, thus constituting a single, super-dense singularity in the otherwise entirely homogeneous void. At this precise point in time, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this entire process will begin again, starting with a singularity and carrying itself on through another cycle of expansion and collapse.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the cosmological belief that the expansion and contraction of the physical universe have been going on eternally and will continue to go on eternally. Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview have the ontological belief that human consciousness is an absolutely inevitable, natural, and essential function of the dialectical interplay between the expansive and contractive forces in our physical universe—between mass and energy. Pursuant to this ontological belief, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that consciousness and human life manifest within each cycle of the physical universe.

The epistemology and theory of human psychology generated by the Second Paradigm Worldview are sensory and instinctive. That is, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that we, as human beings, have access to a greater truth than that which we can experientially obtain from the total composite of data that we physically experience through our five senses because we have the added ability, through an exercise of our instinct, to discern the existence of a basic dialectical pattern within the data and we can project this dialectical pattern beyond the confines of our five physical senses to ascertain the fact that a basic dialectical dynamic underlies all physical reality.

Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that the functioning of our instincts is a material activity, but it is capable of discerning the existence of more than a mere random function of the random interplay of purely physical forces in a random universe. Instead, they believe that we are able, through the exercise of our instinct, to ascertain the existence of this dialectical pattern that underlies and supersedes the otherwise merely apparent chaos of an otherwise entirely random universe. This instinctive discernment enables adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview to know that there exists a dialectical choice between two available options at each and every juncture of human decision, thereby providing to us with a psychology of choice—a much more satisfactory psychological state of mind than being mere flotsam of random consciousness in an otherwise entirely chaotic physical universe.

In its lower manifestation, the Second Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical reasoning of rigid dialectical competition between equal and opposite forces. This generates Hegelian dialectical reasoning. In its higher manifestation, the Second Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical reasoning of Lao Tzu, the author of the Tao Te Ching (The Way and Its Virtue). This is the way of the Tao, the binary dance between only apparent opposites that are, in fact, simply two aspects of a single, intimately interrelated reality.

Because of these combined cosmological, teleological, ontological, and ethical beliefs on the part of adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview, the lower manifestation of the Second Paradigm Worldview generates the philosophy of Hegelian dialectics of simple head-to-head confrontation, competition, winning and losing in direct interpersonal competition between equal and opposite forces. This philosophy was championed in the Greek city-state of Sparta and, in modern times, by both capitalism and communism.

In its higher manifestation, the Second Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical reasoning of Taoism—the constructive binary dialogue advocated by Lao Tzu. This is the philosophy that underlies the mythical mountain community of Shangri-La.

The mode of spiritual expression of adherents to the Second Paradigm in its lower manifestation is fundamentalist and antagonistic. This worldview is manifested in Manichaeism and other religions that emphasize the absolute centrality of the struggle of the flesh of the material world against the spirit of the transcendent world, the struggle of one’s own good god against the evil god of one’s neighbor, the struggle of righteousness against sinfulness, the struggle of light against dark.  In its higher manifestation, the mode of spiritual expression of the Second Paradigm Worldview is Taoism.

In its social form, the Second Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in the form of the Spartan warrior society, such as that of the Ancient societies of Sparta, the Vikings, and in the 20th century, it was reflected in Nazi Germany in its lower manifestation. In its higher manifestation, the Second Paradigm Worldview has expressed itself in the social form of Shangri-La, the mythical, high-mountain, reclusive, idyllic village community in the Himalayan Mountains governed by a Taoist Monk and immortalized in the first paperback book printed in the English language, The Lost Horizon.

[1] Though this process needs to progress through the phases of generating first nutrinos, meuons, leptons, quarks, etc.

[2] Thus, so long as one knew the precise amount and angle of force which was physically directed upon each specific ultimately-irreducible quantum field in the entire physical universe at any given milli-microsecond, one could predict to an absolute degree of certainty what action was going to take place in the very next milli-microsecond because this next action would be totally and completely predetermined by the purely physical forces of the universe. Indeed, every single action from the beginning of time (within that specific cycle of the physical universe) could be predicted if one knew all of the physical forces imposed upon every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the physical universe at the milli-microsecond of the Big Bang which started that cycle of the universe.

[3] This specific meaning will be discussed below under the topic of a mode of ethical reasoning.

[4] An issue, which shall be discussed below as a tenant of other worldviews

[5] The Latin root of origin of which is Intellectus: the ability to distinguish the difference between

[6] This is, of course, the most very basic issue with which philosophers from Aristotle to Watts discuss in their work.

The Cosmological Question

How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that govern its past, present, and future functioning?

The physical universe came into being in one blinding flash that we refer to as the Big Bang. There is no way for us, as human beings, to tell how or why the physical universe came into being by means of this Big Bang, or what was going on before the physical universe came into its physical being, since all we have at our disposal to determine these things are personal experiences of our five physical senses and our common sense, which only experience things that have a physical manifestation.

The physical universe in which we find ourselves embedded appears, to our five senses and common sense, to be nothing more than a chaotic collection of a finite number of ultimately irreducible integers of physical matter. Each such ultimately irreducible integer of physical matter within this random collection of irreducible units of matter is moving out and away from every other unit of matter.

Thus, each and every one of these single units of matter that is bonded together with one or more units of matter to form a combination of matter that is larger than a single quantum field (units such as a muon, neutron, proton, atom, rock, tree, animal, human being, planet, star, galaxy, galaxy cluster, or any other combination of matter) is in the active process of disintegrating into a finite number of ultimately irreducible, individuated quantum fields of physical matter.

The Big Bang was not a simple explosion that erupted from a physical point at the center of a physical sphere that was later to constitute our physical universe. Rather, this Big Bang was the instantaneous manifestation of a physical force that caused every single ultimately irreducible integer of physical matter in the entire physical universe (i.e., every single such quantum field) to emit an instantaneous force of repulsion out and away from every other such quantum field at the exact same instant, thus constituting a universal and center-less explosion.

The momentum or impetus imparted upon every single, ultimately irreducible integer of matter in the physical universe by this initial Big Bang continues to manifest itself at this very instant in the expansion of every single quantum field within our physical universe, moving out and away from every other quantum field.

A second force continues to manifest itself at this very instant in the constant atomic breakdown of each and every element of physical matter in our physical universe into its ultimately irreducible sub-particles of matter (i.e., into its sub-component constituent quantum fields) to exponentially multiply the rate of expansion of our universe. When the impetus or momentum that was imparted upon each of these ultimately irreducible integers of matter at the moment the Big Bang occurred is spent, every single ultimately irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe will stand separate and apart from every other one.

There will become a point at which each ultimately-irreducible integer of a physical matter’s quantum field is far enough away from each other quantum field in the universe that they no longer affect each other in any meaningful way. These ultimately-irreducible integers will then continue to move out and away from each other, so much so that the universe returns to being empty, void, and in a state of complete nothingness.

That is, there will be nothing in the entire physical universe except each separate, individual, and ultimately-irreducible quantum field of physical matter standing apart from each other and continuing to move out and away from each other into infinity.

Therefore, the only reality that exists is material reality, and all reality exists only within the confines of our physical universe. Outside of our physical universe can only be conceptualized as an infinite and eternal abyss with nothing in it, not even a single quantum field of physical matter. Such nothingness spreads out and away from the physical confines of our universe infinitely and eternally.

The Teleological Question

Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is, what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?

Our physical universe is heading inevitably and inextricably toward a state of nothingness. There is, therefore, no point, no objective, and no ultimate referent for meaning in our physical universe—there is no meaning, in any ultimate sense, to the physical existence of our universe.

The universe simply is and, one day, it simply will not be, at least in the form of anything other than an infinitely-expanding number of effectively unconnected individuated quantum fields of physical matter, each one having no being other than an entirely unconscious, rock-like, physical being.

We human beings are merely one of the many completely arbitrary and random physical confluences of mass and energy. In turn, mass and energy are nothing more than two differing compositions and densities of randomly occurring quantum fields that we arbitrarily and artificially distinguish along a straight-line continuum, ranging from one single quantum field to the total collective that we call the physical universe.

Like all inanimate and animate material things that occur in our universe completely randomly, our creation was nothing more than a purely random event (as has been described accurately by Charles Darwin and Daniel Dennett in On the Origin of Species and Consciousness Explained, respectively).

There is no internally-driven or externally-driven phenomenon within our material universe that constitutes a rational referent in relationship to the progression of the human species in any specific teleological direction (e.g., from good to better). Any such postulate is nothing more than wishful thinking, a mere projection of our own myopic, self-centered wish for self-importance among the billions of non-life forms and other life forms that exist randomly within our physical universe.

Human beings, like all other life forms observed on our planet, have always been and always will be self-centered, self-seeking, self-interested, untrustworthy, and entitled to no special consideration by the universe. Since our coming down out of the trees in our earlier form, we, as a species, have been and will inevitably remain territorial, predatory, carnivorous, murderous, and selfish.  As a result, life, including human life, is meaningless, barbarous, cruel, and short.

The Ontological Question

How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?

Consciousness is nothing more than an arbitrary and meaningless physical epiphenomenon or function of the specific random interplay of mass and energy of which we and other life forms are made up. It is merely a kind of physical energy field that just happens to be self-referential. This specific physical phenomenon is no more unique or important than phototropism, gravity, light, or the development of chlorophyll—to which we, as human beings, attach no great cosmic import. We attach special importance to this phenomenon of consciousness merely because we believe that we have more of it than other sentient beings, thus making us as a species unique in the universe. This, however, is nothing more than self-centered solipsism—starting out by positing the ultimate premise of the superiority of consciousness in us and then purportedly discovering its uniqueness and importance within nature.

The Epistemological Question

What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the facts that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?

As human beings, we have nothing more than our five physical senses to perceive reality, and our physical intellect, to physically organize this sensorial data intake into physical patterns. This epistemological conclusion is reality. All else is, once again, wishful thinking on our part as human beings.

Therefore, reality looks or feels different to each one of us, depending entirely upon what individuals physically perceive through their five physical senses. Some people have superior physical senses, superior physical strength, or a superior intellectual faculty.

The best manner one can use to determine the facts (or “reality”) is recognizing the physical and mental superiority of those that are most fit and placing that individual person who possesses the most superior physical strength and the highest degree of intellectual acuity in a position of authority. One then only needs adopt whatever that superior individual says as one’s own reality.

In a more modern setting, in order to determine what the facts are or what ultimate reality is, one need only to go to the authority in the field and adopt what they assert to be fact. This authority is the leader, the chief, or the head of state.

Pursuant to this mode of ethical reasoning, there is a hierarchy of authority, from the lowest to the highest, ideally with one supreme individual at the apex of authority capable of resolving all confusion. Those individuals who demonstrate the power to impose their will over all others will conquer, govern others, and become the leaders, who, in turn, will exercise the authority to declare what is fact.

Mode of Ethical Reasoning

Since each individual has nothing more than his or her own five physical senses to physically perceive reality and only his or her own personal degree of intellectual acuity to organize these otherwise disparate pieces of physical data into some strictly relative pattern of meaning, each individual will perceive reality in accordance with his or her best, selfish interests.

Ultimately, the only meaningful, comparable ethical referent is the degree to which each individual person is able to maximize his or her own personal pleasure and minimize his or her own physical pain.

There is no absolute or objective truth. There is no right. There is no wrong. There is simply the exercise of raw power to declare what ought to be considered to be the facts in any given situation. And, it is perfectly understandable—indeed right—that each individual attempt to physically or intellectually compel every other individual to recognize his or her reality, the reality that identifies his or her maximum physical pleasure and his or her minimum physical pain, as the paramount value in the entire universe.

Therefore, when faced with a given public policy or community problem, it is predictable—and, indeed, right—that each individual would and should attempt to exploit that particular public problem to maximize his or her own physical pleasure and minimize his or her own physical pain.

Therefore, when confronted with a range of alternative choices that might be made as to what one ought do to respond to a given public policy problem, one merely selects that specific choice (based upon one’s best physical data processed through one’s intelligence) that one believes generates the greatest degree of short-term physical pleasure to one’s self and that generates the least degree of short-term physical pain to one’s self or, by simple physical extension, the choice that generates the greatest degree of physical pleasure and the least possible degree of physical pain to one’s immediate biological family members.

The adoption of this specific mode of ethical reasoning is the straightforward, rational product, which lacks another referent for right or wrong that we, as rational human beings, are capable of physically experiencing through our five physical senses.

And, of course, one’s experience is expressly limited to one’s physical experiences that places an absolute limit on the efficacy of the attempts to rally individual human beings to some more abstract, nonphysical ethical referent. There simply is no other such physically-experienceable referent. There is certainly no cosmic referent by means of which any individual human being is capable of directly physically experiencing the cosmos.

Since nothing holds reality together in any predictable, reliable system in accordance with which one can reliably say that any act is either right or wrong, I will get mine, and I will seek to generate an immediate sense of physical security around me and around my immediate biological extensions. This is the only true referent for right and wrong that I can directly experience through my five senses.

 

Thus, only “might makes right.” Indeed, might makes reality itself, for there is no other reality upon which we can depend. 

 

Adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe began, in a single moment, with a single Big Bang, that all physical matter was created during this Big Bang, and that the sum total of the matter that was then created is spreading out in an expanding spatial framework.

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this Big Bang occurred approximately 14 billion years ago and that our physical universe is made up of a fixed and finite number of ultimately-irreducible integers of matter, each one of which was created at the moment of the Big Bang event.

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that every single complex combination of matter is disintegrating into its smaller constituent, ultimately indivisible, units of matter.

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe, further, that each and every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our entire physical universe is, at the same time, repelling itself out and away from every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our entire physical universe.

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this contemporaneously-occurring expansion and disintegration of all matter within our physical universe has been going on since the very earliest stage of our physical universe and that this contemporaneously-occurring expansion and disintegration will continue to go on up to the point in time at which every single ultimately-irreducible integer of such matter that exists in the entire physical universe will stand separate and apart from each and every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe.

Crucially, adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that our entire physical universe will ultimately disintegrate into nothingness and that our physical universe will continue to expand out and away for all of eternity thereafter.

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this continued expansion will occur because there is not enough physical matter in the physical universe to cause the eventual collapse of the universe into a singularity—a reverse Big Bang. The direct physical attraction that every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter has for each and every other ultimately-irreducible integer of is not strong enough to overcome the expansion of the universe. Current data and analysis tell us the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Because of the belief that there does not exist enough physical matter in our universe to generate an adequate amount of physical internal attraction to overcome the force that has been placed upon each integer of matter by the 14 billion years of expansion and disintegration that each such unit of matter will have undergone, adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe is absolutely irretrievably destined to its ultimate physical disintegration into absolute nothingness.

Adherents to this First Paradigm Worldview adhere to an ontological belief that human consciousness is nothing more than a randomly-occurring, accidental physical epiphenomenon of the interplay of physical matter and energy.

This ontological belief of adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview is articulated most eloquently and most persuasively by Daniel Dennett in his popular work entitled Consciousness Explained and again in his work entitled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.

The epistemology and theory of human psychology that adherents of the First Paradigm Worldview believe in is strictly sensory and materialist. That is, adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview hold the epistemological belief that we, as human beings, have access to no greater truth than that which we can experientially see, touch, taste, hear, or smell through our five physical senses, which together, communicate the total composite of raw materialist data that we can directly personally physically experience.

Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that our human mind functions as nothing more than the mechanical, random interplay of physical material interacting within our human brain, generating physical forces that are totally determined by the random interaction of physical atoms. This specific theory of epistemology and human psychology has been thoroughly and thoughtfully articulated by Thomas Hobbes.

In its lower manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical reasoning of simple “dog-eat-dog” individualistic self-striving and domination that was championed by Machiavelli’s The Prince in 1513.

In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical reasoning of Epicurus from 310 B.C., being the mode of ethical reasoning pursuant to advocating for one to engage in moderation (insonomia), through the voluntary suppression of the desire for excess pleasure by observing the traditional virtues of justice, temperance, courage, beauty, friendship, knowledge, etc., each of which was to be undertaken in moderation for the purpose of assuring to oneself the “good life.” Whereas the “good life” is one’s personal life experience that is “sure and secure in a world of uncertainty,” thus being the only rational course of life.

Because of these combined cosmological, teleological, ontological, and epistemological beliefs on the part of adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview, adherents, in its lower manifestation, espouse an essentially pessimistic philosophy, exemplified by Thomas Hobbes. In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in Epicureanism.

The mode of spiritual expression for adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview is strictly materialist. It only allows for the physical manipulation of the raw physical forces of our world and universe as a direct function of the chaotic universe by certain shamanically-skilled and trained individuals.

In its lower manifestation, this First Paradigm mode of spiritual expression manifests itself in the form of shamanism and magic (sometimes in a bad way, for example, as Voodoo, and sometimes in a good way, for example, in the form of the white magic” performed by animists and practitioners of Wicca). In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm mode of spiritual expression manifests itself in the form of panpsychism, espoused by many of the most preeminent thinkers in Western civilization, including Giordano Bruno, G.W. Liebniz, Arthur Schopenhauer, W.K. Clifford, F.C.S. Schiller, and Alfred North Whitehead. The higher manifestation of this First Paradigm Worldview is sometimes expressed in the form of a belief in Gaia, the panpsychic conscious being that is our planet Earth.

In its political philosophy, the First Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in its lower manifestation in the form of authoritarian autocracies, such as that practiced by barbarian autocrats such as Attila The Hun and Genghis Khan in Ancient Asia. In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview expresses itself in the political philosophy of authoritative monarchy or benevolent despotism, such as the mythical medieval Saxon kingdom of Camelot by King Arthur and the Knights of his famous Roundtable, in the indigenous regimes of the Iroquois Confederacy, of King Quetzalcoatl of the Incas in Teotihuacan, and by King Huitzilopochtli of the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan.

The Paradigmatic Exemplification of The Lower Manifestation of The First Paradigm Worldview

Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan

The Paradigmatic Exemplification of The Higher Manifestation of The First Paradigm Worldview

The Great White Roots of Peace (The Iroquois Confederacy), Camelot of King Arthur

[1] For a full explication of this purely materialist explanation of consciousness, see Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. See also Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett.

Download the Report in PDF Format



Calendar No. 438
117th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 117-132

======================================================================

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

_______

July 20, 2022.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Warner, from the Select Committee on Intelligence,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany S. 4503]

The Select Committee on Intelligence, having considered an
original bill (S. 4503) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2023 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities
of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community
Management Account, the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System, and for other purposes, reports
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Classified Annex to the Committee Report

Pursuant to Section 364 of the Intelligence Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-259), the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) publicly disclosed on March 28,
2022, that the request for the National Intelligence Program
for Fiscal Year 2022 was $67.1 billion. Other than for limited
unclassified appropriations, primarily the Intelligence
Community Management Account, the classified nature of United
States intelligence activities precludes any further
disclosure, including by the Committee, of the details of its
budgetary recommendations. Accordingly, the Committee has
prepared a classified annex to this report that contains a
classified Schedule of Authorizations. The classified Schedule
of Authorizations is incorporated by reference in the
Intelligence Authorization Act and has the legal status of
public law. The classified annex is made available to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and to the President. It is also available for
review by any Member of the Senate subject to the provisions of
Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress (1976).

Section-by-Section Analysis and Explanation

The following is a section-by-section analysis and
explanation of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2023 (the ``Act'') reported by the Committee.

TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Section 101. Authorization of appropriations

Section 101 specifies that the Act authorizes
appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the Intelligence Community for Fiscal Year 2023.

Section 102. Classified Schedule of Authorizations

Section 102 provides that the details of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities for Fiscal Year 2023 are
contained in the classified Schedule of Authorizations and that
the classified Schedule of Authorizations shall be made
available to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives and to the President.

Section 103. Intelligence Community Management Account

Section 103 authorizes appropriations for the Intelligence
Community Management Account of the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI) for Fiscal Year 2023.

TITLE II--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

Section 201. Authorization of appropriations

Section 201 authorizes appropriations for the CIA
Retirement and Disability Fund for Fiscal Year 2023.

TITLE III--GENERAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MATTERS

Section 301. Plan for assessing counterintelligence programs

Section 301 requires the National Counterintelligence and
Security Center to submit a plan for assessing the
effectiveness of the counterintelligence programs of the
Federal Government.

Section 302. Modification of advisory board in National Reconnaissance
Office

Section 302 modifies the appointment mechanism and duration
of the advisory board in the National Reconnaissance Office.

Section 303. Prohibition on employment with governments of certain
countries

Section 303 establishes a prohibition on former
Intelligence Community employees providing certain services to
foreign state sponsors of terror and other foreign countries
determined to be a significant threat to the national security
interests of the United States, and establishes penalties for
former employees who knowingly and willfully violate that
prohibition.

Section 304. Counterintelligence and national security protections for
intelligence community grant funding

Section 304 establishes counterintelligence protections for
Intelligence Community grant funding to protect against risks
of misappropriation, theft, and other threats to U.S. national
security, including by the People's Republic of China, the
Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Republic of
Cuba.

Section 305. Extension of Central Intelligence Agency law enforcement
jurisdiction to facilities of Office of Director of National
Intelligence

Section 305 enhances the CIA's authority to exercise law
enforcement authority in order to protect ODNI facilities.

Section 306. Clarification regarding protection of Central Intelligence
Agency functions

Section 306 clarifies protections for certain information
regarding the functions of the CIA.

Section 307. Establishment of advisory board for National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency

Section 307 establishes an advisory board in the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to study, advise on, and
report about matters relating to the agency's mission.

Section 308. Annual Reports on status of recommendations of Comptroller
General of the United States for the Director of National
Intelligence

Section 308 directs the Comptroller General to submit an
annual report listing all open recommendations made to the DNI.
Section 308 further directs the DNI to provide a status update
on each recommendation listed in the report.

Section 309. Timely submission of budget documents from intelligence
community

Section 309 requires the DNI to deliver budget
justification materials for elements of the Intelligence
Community to Congress no later than 14 days after the President
submits the budget request to Congress.

Section 310. Copyright protection for civilian faculty of the National
Intelligence University

Section 310 allows faculty at the National Intelligence
University to have limited copyright protection, consistent
with protection afforded to faculty at educational institutions
at the Department of Defense (DoD).

Section 311. Expansion of reporting requirements relating to authority
to pay personnel of Central Intelligence Agency for certain
injuries to the brain

Section 311 extends for five years a one-time reporting
requirement in the Helping American Victims Afflicted by
Neurological Attacks Act (P.L. 117-46), requires the CIA to
provide additional details in the contents of the report
submitted, and requires the National Intelligence Council to
coordinate an updated analytic assessment regarding the cause
and attribution of anomalous health incidents, along with any
dissenting views from the Intelligence Community.

Section 312. Modifications to Foreign Malign Influence Response Center

Section 312 renames the Center established by Section 119C
of the National Security Act of 1947 the ``Foreign Malign
Influence Center,'' requires a report assessing the Center's
need for continued operation, and sunsets the Center's
authorities and requirements on December 31, 2027.

Section 313. Requirement to offer cyber protection support for
personnel of intelligence community in positions highly
vulnerable to cyber attack

Section 313 amends Section 6308(b) of the Damon Paul Nelson
and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 (P.L. 116-92) to clarify that
the DNI shall offer protection support for Intelligence
Community personnel in positions highly vulnerable to cyber
attacks, including by providing such support to any such
personnel who request protection. Section 313 further requires
the DNI to submit a plan for the training and resources
required for such support.

Section 314. Minimum cybersecurity standards for national security
systems of intelligence community

Section 314 requires the DNI, in coordination with the
National Manager for National Security Systems, to establish
minimum cybersecurity requirements across the Intelligence
Community, and requires agencies to meet the deadlines
established under those requirements and to update their plans
to resource the full implementation of those standards.

Section 315. Review and report on intelligence community activities
under Executive Order 12333

Section 315 requires the DNI to conduct an assessment on
the feasibility and advisability of making public certain
information relating to activities under Executive Order 12333,
and to submit to the congressional intelligence committees a
report on that assessment, including descriptions of incidents
in which the Intelligence Community violated Executive Order
12333 or other guidelines and procedures, and a recommendation
on whether such incidents can be disaggregated for public
release.

Section 316. Elevation of the commercial and business operations office
of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Section 316 directs the head of the commercial and business
operations office of the NGA to report directly to the Director
of the NGA.

Section 317. Assessing intelligence community open-source support for
export controls and foreign investment screening

Section 317 requires the DNI to carry out a pilot program
to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing certain
open source-derived intelligence to the Department of Commerce
to support the Department's efforts related to export controls
and investment screening functions. Section 317 further
requires the DNI to submit a plan to carry out the pilot
program and a report on the findings of the DNI with respect to
the program.

Section 318. Annual training requirement and report regarding analytic
standards

Section 318 requires the DNI to issue a policy requiring
the head of each element of the Intelligence Community to
create an annual training program on Intelligence Community
Directive (ICD) 203, Analytic Standards, and provide a report
to the congressional intelligence committees on compliance
incidents reported to Intelligence Community analytic
ombudspersons related to the standards set forth in ICD 203.
Section 318 further includes a five-year sunset provision.

Section 319. Historical Advisory Panel of the Central Intelligence
Agency

Section 319 establishes a Historical Advisory Panel in the
CIA to determine topics for research, publication, and
declassification, and identify technological tools to modernize
classification and declassification processes. Section 319
further requires the Panel to submit an annual report on its
activities to the Director of the CIA and to the congressional
intelligence committees. Section 319 also includes a seven-year
sunset provision.

TITLE IV--INTELLIGENCE MATTERS RELATED TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA

Section 401. Update to annual reports on influence operations and
campaigns in the United States by the Chinese Communist Party

Section 401 updates the reporting requirement in Section
1107(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 to require
assessments on the Chinese Communist Party's online influence
operations and propaganda campaigns, including through the use
of social media and news outlets, and opportunities to expose
and counter such activities.

Section 402. Report on wealth and corrupt activities of the leadership
of the Chinese Community Party

Section 402 requires reporting on the wealth and corrupt
activities of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

Section 403. Identification and threat assessment of companies with
investments by the People's Republic of China

Section 403 requires the Intelligence Community to report
on the risk to national security posed by telecommunication,
hospitality, and conveyance companies in which the People's
Republic of China has substantially invested.

Section 404. Intelligence community working group for monitoring the
economic and technological capabilities of the People's
Republic of China

Section 404 establishes a cross-Intelligence Community
working group to assess and report on the economic and
technological capabilities of the People's Republic of China to
become the dominant military, technological, and economic
power, and to undermine the rules-based world order, including
providing unclassified lists of the top institutions,
businesses, and projects facilitating the Chinese Communist
Party's technology, military, and other objectives.

Section 405. Annual report on concentrated reeducation camps in the
Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of the People's Republic of
China

Section 405 requires public reporting on the detention and
forced labor camps in the People's Republic of China's Xinjiang
Uyghur Autonomous Region, including victims, personnel,
funding, and participating Chinese companies.

Section 406. Assessments of production of semiconductors by the
People's Republic of China

Section 406 requires the DNI to submit to the congressional
intelligence committees an assessment of the People's Republic
of China in global competitiveness in the production of
semiconductors by Chinese firms.

TITLE V--PERSONNEL AND SECURITY CLEARANCE MATTERS

Section 501. Improving onboarding of personnel in intelligence
community

Section 501 requires the DNI to establish a methodology for
measuring the time it takes elements of the Intelligence
Community to onboard personnel, to submit a report on the time
it takes to onboard personnel in the Intelligence Community,
and to submit a plan to reduce that time for elements that have
median onboarding times that exceed 180 days.

Section 502. Improving onboarding at the Central Intelligence Agency

Section 502 requires the Director of the CIA to take
actions necessary to ensure that, by December 31, 2023, the
CIA's onboarding process has a median duration of 180 days or
less.

Section 503. Report on legislative action required to implement Trusted
Workforce 2.0 initiative

Section 503 requires the Office of Management and Budget to
submit a report on the legislative action required to implement
the Trusted Workforce (TW) 2.0 initiative, including any
statutory provisions requiring amendment.

Section 504. Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
administration of polygraphs in intelligence community

Section 504 requires the Comptroller General to conduct an
assessment, provide a briefing, and submit a report on the
administration of polygraph evaluations that are needed in the
Intelligence Community to meet current mission demand.

Section 505. Timeliness in the administration of polygraphs

Section 505 requires the DNI, in the DNI's capacity as the
Security Executive Agent, to issue standards for timeliness for
Federal agencies to administer polygraphs conducted for
purposes of adjudicating eligibility for access to classified
information and granting clearance reciprocity.

Section 506. Policy on submittal of applications for access to
classified information for certain personnel

Section 506 requires the DNI, in the DNI's capacity as the
Security Executive Agent, to issue a policy that allows
companies to submit applications for security clearances, on a
nonreimbursable basis, for personnel who perform key management
and oversight functions who may not merit an application due to
their work under any one contract.

Section 507. Prohibition on denial of eligibility for access to
classified information solely because of preemployment use of
cannabis

Section 507 prohibits the head of an element of the
Intelligence Community from denying an individual's security
clearance based solely on the individual's preemployment use of
cannabis.

Section 508. Technical correction regarding Federal policy on sharing
of covered insider threat information

Section 508 makes a technical correction to Section 806 of
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (P.L.
117-103), which requires the DNI to issue a policy for the
Federal Government on sharing covered insider threat
information pertaining to contractor employees.

Section 509. Establishing process parity for security clearance and
access determinations

Section 509 requires an agency, in justifying an adverse
security clearance or access determination against a
whistleblower, to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence
that the agency would have made the same security clearance or
access determination in the absence of the whistleblower's
disclosure. Section 509 further establishes parity in the legal
standards applied to Intelligence Community whistleblower
matters.

Section 510. Elimination of cap on compensatory damages for retaliatory
revocation of security clearances and access determinations

Section 510 removes the cap on compensatory damages for an
employee or former employee who was subjected to a reprisal
with respect to the employee's or former employee's security
clearance or access determination.

Section 511. Comptroller General of the United States report on use of
Government and industry space certified as secure compartmented
information facilities

Section 511 requires the Comptroller General to submit a
report on the average annual utilization of Federal Government
and industry space certified as secure compartmented
information facilities under Intelligence Community or DoD
policy.

TITLE VI--INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

Section 601. Submittal of complaints and information by whistleblowers
in the intelligence community to Congress

Section 601 establishes security officers and protocols to
facilitate Intelligence Community employees' and contractors'
submissions of complaints and information to Congress. Section
601 further clarifies the requirements for submitting
whistleblower complaints and information, and ensures
bipartisan notification of such materials.

Section 602. Modification of whistleblower protections for contractor
employees in intelligence community

Section 602 ensures that Intelligence Community
whistleblowers can provide disclosures to supervisors who have
responsibility for the subject matter of the disclosure.

Section 603. Prohibition against disclosure of whistleblower identity
as reprisal against whistleblower disclosure by employees and
contractors in intelligence community

Section 603 adds a prohibition on knowing or willful
disclosures that reveal an Intelligence Community
whistleblower's identifying information without consent, except
as necessary during the course of an investigation. Section 603
further establishes a private right of action for an
Intelligence Community whistleblower if such disclosure is
taken as a reprisal against the whistleblower for bringing a
complaint.

Section 604. Definitions regarding whistleblower complaints and
information of urgent concern received by inspectors general of
the intelligence community

Section 604 clarifies the definition of ``urgent concern''
regarding whistleblower complaints and ensures that the
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community has authority
over ``urgent concern'' determinations that are matters of
national security and not public policy matters.

TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

Section 701. Improvements relating to continuity of Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board membership

Section 701 permits (1) the reappointment of a member of
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board for additional
terms; (2) filling a vacancy in the same manner in which the
original appointment was made; and (3) the continued service of
a member following the expiration of their term.

Section 702. Report by Public Interest Declassification Board

Section 702 requires the Public Interest Declassification
Board to submit a report on recommendations to improve the
Information Security Oversight Office and Executive Order
13526, as well as other matters.

Section 703. Modification of requirement for office to address
unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena

Section 703 renames the Office established to carry out the
duties of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, and
clarifies the Office's legal authorities, duties, and
leadership to incorporate Intelligence Community equities that
are integral to ensuring full oversight of unidentified
aerospace-undersea phenomena subject matters.

Section 704. Unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena reporting
procedures

Section 704 ensures the Intelligence Community and DoD have
sufficient procedures in place to receive all relevant
reporting and disclosures regarding unidentified aerospace-
undersea phenomena.

Sections 705. Comptroller General of the United States compilation of
unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena records

Section 705 requires the Comptroller General to undertake
an independent review and compilation of unidentified
aerospace-undersea phenomena-related historical documents and
submit a corresponding report. Section 705 further requires the
relevant agencies to provide the Comptroller General with
necessary materials and access to such records.

Section 706. Office of Global Competition Analysis

Section 706 requires the President to establish an office
on analysis of global competition regarding United States
leadership in technology and innovation sectors critical to
national security and economic prosperity, and to support
related policy development and decision making in related
matters. Section 706 authorizes $20 million for fiscal year
2023 to carry out this requirement.

Section 707. Report on tracking and collecting precursor chemicals used
in the production of synthetic opioids

Section 707 requires the Director of the CIA to submit a
report on intelligence gaps related to tracking and collecting
licit precursor chemicals bound for illicit use in opioid
production.

Section 708. Assessment and report on mass migration in the Western
Hemisphere

Section 708 requires the DNI to submit a report on the
national security threats posed by mass migration within the
Western Hemisphere, including the risks associated with the
regime in Cuba and the illegitimate Nicolas Maduro regime in
Venezuela.

Section 709. Notifications regarding transfers of detainees at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Section 709 requires the Secretary of Defense to notify
appropriate Members of Congress when a final determination is
made that the continued law of war detention of an individual
detained at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay is unwarranted.
Section 709 further requires the Secretary of State to notify
appropriate Members of Congress prior to a detainee's transfer
outside of Guantanamo Bay, including specific information about
the detainee and the transfer.

Section 710. Report on international norms, rules, and principles
applicable in space

Section 710 requires the DNI, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Commerce, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and heads of other agencies as the DNI
determines to be necessary, to submit a report on international
norms, rules, and principles applicable in space, including how
threats to the United States may be mitigated through the
development of international norms, as well as opportunities
for the United States to influence those norms.

Section 711. Assessments of the effects of sanctions imposed with
respect to the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine

Section 711 requires the DNI to submit an assessment of the
cumulative and material effects of sanctions imposed by the
United States, European countries, and the international
community on the Russian Federation in response to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine, including efforts by Russia to evade
sanctions through direct or indirect assistance from other
countries and by using digital assets; the effect of the
sanctions on Russia's relationship with certain regimes,
countries, and senior leadership; the effect of the sanctions
on other countries' development of alternative payment systems;
and the impact of any general licenses issued in relation to
the sanctions.

Section 712. Assessment and briefing on implications of food insecurity
resulting from the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine

Section 712 requires the DNI to conduct an assessment of
the implications of food insecurity that may result from the
Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine.

Section 713. Pilot program for Director of Federal Bureau of
Investigation to undertake an effort to identify International
Mobile Subscriber Identity-catchers and develop countermeasures

Section 713 amends Section 5725 of the Damon Paul Nelson
and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 (P.L. 116-92) authorizing the
DNI to undertake an effort to identify International Mobile
Subscriber Identity-catchers in the United States and, when
appropriate, develop countermeasures, by transferring the
authority to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). Section 713 further directs the Director
of the FBI to exercise those authorities through a pilot
program within the National Capital Region, and limits the
pilot program to two years.

Section 714. Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research
assessment of anomalous health incidents

Section 714 requires the Assistant Secretary of State for
Intelligence and Research to submit a report on its assessment
of the findings of the events that have been collectively
labeled as ``anomalous health incidents.''

Section 715. Clarification of process for protecting classified
information using the Classified Information Procedures Act

Section 715 clarifies that a motion under Section 4 of the
Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) may be supported
by a declaration executed by any official possessing original
classification authority, who shall not be required to be the
head of the relevant agency.

Committee Comments and Direction

Protecting classified information using the Classified Information
Procedures Act

In United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008), the
Second Circuit held that the state secrets privilege applies to
criminal proceedings involving protection of classified
information under CIPA, and that the government must satisfy
the procedural requirements of the privilege when seeking the
protections of CIPA. These requirements include personal
invocation of the privilege by the head of the department which
has control over the matter, after actual personal
consideration by that officer. The Second Circuit holding is at
odds with the views of most other appellate courts, and the
Committee is concerned that it imposes substantial burdens in
addressing routine classified information issues in cases
within the Second Circuit. Accordingly, Section 715 clarifies
that the head of the department is not required to provide the
necessary declaration; instead, any official possessing
original classification authority may do so.

People's Republic of China Presence and Intentions in the Caribbean

The Committee commends the Intelligence Community's
recognition of--and increased commitment of resources to--the
threat posed by the People's Republic of China's long-term
goals and intentions related to United States interests
worldwide. The Committee remains concerned, among other areas,
about the People's Republic of China's intentions and influence
in the Caribbean, including in Suriname and Guyana. Therefore,
within 90 days following enactment of this Act, the Committee
directs the Director of the CIA to submit a report to the
congressional intelligence committees regarding the threats and
risks presented to United States national security and economic
interests by People's Republic of China investments in critical
infrastructure, including energy and telecommunications
infrastructure, in the Caribbean.

Trusted Workforce 2.0

The Committee continues to exercise close oversight of the
executive branch's personnel vetting reform effort, TW 2.0. The
executive agents for security (the DNI) and suitability and
credentialing (the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management) have issued a number of policy documents to
modernize a vetting model that has largely remained unchanged
for more than 70 years. The Committee is closely watching how
the Intelligence Community can capitalize on reforms being
adopted in TW 2.0 to ensure personnel can maintain their
mobility across their career. The DNI has specific
responsibilities to lead this effort, which the Committee
endorses to drive much needed change for the Federal government
and its industry partners. DoD is responsible for the
information technology backbone for this effort, known as the
National Background Investigation Services (NBIS). The
Committee looks forward to NBIS's capabilities maturing to
support five core human resource scenarios--establishing,
continuing, upgrading, transferring, and reestablishing trust.
The Committee recognizes that modernizing the government's
personnel vetting paradigm is a long-term project that requires
sustained oversight attention.

Modification of Requirement for Office to Address Unidentified
Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena

At a time when cross-domain transmedium threats to United
States national security are expanding exponentially, the
Committee is disappointed with the slow pace of DoD-led efforts
to establish the office to address those threats and to replace
the former Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force as required
in Section 1683 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2022. The Committee was hopeful that the new office
would address many of the structural issues hindering progress.
To accelerate progress, the Committee has, pursuant to Section
703, renamed the organization formerly known as the
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force and the Aerial Object
Identification and Management Synchronization Management Group
to be the Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena Joint
Program Office. That change reflects the broader scope of the
effort directed by the Congress. Identification,
classification, and scientific study of unidentified aerospace-
undersea phenomena is an inherently challenging cross-agency,
cross-domain problem requiring an integrated or joint
Intelligence Community and DoD approach. The new Office will
continue to be led by DoD, with a Deputy Director named by the
Intelligence Community. The formal DoD and Intelligence
Community definition of the terms used by the Office shall be
updated to include space and undersea, and the scope of the
Office shall be inclusive of those additional domains with
focus on addressing technology surprise and ``unknown
unknowns.'' Temporary nonattributed objects, or those that are
positively identified as man-made after analysis, will be
passed to appropriate offices and should not be considered
under the definition as unidentified aerospace-undersea
phenomena.

Annual Reports on status of recommendations of Comptroller General of
the United States for the Director of National Intelligence

As noted in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying
the Damon Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020, the
congressional intelligence committees believe the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) adds significant value to their
oversight efforts. GAO has provided numerous recommendations to
improve the functioning and efficiency of the Intelligence
Community. However, these improvements can only be achieved
through timely and deliberate action taken in response. The
committees do not always have sufficient information to
understand the status of ODNI actions taken in response to open
GAO recommendations, or where, if applicable, ODNI does not
plan to take action in response to GAO recommendations.
Accordingly, Section 308 directs the Comptroller General to
submit an annual report listing all open recommendations made
to the DNI. Section 308 further directs the DNI to provide a
status update on each recommendation listed in the report.

Minimum Cybersecurity Standards for National Security Systems of
Intelligence Community

Section 314 in this bill requires the DNI, in coordination
with the National Manager for National Security Systems, to
establish Intelligence Community-wide minimum cybersecurity
standards for national security systems. The Committee welcomes
the publication of the National Security Memorandum on
Improving the Cybersecurity of National Security, DoD, and
Intelligence Community Systems (NSM-8). This section codifies
the establishment of, and adherence to, minimum cybersecurity
standards for the national security systems of the Intelligence
Community, as provided for in NSM-08 or any successor policy
guidance. The provision further requires elements of the
Intelligence Community to meet the deadlines established for
implementation of the standards, and requires elements of the
Intelligence Community to update their plans to resource the
full implementation of those standards.

Report on the establishment of a cadre of professors to support the
Intelligence Community

The Committee continues to endorse exploring mechanisms by
which the Intelligence Community can better utilize expertise
outside of the government in its operations, such as the
public-private talent exchange program. The Committee
encourages the Intelligence Community to ensure that academics,
from a variety of fields, at universities, research
organizations, and elsewhere, can play a robust role in
contribution to the U.S. intelligence enterprise. The Committee
therefore directs ODNI to provide the congressional
intelligence committees, within 180 days after enactment of
this Act, with a plan for creating a reserve cadre of academics
who can perform specific assignments for the Intelligence
Community. That plan should include an assessment of and
solutions for any barriers to creating this cadre, such as
issues with contracting vehicles, a plan for expediting
granting of academics' security clearances, and protocols for
disclosure and accountability with the academics' host
institutions.

Response to report required by Section 6715 of the Fiscal Year 2018,
2019, and 2020 Intelligence Authorization Act

The Committee seeks a substantive response to a report
required by Section 6715 of the Fiscal Year 2018, 2019, and
2020 Intelligence Authorization Act, which was enacted on
December 20, 2019 (P.L. 116-92).The report required by that
provision included ``any attempts known to the intelligence
community by foreign governments to exploit cybersecurity
vulnerabilities in United States telecommunications networks
(including Signaling System No. 7) to target for surveillance
United States persons, including employees of the Federal
Government,'' and ``any actions taken by the intelligence
community to protect agencies and personnel of the United
States Government from surveillance conducted by foreign
governments.'' The document that the ODNI identified as a
response provided to the Committee on November 23, 2021, made
no reference to Signaling System No. 7. The Committee has
further addressed this concern in the classified annex.

Review of declassification practices and policies across Executive
agencies, funding for such activities, and investments in
technological modernization

The Committee remains concerned about the Government's
obsolete classification system whose deficiencies ``undermine
our national security, as well as critical democratic
objectives,'' according to the DNI. The Committee further notes
the DNI's acknowledgment that ``[t]he current prioritization
given to remediating these issues and the resources dedicated
to making tangible progress are simply not sufficient.'' The
Committee therefore directs the DNI, jointly with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)),
to conduct a review of declassification practices and policies
across Executive agencies, funding for such activities, and
investments in technological modernization. The Committee
further directs the DNI, jointly with the USD(I&S), to provide
a report to the congressional intelligence and defense
committees to include: (1) a description of declassification
practices and policies across Executive agencies, funding for
such activities, and investments in technological
modernization; (2) proposals for the promotion of best
practices that could be applied across relevant Executive
agencies and/or as part of a federated system, and cost
estimates associated with such proposals; and (3) a spend plan
for the research, development, and promotion of technological
solutions to, and other modernizations efforts for,
declassification.

Historical Advisory Panel of the Central Intelligence Agency

The Committee appreciates the steps CIA has recently taken
to consult scholarly experts on declassification. The CIA's
Historical Advisory Panel has demonstrated that it can be an
important tool in identifying topics for research, publication,
and discretionary declassification. Accordingly, Section 319
codifies the Panel to ensure that CIA sustains the Historical
Advisory Panel and that the Panel's work receives the attention
it deserves. The Committee expects the Director of the CIA to
meet with the Historical Advisory Panel at regular intervals
and take full heed of the panel's recommendations.

Committee Action

On June 22, 2022, a quorum being present, the Committee met
to consider the bill, classified annex, and amendments. The
Committee took the following actions:

Votes on amendments to the committee bill and the classified annex

By unanimous consent, the Committee made the Chairman and
Vice Chairman's bill, together with the classified annex for
Fiscal Year 2023, the base text for purposes of amendment.
By voice vote, the Committee adopted en bloc twenty-six
amendments to the bill, as follows: (1) an amendment by Senator
Blunt, and cosponsored by Vice Chairman Rubio, to establish an
NGA Advisory Board; (2) an amendment by Senator Blunt, and
cosponsored by Vice Chairman Rubio and Senators Gillibrand and
Heinrich, to rename and modify the Unidentified Aerospace-
Undersea Phenomena Joint Program Office; (3) an amendment by
Vice Chairman Rubio to require notifications of Guantanamo Bay
transfers; (4) an amendment by Senator Collins to require
reports on Comptroller General recommendations; (5) an
amendment by Senator Bennet, and cosponsored by Senator
Feinstein, to require a report on international space norms;
(6) an amendment by Senator Collins, and cosponsored by
Chairman Warner, to require timely submission of certain
budgetary documents; (7) an amendment by Chairman Warner, and
cosponsored by Senators Sasse and Gillibrand, to establish
copyright protection for National Intelligence University
civilian faculty; (8) an amendment by Chairman Warner, and
cosponsored by Senator Cornyn, to require assessments of the
People's Republic of China's semiconductor production; (9) an
amendment by Senator Collins, and cosponsored by Senators
Gillibrand and Cotton, to expand reporting on CIA's payment
authorities for certain injuries; (10) an amendment by Chairman
Warner, and cosponsored by Vice Chairman Rubio, to extend the
CIA's law enforcement jurisdiction to certain ODNI facilities;
(11) an amendment by Chairman Warner, and cosponsored by Vice
Chairman Rubio, to require assessments of the effects of
sanctions imposed regarding the Russian Federation's Ukraine
invasion; (12) an amendment by Senator Bennet, and cosponsored
by Senator Sasse and Chairman Warner, to establish an Office of
Global Competition Analysis; (13) an amendment by Senator
Blunt, and cosponsored by Vice Chairman Rubio and Senators
Gillibrand and Heinrich, to require Comptroller General
historical compilations of Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea
Phenomena records; (14) an amendment by Chairman Warner, and
cosponsored by Vice Chairman Rubio, to modify and sunset the
Foreign Malign Influence Response Center; (15) an amendment by
Senator Wyden to require certain cyber protection support for
Intelligence Community personnel; (16) an amendment by Senator
Wyden, and cosponsored by Senator Heinrich, to require a pilot
program for the FBI to identify International Mobile Subscriber
Identity-catchers and develop countermeasures; (17) an
amendment by Senator Gillibrand, and cosponsored by Senator
Cotton, to require an assessment of anomalous health incidents
by the Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research;
(18) an amendment by Senator Collins, and cosponsored by
Senator Wyden and Chairman Warner, to require minimum
cybersecurity standards for the Intelligence Community's
National Security Systems; (19) an amendment by Senator Wyden,
and cosponsored by Senator Heinrich, to require a review and
report on Intelligence Community activities pursuant to
Executive Order 12333; (20) an amendment by Chairman Warner,
and cosponsored by Vice Chairman Rubio, to elevate the NGA's
Commercial and Business Operations Office; (21) an amendment by
Chairman Warner, and cosponsored by Senator Cornyn, to clarify
the Classified Information Protection Act; (22) an amendment by
Senator Casey, and cosponsored by Chairman Warner and Senator
Bennet, to require assessments on food security implications
from the Russian Federation's Ukraine invasion; (23) an
amendment by Chairman Warner, and cosponsored by Senator Casey,
to assess Intelligence Community open source support for export
controls and foreign investment screening; (24) an amendment by
Senator King to require training and reporting on analytic
standards; (25) an amendment by Vice Chairman Rubio, and
cosponsored by Senator Sasse, to improve personnel onboarding
at the CIA; and (26) an amendment by Senator Sasse, and
cosponsored by Chairman Warner, to establish a Historical
Advisory Panel at the CIA.
By voice vote, the Committee adopted en bloc thirty-seven
amendments to the classified annex.
By voice vote, the Committee adopted a second-degree
amendment by Chairman Warner, and cosponsored by Senator
Bennet, to an amendment by Senator Wyden, and cosponsored by
Senators Heinrich and Gillibrand. Senator Wyden's amendment, as
cosponsored by Senators Heinrich and Gillibrand, prohibited any
Federal agency from denying or revoking an individual's
eligibility for access to classified information solely because
of past or present use of cannabis. Chairman Warner's second-
degree amendment, as cosponsored by Senator Bennet, limited the
prohibition to Intelligence Community agencies, struck the
revocation prohibition, and replaced the ``past or present''
application with a ``pre-employment'' application. By a vote of
11 ayes and 5 noes, the Committee adopted the amendment by
Senator Wyden, and cosponsored by Senators Heinrich and
Gillibrand, as modified by Chairman Warner's second-degree
amendment (cosponsored by Senator Bennet). The votes in person
or by proxy were as follows: Chairman Warner--aye; Senator
Feinstein--aye; Senator Wyden--aye; Senator Heinrich--aye;
Senator King--no; Senator Bennet--aye; Senator Casey--aye;
Senator Gillibrand--aye; Vice Chairman Rubio--no; Senator
Burr--aye; Senator Risch--no; Senator Collins--aye; Senator
Blunt--no; Senator Cotton--aye; Senator Cornyn--no; Senator
Sasse--aye.
By a vote of 5 ayes and 11 noes, the Committee did not
adopt an amendment by Vice Chairman Rubio to prohibit funds
authorized by this Act within the Intelligence Community
Management Account from being obligated or expended to provide
financial or in-kind support to certain tax-exempt
organizations that receive financial or in-kind support from
foreign governments outside of the Five Eyes alliance. The
votes in person or by proxy were as follows: Chairman Warner--
no; Senator Feinstein--no; Senator Wyden--no; Senator
Heinrich--no; Senator King--no; Senator Bennet--no; Senator
Casey--no; Senator Gillibrand--no; Vice Chairman Rubio--aye;
Senator Burr--no; Senator Risch--aye; Senator Collins--no;
Senator Blunt--no; Senator Cotton--aye; Senator Cornyn--aye;
Senator Sasse--aye.
By a vote of 8 ayes and 8 noes, the Committee did not adopt
an amendment by Vice Chairman Rubio to prohibit funds
authorized by this Act from being obligated or expended by or
for the currently-paused Department of Homeland Security's
Disinformation Governance Board or successor organization. The
votes in person or by proxy were as follows: Chairman Warner--
no; Senator Feinstein--no; Senator Wyden--no; Senator
Heinrich--no; Senator King--no; Senator Bennet--no; Senator
Casey--no; Senator Gillibrand--no; Vice Chairman Rubio--aye;
Senator Burr--aye; Senator Risch--aye; Senator Collins--aye;
Senator Blunt--aye; Senator Cotton--aye; Senator Cornyn--aye;
Senator Sasse--aye.
Senator Cornyn offered and withdrew an amendment to limit
the availability of funds authorized by this Act to change the
section of the Questionnaire for National Security Positions
that pertains to association record.
By a vote of 8 ayes and 8 noes, the Committee did not adopt
an amendment by Senator Cotton to the classified annex. The
votes in person or by proxy were as follows: Chairman Warner--
no; Senator Feinstein--no; Senator Wyden--no; Senator
Heinrich--no; Senator King--no; Senator Bennet--no; Senator
Casey--no; Senator Gillibrand--no; Vice Chairman Rubio--aye;
Senator Burr--aye; Senator Risch--aye; Senator Collins--aye;
Senator Blunt--aye; Senator Cotton--aye; Senator Cornyn--aye;
Senator Sasse--aye.
By a vote of 9 ayes and 7 noes, the Committee adopted an
amendment by Senator Cotton to the classified annex. The votes
in person or by proxy were as follows: Chairman Warner--no;
Senator Feinstein--no; Senator Wyden--no; Senator Heinrich--no;
Senator King--aye; Senator Bennet--no; Senator Casey--no;
Senator Gillibrand--no; Vice Chairman Rubio--aye; Senator
Burr--aye; Senator Risch--aye; Senator Collins--aye; Senator
Blunt--aye; Senator Cotton--aye; Senator Cornyn--aye; Senator
Sasse--aye.

Votes to report the committee bill

On June 22, 2022, the Committee voted to report the bill,
as amended, by a vote of 16 ayes and zero noes. The votes in
person or by proxy were as follows: Chairman Warner--aye;
Senator Feinstein--aye; Senator Wyden--aye; Senator Heinrich--
aye; Senator King--aye; Senator Bennet--aye; Senator Casey--
aye; Senator Gillibrand--aye; Vice Chairman Rubio--aye; Senator
Burr--aye; Senator Risch--aye; Senator Collins--aye; Senator
Blunt--aye; Senator Cotton--aye; Senator Cornyn--aye; Senator
Sasse--aye.
By unanimous consent, the Committee authorized the staff to
make technical and conforming changes to the bill and
classified annex.

Compliance With Rule XLIV

Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires
publication of a list of any ``congressionally directed
spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff
benefit'' that is included in the bill or the committee report
accompanying the bill. Consistent with the determination of the
Committee not to create any congressionally directed spending
items or earmarks, none have been included in the bill, the
report to accompany it, or the classified schedule of
authorizations. The bill, report, and classified schedule of
authorizations also contain no limited tax benefits or limited
tariff benefits.

Estimate of Costs

Pursuant to paragraph 11(a)(3) of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee deems it impractical to
include an estimate of the costs incurred in carrying out the
provisions of this report due to the classified nature of the
operations conducted pursuant to this legislation. On July 12,
2022, the Committee transmitted this bill to the Congressional
Budget Office and requested an estimate of the costs incurred
in carrying out the unclassified provisions.

Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that no
substantial regulatory impact will be incurred by implementing
the provisions of this legislation.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN RUBIO

Keeping politics out of our intelligence apparatus is
essential for its success. The Intelligence Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2023 represents a broad, bipartisan consensus
regarding the critical work performed by the men and women of
our Intelligence Community.
This year's bill includes bipartisan language contained in
the Annex to accompany the bill that prohibits the National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) from performing intelligence
analysis that lacks a foreign nexus. When NCTC was created, it
was the drafters' intent that it bridge the divide between
intelligence and law enforcement to ``connect the dots''
regarding transnational terrorism--a critical capability absent
prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. This constructive
relationship has helped to ensure that the Intelligence
Community is working with law enforcement when there is a link
to a foreign entity.
Over the past several years, NCTC has produced analysis on
events that pertain exclusively to domestic cases, even when it
is clear that there is no foreign nexus. This concerning
development disregards the clear intent for this Center and
risks threatening the integrity of the Intelligence Community
and the critical work of NCTC. Unless an act of terrorism
within the homeland has a known or suspected foreign nexus,
NCTC should not commit any of its limited analytic resources to
the response. I appreciate the bipartisan consensus directing
NCTC to focus its analytic resources on the threat of
transnational terrorism consistent with its authorizing
statute.
Similarly, I remain concerned by the use of National
Intelligence Program funds to support the Department of
Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board. Although
the Committee did not adopt an amendment I offered--and all
Minority members supported--that would prohibit Intelligence
Community support to the Disinformation Governance Board, I
will continue my efforts to ensure National Intelligence
Program funds are not used to regulate Americans' free speech.
Secretary Mayorkas signed the Board's Charter on February
24, 2022 and, given the administration's characterization that
the Board was on ``pause'' as of May 18, I presume the intent
remains to continue with the Board's activities. The Charter
stated that the Department's Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, one of 18 Intelligence Community elements whose funds
this Committee authorizes, was one of the ``Standing Board
members'' from inception. Whatever one thinks of a government-
sponsored, domestic-facing ``board'' designed to identify what
elements of free speech the government deems to be
disinformation, we should all be able to agree that our
Intelligence Community should have no part in it.
I intend to continue to work in a bipartisan manner to
ensure the Intelligence Community is focused on protecting
Americans from threats to the homeland and on countering
authoritarian regimes like Russia and China and not on lawful,
protected activities of U.S. persons.
Marco Rubio.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR WYDEN

I am pleased that the Fiscal Year 2023 Intelligence
Authorization Act (IAA) includes numerous provisions and
amendments I put forward to increase transparency, advance
declassification reform, strengthen cybersecurity, protect
Intelligence Community whistleblowers, and improve the
Intelligence Community's recruiting.
One provision, co-sponsored by Senator Heinrich, directs
the DNI to report on the feasibility of greater transparency
with regard to the Intelligence Community's activities governed
by Executive Order 12333. In recent years, the Intelligence
Community has made significant, if incomplete, progress in
informing the public about surveillance conducted pursuant to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. By contrast, the
Intelligence Community releases almost no information on the
impact of Executive Order 12333 activities on U.S. persons or
on violations of the Executive Order.
The bill promotes declassification reform by directing the
Public Interest Declassification Board to report on recommended
modifications to Executive Order 13526, which governs
classification and declassification, a provision I put forward
with Chairman Warner. As detailed above, the DNI is also
directed to report on progress in implementing declassification
reform. The critical importance of this direction was recently
underscored by the DNI's acknowledgment that deficiencies in
the current system undermine national security and that reform
efforts have received insufficient resources and
prioritization.
The bill includes a number of important cybersecurity and
counter-surveillance provisions. While the Fiscal Year 2020
National Defense Authorization Act granted the DNI the
authority to take actions to detect the use of international
mobile subscriber identity catchers (surveillance devices that
impersonate a phone company's cell towers in order to track,
intercept and hack cell phones) and deploy countermeasures
against them, that authority has not been exercised. The Fiscal
Year 2023 IAA therefore includes a provision, co-sponsored by
Senator Heinrich, mandating that the FBI Director conduct a
two-year effort within the National Capital Region. Similarly,
the Intelligence Community has not implemented a provision I
included in the Fiscal Year 2018, 2019 and 2020 IAA authorizing
the DNI to provide voluntary cybersecurity assistance for the
personal devices and accounts of Intelligence Community
personnel whom the DNI determines are vulnerable to foreign
surveillance. The Fiscal Year 2023 bill therefore requires the
DNI to offer that assistance and provide it if requested.
As described above, the bill ensures that the government
provide a report, required by a provision I included in the
Fiscal Year 2018, 2019, and 2020 IAA, on any attempts by
foreign governments to exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities in
U.S. telecommunications networks, including Signaling System
No. 7. Finally, I was pleased to work with Senator Collins on
an amendment mandating minimum cyber security standards for
national security systems and requiring reports to Congress on
any waivers of those standards.
The bill includes numerous provisions I included in the
Fiscal Year 2022 bill that have not yet been passed into law.
Most of those provisions protect Intelligence Community
whistleblowers, by ensuring that their security clearances
cannot be revoked based on a pretext, by removing the damages
cap for reprisals, by ensuring that whistleblowers can come
directly to Congress, and, by clarifying which whistleblower
complaints must be submitted to Congress, a provision
necessitated by the previous Administration's misinterpretation
of the law. The bill also includes a provision from last year's
bill ensuring continuity of the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board.
During the Committee's mark-up, I offered, with Senators
Gillibrand and Heinrich, an amendment prohibiting the denial or
revocation of a security clearance solely based on past or
ongoing use of cannabis. This reform, which reflects widespread
legalization around the country, is necessary if the U.S.
Government is going to compete with the private sector and
recruit and retain the talent it needs to defend the country.
The modified version of the amendment, which applies to pre-
employment use and to elements of the Intelligence Community,
is a significant step in this direction.

Ron Wyden.
Changes to Existing Law

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that it is
necessary to dispense with the requipment of paragraph 12 to
expedite the business of the Senate.

[all]

 

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

Send Message

Please do not fill in this field.

donate-form-trigger

In April of 1968, when I was a First-Year law student at Harvard Law School, after graduating from Harvard College the year before, at the very height of the Vietnam War protests on college campuses across our nation, Professor Crane Brinton, the forty-year Chairman of Harvard University’s Department of Intellectual History, publicly announced his intention to retire at the end of that academic year. He concurrently announced that he was going to reveal to the “Ten Thousand Men of Harvard,” in his final public lecture that year, “the most important single human idea which he had ever encountered” in his over fifty years of research in the field of Intellectual History while at Harvard University.

On the assigned day of his final lecture, several hundred undergraduates, graduate school students from across the campus, and alumni from around the world (who traveled from the far corners of the world to attend this much-hailed event) crowded into Lowell Hall to which Professor Brinton’s Final Lecture had been moved in order to accommodate the expected overflow crowd of attendees.

Taking the lectern, he looked out across the prestigious crowd which had gathered to hear his message. He began by reminiscing about the many hundreds of Harvard College graduates who, long after having graduated from Harvard College and departing from Cambridge for the far corners of the world, had taken the time to write to him to thank him for having exposed them, during their undergraduate years at Harvard College, to “The Great Ideas of Man.”

He then turned to the task which brought him before that esteemed crowd on that sunlit springtime morning in 1968:

“You have come from far away and near to hear my account of what I have concluded to be “The Most Important Single Human Idea” that I have ever encountered in my over fifty years of research in the field of Human Intellectual History here at Harvard. Surprisingly, it has not been difficult for me to make this determination.

While many thought that the answer would be “Human Freedom,” or “Democracy,” or even “Human Equality,” or some such other well-deserving human idea, the answer is, in fact, as follows:

A hush fell across the waiting crowd. Five hundred faces looked up in anticipation, most of which he had seen before, across the many years, when they were much younger but no less eager to learn.

“It is my belief, after all these years, that the greatest and most important single idea which has occurred to the human mind in the entire recorded history of our species and which stands, therefore, above all others, as the most cherished and the most esteemed idea of humankind is this:

He turned solemn and looked up from his notes out into the faces arrayed below and said:

“The greatest minds among our human family, from the earliest recorded history, down to this very day, have recognized the fact that we, today, stand on the very brink of a new step in the biological evolution of our human species… a step which will differentiate us, as a species, from homo sapiens as much as homo sapiens were distinguished from homo erectus – and that this step in our biological evolution will take the form of the evolution of a new and additional biological faculty… a biological ‘faculty’ – just like ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’ … but this new faculty will enable us to directly, physiologically experience – just as we experience the physical phenomena of light and sound – the physical phenomenon which bonds together every single ultimately non-divisible unit of matter in the entire physical universe into one, single, harmonious WHOLE.

“And, that, by means of this unique, new physical experience, we – each one of us, as individual human beings… no matter what our race, no matter what our gender, no matter what our place of national origin or our individual religious belief – will be able to directly and experientially know what particular human conduct – both individual and collective – is either in direct physical ‘harmony with’ or is in direct physical ‘dis-harmony to’ the NATURAL ORDER OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

“And I am personally convinced that this historical event in all of the history of humankind is coming to fruition within this very Generation.”

He paused. And he looked down upon the young men of The Post World War II “Baby Boom” Generation who were gathered before him as his undergraduate class, and he said:

“And THIS is why I believe that so many of you, in your Generation, have refused to go fight in this unjust and illegal war.”

With this, the entire crowd of Harvard men rose to their feet as one and broke into spontaneous applause and cheering. Crane Brinton smiled and bowed to his students. He then closed his notes, turned, and silently left the lectern. He died within one month of his retirement, never having written a word of what he had concluded, never having made another public statement about this.

But his words live on, in the minds of those hundreds of Harvard College graduates who were privileged, on that Spring day in 1968, to have been present for that famous lecture…and in the writings and speeches of “the greatest minds among our species” down through the years.

There has been no more paradigmatic statement of “The Progressive Worldview” that I have ever read or heard.

The unique time, the unique place, the unique audience, the unique speaker, and the unique historical setting in which this statement was made all contribute to making this statement a very significant piece of evidence in the growing body of evidence which is gradually establishing the fact that the Moment has arrived, within our very lifetimes, when this Next Step in the political evolution of our Western Culture is immediately at hand.

It is truly an Idea Whose Time Has Come, now… after all of these long…long years of waiting in our civilization.

Download the Report in PDF Format

[Senate Report 118-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

118th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 118-5

======================================================================
R E P O R T

OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

COVERING THE PERIOD

JANUARY 3, 2021

TO

JANUARY 3, 2023

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

March 28, 2023.--Ordered to be printed

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2023

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Vice Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico TOM COTTON, Arkansas
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York M. MICHAEL ROUNDS, South Dakota
JON OSSOFF, Georgia

Charles Schumer, New York, Ex Officio Member
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Ex Officio Member
Jack Reed, Rhode Island, Ex Officio Member
Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi, Ex Officio Member
Michael Casey, Staff Director
Brian W. Walsh, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk

During the period covered by this report, the composition of the Select
Committee on Intelligence was as follows:

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Vice Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
RON WYDEN, Oregon JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado TOM COTTON, Arkansas
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHN CORNYN, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Charles Schumer, New York, Ex Officio Member
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Ex Officio Member
Jack Reed, Rhode Island, Ex Officio Member
James Inhofe, Oklahoma, Ex Officio Member
Michael Casey, Staff Director
Brian W. Walsh, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk

PREFACE

The Select Committee on Intelligence submits to the Senate this report on its activiti es from January 3, 2021, to January 3, 2023. This report also includes references to activities underway at the conclusion of the 117th Congress that the Committee expects to continue into the future.

Under the provisions of Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress, the Committee is charged with the responsibility of carrying out oversight of the programs and activities of the Intelligence Community (IC) of the United States. Most of the Committee's oversight work is conducted in secret and cannot be discussed publicly to protect sensitive IC sources and methods. Nevertheless, the Select Committee on Intelligence has submitted activities reports on a biennial basis since 1977 to provide the American public with information about its intelligence oversight activities. We submit this report to the Senate, in observance of this practice.

We also take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the Committee in the 117th Congress. In particular, we take special note of colleagues who completed their service on the Committee. Senator Burr served on the Committee from the 110th Congress until he retired from the U.S. Senate on January 3, 2023. Senator Blunt served on the Committee from the 112th Congress until he retired from the Senate on January 3, 2023. Senator Sasse served on the Committee from the 116th Congress until he retired from the Senate on January 3, 2023. Their commitment to the important work of the Committee has helped to ensure a strong IC and a secure nation. We are grateful for their contributions.

We also express our deep gratitude for the work of all Committee staff during the 117th Congress. Their vigilance, professionalism, and perseverance in the face of unprecedented public health challenges were essential to the Committee's fulfillment of its oversight obligations.

Mark R. Warner,
Chairman.

Marco Rubio,
Vice Chairman.

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Preface.......................................................... III
I. Introduction.....................................................1
II. Legislation.....................................................2
A. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022..... 2
B. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023..... 3
III. Oversight Activities...........................................5
A. Worldwide Threats Hearing............................... 5
B. China................................................... 5
C. Russia.................................................. 6
D. Afghanistan............................................. 7
E. Iran.................................................... 7
F. North Korea............................................. 7
G. Western Hemisphere/Latin America........................ 8
H. Africa.................................................. 8
I. Middle East............................................. 8
J. Covert Action........................................... 9
K. Counterterrorism........................................ 9
L. Counterintelligence..................................... 10
M. Cyber................................................... 10
N. Telecommunications...................................... 11
O. Emerging Technologies................................... 11
P. Artificial Intelligence................................. 12
Q. Anomalous Health Incidents.............................. 12
R. Personnel Vetting Reform................................ 12
S. Government Security Policy.............................. 13
T. Foreign Malign Influence................................ 13
U. Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena........................ 13
V. Space................................................... 14
W. Audits and Projects..................................... 15
X. Whistleblowers and Other Complainants................... 16
Y. Inspectors General...................................... 16
Z. Review of Analytic Ombudsman Report on Allegations of
Politicization............................................. 16
IV. Nominations...................................................16
A. Avril Haines............................................ 18
B. William Burns........................................... 18
C. Christopher C. Fonzone.................................. 18
D. Brett M. Holmgren....................................... 18
E. Christine Abizaid....................................... 18
F. Robin Ashton............................................ 18
G. Thomas A. Monheim....................................... 18
H. Stacey A. Dixon......................................... 18
I. Matthew G. Olsen........................................ 18
J. Shannon Corless......................................... 18
K. Kenneth Wainstein....................................... 19
L. Kate Heinzelman......................................... 19
M. Terrence Edwards........................................ 19
V. Support to the Senate.........................................19
VI. Summary of Committee Actions.................................19
A. Number of meetings...................................... 19
B. Bills and resolutions originated by the Committee....... 20
C. Bills referred to the Committee......................... 20
D. Committee publications.................................. 20

118th Congress} { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 118-5

======================================================================

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

_______

March 28, 2023.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Warner, from the Select Committee on Intelligence, submitted the following

R E P O R T

I. INTRODUCTION

The activities of the Committee during the 117th Congress included passage of critical enabling legislation, confirmation of appointees to key IC leadership posts, and inquiries on the performance and activities of the IC.

As detailed in Part II of this report, the Committee's paramount legislative priority and achievement in the 117th Congress was the successful enactment of Intelligence Authorization Acts for both Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year 2023.

Throughout the 117th Congress, the Committee's oversight activities focused on the national security threats posed by The People's Republic of China (PRC or China) and the Russian Federation (Russia), including China's military, economic, and political activities around the world, and Russia's unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine. In addition, the Committee devoted considerable attention to events leading up to and following the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The Committee maintained continued focus on the malign activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), as well as strategically significant political, military, and economic developments in Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South America. The Committee also conducted vigorous oversight of covert action, counterterrorism, and counterintelligence programs carried out by the IC during the 117th Congress. Finally, the Committee sustained its emphasis on overseeing the national security implications of certain technological advancements, including in telecommunications, as well as emerging technologies, such as next-generation energy storage, generation, and distribution.

II. LEGISLATION

A. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

In the 117th Congress, the Committee focused its efforts on enacting annual intelligence authorization acts as its primary means of carrying out its oversight responsibility. In early 2021, the Committee began consideration of the President's request for funding levels and legislative authority for Fiscal Year 2022. The Committee's budget monitors and counsel evaluated the funding and legislative requests submitted by the Executive Branch. The Committee conducted numerous topical and regional briefings and hearings, including classified budget hearings.

The Committee reported the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (S. 2610) on August 4, 2021, and subsequently filed an accompanying report (S. Rpt. 117-37) on August 10, 2021.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence passed its version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (H.R. 5412) on September 30, 2021, and then reported the bill to the full House and filed an accompanying report (H. Rpt. 117-156) on October 28, 2021. The Committee proceeded to work with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other congressional committees on a final version of the legislation.

The product of the committees' efforts, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, was incorporated as Division X of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (P.L. 117-103). The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022 passed the House on March 9, 2022, in two separate measures by votes of 361-69 and 260-171, and passed the Senate on March 10, 2022, as a consolidated measure by a vote of 68-31. The President signed the consolidated bill into law on March 15, 2022.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 authorized funding for intelligence and intelligence-related activities across the U.S. Government and was accompanied by a classified schedule of authorizations and a classified annex. The Act, as incorporated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022, ensures accountability and integrity from IC agencies, which undertake the Nation's most sensitive intelligence programs and activities, and included significant legislative provisions to strengthen national security by:

Increasing oversight and investments to address the growing national security threats posed by China, including its technology advancements, military base and infrastructure expansion, influence operations, global investments, and digital currencies;

Improving the IC's response to anomalous health incidents, also known as ``Havana Syndrome,'' by establishing an independent medical advisory board at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), ensuring benefits, eligibility, and access to expert medical advice and facilities, and requiring protocols on testing, information safeguards, and reporting mechanisms;

Improving the IC's ability to adopt and integrate artificial intelligence tools and other emerging technologies;

Bolstering investments in commercial imagery and analytic services to provide more unclassified collection and analysis to policymakers and warfighters in a timely manner;

Continuing the Committee's commitment to reform and improve the security clearance process, including mandating a performance management framework to assess the adoption and effectiveness of the Executive Branch's ``Trusted Workforce 2.0'' initiative, more accurately measuring how long it takes to transfer clearances between Federal agencies so timelines can be shortened, and creating IC-wide policies to share information on cleared contractors to enhance the effectiveness of insider threat programs;

Ensuring strong congressional oversight of and protections for IC whistleblowers who come forward to report waste, fraud, or abuse;

Addressing intelligence requirements in key locations worldwide, including in Latin America, Africa, and Afghanistan, to confront foreign adversaries' efforts to undermine the U.S. abroad;

Strengthening the IC's ability to conduct financial intelligence activities; and Supporting the IC's efforts to assess unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), further building upon the work of the UAP Task Force.

B. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

In early 2022, the Committee began consideration of the President's request for funding levels and legislative authority for Fiscal Year 2023. The Committee's budget monitors and counsel evaluated the funding and legislative requests submitted by the Executive Branch. The Committee conducted numerous topical and regional briefings and hearings, including classified budget hearings.

The Committee reported the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (S. 4503) on July 12, 2022, and subsequently filed an accompanying report (S. Rpt. 117-132) on July 20, 2022.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence passed its version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (H.R. 8367) on July 20, 2022, and then reported the bill to the full House and issued an accompanying report (H. Rpt. 117-546) on October 31, 2022. The Committee proceeded to work with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other congressional committees on a final version of the legislation.

The product of the committees' efforts, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, was incorporated as Division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (P.L. 117-263). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 passed the House on December 8, 2022, by a vote of 350-80, and passed the Senate on December 15, 2022, by a vote of 83-11. The President signed the consolidated bill into law on December 23, 2022.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 authorized funding for intelligence and intelligence-related activities across the U.S. Government and was accompanied by a classified schedule of authorizations and a classified annex. The Act, as incorporated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, ensures accountability and integrity from IC agencies and contained a number of legislative provisions, including:

Confronting the growing national security threat posed by the PRC by increasing hard target intelligence collection and analysis, as well as by identifying and exposing the PRC's leadership corruption, forced labor camps, and malign economic investments, including in telecommunications, emerging technologies, and semiconductors;

Bolstering intelligence support for Ukraine as it fights to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty since Russia's second unprovoked invasion, including by assessing the effects of sanctions on Russia and its allies and opportunities to mitigate threats to food security at home and abroad;

Driving improvements to the IC's hiring and security clearance processes by holding the IC accountable for improving the timeliness of bringing cleared personnel on-board, ensuring that key management and contract oversight personnel in industry can obtain clearances, and establishing personnel vetting performance measures;

Establishing counterintelligence protections for IC grant funding against foreign-based risks of misappropriation, theft, and other threats to U.S. innovation;

Accelerating and improving procurement, adoption, and integration of emerging technologies across the IC;

Establishing measures to mitigate counterintelligence threats from foreign commercial spyware;

Strengthening oversight of national security threats associated with the regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela;

Ensuring continued support to the victims of anomalous health incidents and maintaining continued oversight over the IC's investigations into the causes of such incidents;

Promoting cybersecurity enhancements and establishing cybersecurity minimum standards across the IC, including for classified systems;

Enhancing oversight of IC and Department of Defense collection and reporting on UAP; Establishing IC coordinators to account for Russian atrocities and for countering proliferation of Iran-origin unmanned aircraft systems;

Promoting establishment of an Office of Global Competition Analysis to conduct analysis relevant to U.S. leadership in science, technology, and innovation sectors critical to national security and economic prosperity;

Enhancing intelligence support to export controls and investment screening and emphasizing the importance of open source intelligence capabilities in the IC; and

Continuing the Committee's efforts to modernize the Government's declassification system by directing the Director of National Intelligence and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security to report on declassification policies, proposals to promote best practices across the federal government, and spend plans for technological reforms.

III. OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

A. Worldwide Threats Hearings

Since 1994, the Committee has held annual open hearings to review the IC's assessment of the current and projected national security threats to the United States. There have only been two years (1999 and 2019) when the Committee did not hold a ``Worldwide Threats'' hearing. It is one of the few open hearings that the Committee has regularly conducted to share the work of the IC with the public. These Worldwide Threats hearings cover national security assessments pertaining to all geographic regions, as well as transnational threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

On April 14, 2021 and March 10, 2022, the Committee held open Worldwide Threats hearings on the current and projected threats to the United States. The lead witness before the Committee at both hearings was Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. She was joined at the witness table during both hearings by the Honorable William J. Burns, Director of the CIA; the Honorable Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); General Paul Nakasone, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA); and Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Both hearings were followed by closed, classified sessions. Video recordings of the open hearings are available on the Committee's website, along with Director Haines's unclassified statements for the record.

B. China

The Committee prioritized the PRC as the top national and economic security threat throughout the 117th Congress. The Committee dedicated a significant number of classified hearings and briefings to China and Taiwan. In addition, the Committee held two open hearings on the PRC in order to raise greater public awareness on the threats to our national and economic security posed by the PRC.

Through briefings and hearings, the Committee continued to evaluate the IC's budget and programs to ensure its capabilities, collection posture, and analysis relating to the PRC were sufficient to defend our national security, economic prosperity, and values. In addition, the Committee paid close attention to the PRC's military, economic, and political activities around the world, including its illicit tactics to obtain technology, economic coercion, military plans and modernization, malign influence efforts in the United States and abroad, cyber operations, and intelligence efforts. Staff and Members of the Committee traveled to the Indo- Pacific region, as well as to other regions--including Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe--to better understand the threats posed by the PRC's malign activities and the U.S. efforts to counter those threats. The Committee also received numerous briefings regarding the PRC, including from the IC, other departments and agencies, and outside experts. The Committee convened a series of engagements between the IC and private sector entities, academics, and local governments in order to raise awareness of strategic economic and technological threats emanating from China.

C. Russia

During the 117th Congress, the Committee focused extensively on the threat to U.S. national security from Russia, including during the run-up to, and start of, Russia's unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The Committee conducted at least 16 formal hearings and briefings on issues relating to the threat from Russia, including its war against Ukraine.

Prior to Russia's invasion, the IC issued warnings about Russia's buildup of military forces on Ukraine's borders, and accurately predicted that Putin was preparing to invade. The Committee was briefed on these developments and oversaw the operations of U.S. intelligence agencies prior to, and during, the invasion. Prior to the invasion, on February 9, 2022, all 16 Members of the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, wrote to the President, urging him to ensure that the United States was sharing as much intelligence as possible with Ukraine, noting that ``Russia's threats to Ukraine are a threat to democracies around the world, and we urge you to do as much as possible to support Ukraine at this critical moment.''

In addition to the Committee's focus on the threat from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it also examined the threat posed by Russia's other malign activities around the world. These include Russia's traditional and cyber espionage, including the 2020 SolarWinds cyber intrusion perpetrated by the Russian external intelligence agency, the SVR, which resulted in the compromise of hundreds of federal agencies and private companies, and the May 2021 ransomware attack by a Russian cybercrime group on the Colonial Pipeline, which halted pipeline operations temporarily and resulted in fuel shortages along the Atlantic seaboard of the United States.

The Committee took a strong stand on ensuring U.S. diplomats at our Embassy in Moscow be afforded the same privileges, including comparable numbers of visas, as Russia's diplomats in the United States. All 16 Members, as well as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, sent a letter to the President on October 4, 2021, expressing concern about ongoing actions inhibiting the work of U.S. diplomats in Moscow that resulted in disproportionately more Russian diplomats in the U.S. than vice versa, and undermining the ability of the Embassy to function in a safe and secure manner. The Committee urged the President to expel Russian diplomats if Russia was unwilling to provide the number of visas necessary to ensure parity between the two sides.

The Committee further held hearings and briefings on Russia's continued reliance on misinformation and disinformation to target global audiences and interfere with elections and democratic processes in the United States and around the world; the buildup of its conventional, strategic, and asymmetric arsenals; its increasingly assertive military deployments on its periphery and to wider regions, including the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America; its use of mercenary groups and private military and security corporations such as the Vagner Group; its support of like-minded authoritarian regimes; and its use of corruption and criminal networks to further its strategic goals. The Committee's activities regarding these issues were designed to provide oversight and assess the IC's capabilities to collect against, analyze, provide warning, and counter these and other malign activities of Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.

D. Afghanistan

The Committee's efforts in the 117th Congress regarding Afghanistan largely focused on the collapse of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIROA), with the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Prior to the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the Committee held multiple hearings and weekly briefings with the IC to monitor intelligence operations, as well as implications for long-term U.S. policy goals following the U.S. decision to fully withdraw from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021.

Following the collapse of GIROA, and the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021, the Committee held multiple hearings to better understand IC methodology in determining the strength of Taliban forces, the forces of the GIROA, and the impact of the U.S. withdrawal. Committee staff reviewed intelligence products from the signing of the Doha Agreement in 2020 through the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2021 in order to provide Committee Members with an accurate picture of IC work during and leading up to the withdrawal.

The Committee continues the important work of oversight through hearings, briefings, roundtables, and congressional delegations to the region to review the role of the IC in supporting and implementing U.S. policy in Afghanistan from outside of the country.

E. Iran

The Committee conducted travel, and held hearings, briefings, and roundtables focused on Iranian malign influence, support to proxies in regional conflict zones, Iran's nuclear program, and, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Iranian support to Russian forces. Through travel to the region, staff obtained valuable insight on Iranian threats and efforts to mitigate them, the alignment of Gulf Arab states following the end of the rift with Qatar, the alignment of Gulf Arab states with Israel after the signing of the Abraham Accords, and energy and security dynamics. The Committee conducted hearings and briefings on U.S. intelligence activities and partnerships related to Iranian plans, intentions, and capabilities.

F. North Korea

During the 117th Congress, the Committee held two hearings and conducted multiple engagements with the IC on North Korea. In particular, the Committee's efforts focused on political, military, and technical issues related to weapons programs that could threaten the United States and its allies. Staff traveled to the region to conduct oversight and also received IC briefings and reports on counterintelligence issues, North Korea's illicit cyber activity, and sanctions violations.

G. Western Hemisphere/Latin America

The Committee focused its efforts, through travel, briefings, and hearings, on monitoring key elections across the region in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Brazil, Honduras, and Ecuador, as well as tracking developments in the authoritarian regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Members and staff, during travel and other engagements, also met with allies in the region to deepen bilateral engagement.

The Committee continued to monitor the supply chain, production, and trafficking of illicit narcotics, with increased focus on synthetic opioids; the threat posed by violent transnational criminal organizations to the United States and the stability of the region; and the military and intelligence activities of U.S. adversaries in Latin America, including escalation in PRC and Russian activity.

H. Africa

During the 117th Congress, the Committee renewed focus on North Africa, the Sahel, and the Sub-Saharan region. Committee staff conducted oversight through a series of briefings, hearings, and foreign visits, ensuring that authorized and appropriated programs coalesced with realities on the ground and U.S. diplomatic and intelligence interests on the continent. The increased presence and investments by the PRC and Russia in the region represent an elevated threat to the security of the U.S. and our allies and partners.

Throughout the Sahel, Russia and its military and political proxy, private military company Vagner, continue to parlay Russian influence in the fragile post-coup landscape--more often than not granting Russia access to politically vulnerable juntas under the auspices of counterterrorism assistance. Russia has intensified its disinformation efforts on the continent, in particular to secure support for its barbaric war in Ukraine and turn African nations against the west.

The PRC continues to leverage its economic footholds in the region to exploit and influence African nations. The Committee focused in particular on the PRC's exploitative attempts to control precious metals, minerals, and rare-earth metals on the continent, as part of the PRC's ongoing effort to dominate supply chains for emerging energy technologies critical to U.S. national security. The Committee remains focused on countering these PRC and Russian threats in the region, and continuing to strengthen U.S.-African relations.

During the 117th Congress, parties advanced peace talks in the conflict between Ethiopia and Tigray--a conflict with far- reaching implications throughout the Horn of Africa and North Africa. Terrorism remains a pointed threat, especially as emanating from al Qa'eda affiliate al Shabaab in East Africa-- to that end, Committee staff remained focused U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region, and on the return of U.S. forces to Somalia and the implications thereof to the IC.

I. Middle East

The Committee conducted briefings, roundtables, and extensive overseas travel to the Middle East to conduct oversight and gain a better understanding of the changing dynamics of a strategically important region. With changing dynamics following the signing of the Abraham Accords, increased strategic competition with China and Russia, the ongoing war in Syria, the ever present threat of terrorism, and the continued realignment of the U.S. security posture in the region with resulting fear of U.S. disengagement, staff travel was essential to providing Committee members with key insights and observations only evident through site visits and direct engagement with U.S. officials and foreign partners. Additional important themes explored include the impact of the war in Yemen on the security and intelligence arrangements with key U.S. partners such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the continued importance of counterterrorism and intelligence relationships with our partners in the region, the essential role diplomacy plays in furthering U.S. intelligence and security partnerships, and the ongoing threat posed to regional stability by Iranian malign influence. Finally, oversight focused on ensuring the U.S. intelligence footprint in the region was commensurate to U.S. national security priorities.

J. Covert Action

The Committee conducted vigorous oversight of covert action programs throughout the 117th Congress. The Committee's rules require the Committee's Staff Director to ``ensure that covert action programs of the United States government receive appropriate consideration once a quarter.'' In accordance with this rule, the Committee receives a written report every quarter on each covert action program that is being carried out under a presidential finding. Committee staff review these reports and meet with IC personnel to discuss their substance and pose additional questions. The Committee also holds periodic hearings and briefings on covert action programs, and receives written reviews of covert actions from the CIA Inspector General, which are often the basis for additional staff inquiries.

Further, under section 503 of the National Security Act, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action are required to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all covert actions that are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of any department or agency of the United States. Upon receiving such notifications, the Committee reviews the details of each and receives briefings to fully understand the issues.

The Committee seeks to ensure that covert action programs are consistent with United States foreign policy goals, and are conducted in accordance with all applicable U.S. laws.

K. Counterterrorism

In the 117th Congress, the Committee conducted oversight of the IC's counterterrorism programs and activities, through hearings, briefings, roundtables, and overseas travel. The Committee reviewed the IC's response to the threat posed to the United States from foreign terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, and its activities related to domestic violent extremism. Specifically, the Committee focused on examining the role of the IC in combatting domestic violent extremism, ensuring the proper use of intelligence resources and protection of Americans' civil liberties, and clarifying the respective responsibilities of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the FBI. Committee staff traveled overseas, reviewing on-the- ground IC counterterrorism activities, as well as liaison relationships with foreign partners.

L. Counterintelligence

During the 117th Congress, the Committee emphasized the important role of counterintelligence as a functional specialty in confronting U.S. adversaries, including the PRC. To that end, the Committee held an open hearing on ``Beijing's Long Arm: Threats to U.S. National Security'' to explore the risks posed by PRC intelligence collection to the United States. The Committee's non-partisan Audits and Projects team undertook a comprehensive 18-month study on the role of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), a mission center of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and its integration into the greater counterintelligence enterprise. The team's work resulted in a publicly-available report that included recommendations to improve NCSC and strengthen integration. Following publication, the Committee hosted an open hearing to discuss the issues raised with three of the investigation's key participants. Further, staff held recurring interagency meetings with NCSC, ODNI, and the FBI to ensure development of coordinated legislative measures aimed at optimizing FBI-NCSC integration and collaboration.

M. Cyber

During the 117th Congress, Committee staff continued to monitor the IC's efforts to identify and track foreign cyber actors that pose significant threats to the United States and its allies. The Committee's public hearing on the cyber intrusion into SolarWinds and the subsequent intrusions into downstream customers led to the creation and passage of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022. The Committee also continued to perform oversight of the Cybersecurity Directorate within the National Security Agency.

Leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Committee conducted vigorous oversight of the IC's collection and analysis of Russian cyber capabilities. The Committee also continued to engage with private sector entities offering cyber defense support to Ukraine. The Committee believes increased scrutiny should be placed on how cyber capabilities will be used in advance of and during periods of hostilities between nations.

The Committee also conducted oversight of the IC's activities to identify and track foreign cyber actors. However, the Committee continues to be hampered in conducting effective oversight of joint cyber activities involving U.S. Cyber Command and the IC.

N. Telecommunications

The Committee continued with efforts initiated in the 116th Congress to investigate and respond to the national security implications posed by 5G telecommunications technology. The Committee engaged closely with the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations to ensure that authorizations previously contained in the Committee-reported Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021--and ultimately enacted through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021-- received full appropriations. This effort ultimately culminated in the provision of $1.5 billion towards the Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund, as well as $500 towards the Multilateral Telecommunications Security fund (administered through a new International Technology Security Innovation Fund).

As part of these continuing efforts, the Committee also convened a number of federal agencies--spanning the IC, domestic regulatory agencies, and foreign development agencies--for an update on efforts by the federal government to promote secure and trusted digital infrastructure, including through the promotion of trusted technical standards. Committee staff supplemented these efforts in the Committee's overseas travel, engaging both foreign allies and State Department personnel on the status of efforts to promote adoption of secure and trusted digital infrastructure.

O. Emerging Technologies

During the 117th Congress, the Committee expanded its oversight of foundational and emerging technologies that have significant implications for national security and national competitiveness. The Committee met with a range of private sector technology experts, as well as IC personnel (to include both leadership and subject-matter experts), to identify a series of priority emerging and disruptive technologies. Committee staff worked to determine the set of federal agencies responsible for monitoring and countering efforts related to those technologies, and formulate strategies to promote U.S. and allied alternatives to counter adversary efforts.

The Committee focused on identifying technologies that may confer military, political, and economic leverage for foreign adversaries, including enhancing the ability of foreign adversaries to shape wider technology ecosystems for strategic objectives and geopolitical influence. Based on these efforts, the Committee identified and is focused on three critical technologies: semiconductors, biotechnology, and next- generation energy storage, generation, and distribution. The Committee engaged closely with private sector experts, the IC, and other departments and agencies to understand the unique needs of national security customers with respect to these technologies, as well as critical supply chain dependencies and other impacts of global, strategic competition, that could have implications for U.S. national security.

The Committee intends to continue these efforts into the 118th Congress.

P. Artificial Intelligence

The Committee continued its efforts to conduct oversight on the national security implications of artificial intelligence. Committee staff engaged closely with private sector and academic experts to understand research development and commercial trends, as well as examine opportunities for adversarial use of artificial intelligence and machine learning-based technologies. The Committee also passed a series of enhancements to the authorities and governance of the IC with respect to emerging technology, and in particular, artificial intelligence, as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. The Committee provided the Director of National Intelligence the ability to enter into other transactions to increase the speed and agility with which the IC can acquire emerging technologies. The Committee also directed the IC to reduce the barriers to entry for adopting new technologies and harmonize the authorizations to operate for information technology systems between the Department of Defense and IC.

Q. Anamolous Health Incidents

The Committee conducted oversight of the CIA's use of authorities provided by Section 6412 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and initiated a review, by the Audits and Projects team, of CIA's response to anomalous health incidents, with a focus on the medical care, compensation, and other workplace provisions provided to CIA affiliates affected by these incidents. The Committee also continued to oversee a range of investigations into the causes of anomalous health incidents experienced by U.S. Government personnel in Havana, Cuba, and elsewhere. Members of the Committee remain committed to supporting the victims of these health incidents and overseeing the IC's investigations into their causes.

R. Personnel Vetting Reform

During the 117th Congress, the Committee continued its rigorous oversight of the Executive Branch's efforts to reform a personnel vetting model that has remained largely unchanged for more than 70 years. Since 2016, Committee staff have sponsored quarterly briefings from the Performance Accountability Council, led by the Office of Management and Budget, to keep all congressional committees in the House and Senate apprised of reforms to address problems surfaced by the Navy Yard shooting in 2013, the government's public admission in 2015 of China's breach of personnel data held by the Office of Personnel Management, and the introduction of the new Trusted Workforce 2.0 paradigm. The Director of National Intelligence bears particular responsibility in leading these reforms as the government's statutory Security Executive Agent. The Committee has taken specific interest in efforts to vet government and contract personnel employed in the IC. Following a longstanding tradition of legislating in this area, both the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 contained multiple provisions on personnel vetting. These Acts established governance and performance management frameworks for personnel vetting, and required analyses on the efficient administration of polygraphs, among other things. The Committee's sustained, bipartisan pressure has yielded results: the elimination of a backlog in background investigations that once topped 725,000, a return of timelines for adjudications of clearances to levels established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the Executive Branch's adoption of Trusted Workforce 2.0.

S. Government Security Policy

The Committee continued its focus on security policies and practices through regular meetings with the ODNI, the National Archives and Records Administration's Information Security Oversight Office, and public advocates. The Committee sought to ensure proper use of classification and handling markings to safeguard America's security, while ensuring appropriate sharing with allies, partners, and the public. In addition, the Committee sought greater flexibility in the use of sensitive compartmented information facilities by multiple agencies and companies. The Committee also held briefings on modernizing the national industrial security policy to address growing challenges from China and others and protect the range of technologies critical to America's long-term success.

T. Foreign Malign Influence

During the 117th Congress, the Committee built on its efforts in the 116th Congress to evaluate the IC's response to foreign malign influence activity. In 2022, the Committee authorized initial funding through the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 to enable the formation of the Foreign Malign Influence Center, first established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. In an effort to ensure the Center does not undertake efforts that are duplicative of those already being executed by other IC elements, the Committee also required the Director of National Intelligence to provide a report explaining the structure, responsibilities, and organizational placement of the Center, as well as assessing the efficacy of alternative organizational structures. The Director of National Intelligence provided the Committee with a response in September 2022, outlining the assessed needs and functions of the Center and expressing support for the Center's current organizational structure.

The Committee also continued its practice of conducting oversight on the posture of the IC to identify, disrupt, and counter foreign malign influence activity directed at U.S. elections. As the Committee had in the lead-up to the 2018 and 2020 elections, the Committee held briefings with IC agencies leading those efforts, including a post-election briefing to evaluate the IC's effectiveness and the role of the Foreign Malign Influence Center in coordinating those efforts for the first time. Committee staff also conducted weekly briefings with IC ahead of the election to monitor analytical and operational activity.

U. Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

During the 117th Congress, the Committee continued its oversight of the UAP issue, specifically working to ensure that the Department of Defense's efforts to report and respond to UAP are coordinated with those of the IC. In 2021, members on the armed services and intelligence committees spearheaded legislation standing up an office to replace the U.S. Navy-led UAP Task Force and broadening its efforts to improve data- sharing between agencies on UAP sightings and address national security concerns. In 2022, the Committee directed further changes to the office in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, establishing the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) under the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principle Deputy Director for National Intelligence to provide comprehensive management of the UAP issue across the Department of Defense and the IC. Importantly, associated legislation mandates a secure authorized disclosure reporting process allowing witnesses to report to AARO any relevant information at any security level. Finally, the legislation directs the AARO to conduct a historical study going back to 1945 to document U.S. historical efforts to address UAP.

The Committee also focused efforts on gaining additional insights into the increasing numbers of UAP sightings over or near U.S. national security assets. At a time when near-peer adversaries are fielding advanced all-domain technologies at a rapid pace, the Committee worked to ensure the IC allocates sufficient resources and attention on UAP to avoid technology surprise from a potential adversary.

V. Space

During the 117th Congress, the Committee continued its oversight of the IC's role in the space domain, which is evolving in light of adversary advances in counterspace capabilities intended to target U.S. and allied satellites. The Committee continued its efforts to ensure the IC has reliable and resilient access to, and operation in, space to provide intelligence support. In 2021, the National Reconnaissance Office's (NRO) focus on, and investments in, resiliency were formalized through the Protect and Defend Strategic Framework, signed by the NRO, U.S. Space Force, and the U.S. Space Command, which helped define and deconflict roles and sharpen the Committee's oversight efforts.

The Committee continues to advocate for effective collaboration and unity of effort between NRO and the range of stakeholders in the Department of Defense, which is critical to improve speed and quality of data delivered to the warfighter and other government customers.

The Committee held hearings and briefings on NRO's evolving approach to a ``hybrid'' space architecture, the expanding role of commercial space within the IC, and adversary threats to U.S. space capabilities. The Committee also examined key budget and cross-cutting technology issues, such as artificial intelligence and cloud computing, and continued to encourage the NRO and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to capitalize on the ongoing revolution in the commercial space sector, which has yielded reductions in the cost of launch, new sensor technologies, smaller satellites, and sophisticated data analytics and services. Importantly, the committee recognizes the critical symbiotic contribution of the ground architecture to space and continues to provide focused oversight on this architecture.

In addition to hearings, since February 2022, the Committee has been particularly active in ensuring NRO and NGA have worked to expedite the flow of geospatial intelligence and data to the Ukrainian government and to our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies in the context of the Ukraine-Russia crisis. The Committee and its staff also engaged frequently on overhead architecture topics with the NRO, NGA, ODNI, and other IC and government officials, and conducted site visits to government facilities and commercial companies to meet with government officials and industry leaders. The Committee also continued to monitor the establishment of the U.S. Space Force as the 18th and newest element of the IC to ensure it meets the standards set for all IC elements.

W. Audits and Projects

The Committee's rules stipulate that within its staff there ``shall be an element with the capability to perform audits of programs and activities undertaken by departments and agencies with intelligence functions. Such element shall be comprised of persons qualified by training and/or experience to carry out such functions in accordance with accepted auditing standards.'' This capability resides within the Committee's ``Audits and Projects Team.'' The Committee charges the Audits and Projects Team to conduct in-depth reviews of IC-related matters and assist the Committee with its oversight obligations. The Committee has also assigned the Audits and Projects Team responsibility for managing the Committee's relationship with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to include overseeing the development and execution of reviews that the Committee assigns to GAO, and for managing the Committee relationship with IC inspectors general. In addition, the Audits and Projects Team tracks IC compliance with direction contained in the annual Intelligence Authorization Acts and manages the complainant and whistleblower intake and review process.

The Audits and Projects Team completed three Committee- authorized projects during the 117th Congress. The first project was a lessons-learned review of a compartmented IC acquisition program culminating in a classified report that offered 18 recommendations to improve IC acquisition and contracting processes.

The second project was an organizational assessment of the NCSC within the context of a changing threat landscape. The review culminated in a classified report that offered 17 recommendations to address challenges facing the counterintelligence enterprise in general and the NCSC in particular; an unclassified (redacted) version of the report that is available on the Committee website; and an open hearing on how the IC, industry, and academia are postured against foreign adversary threats to American innovation identified in the report.

The third project examined how commercial satellite imagery was or could be used to support certain national security missions. This project culminated in a final classified report that offered three recommendations, and which will inform the Committee's continued oversight of the IC's efforts to integrate commercial satellite imagery into intelligence collection and analysis efforts.

Finally, at the conclusion of the 117th Congress, the Audits and Projects Team initiated a review of the CIA's response to anomalous health incidents, with a focus on the medical care, compensation, and other workplace provisions provided to CIA affiliates affected by these incidents. This work will inform the Committee's broader and continued oversight of this important topic. This work is continuing into the 118th Congress.

X. Whistleblowers and Other Complainants

The Committee annually receives hundreds of phone calls, facsimiles, mail, and email communications from self-identified whistleblowers and other complainants on matters they believe constitute a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; waste of resources; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health and safety. Committee staff reviewed and, where warranted, investigated those complaints, often working closely with the inspectors general of agencies in the IC.

Y. Inspectors General

The Committee continued its strong relationship with, and oversight of, the inspectors general of agencies in the IC. Regular oversight consisted of reviews of agency semiannual reports and annual work plans, as well as specific audits and reviews. On November 21, 2021, the Committee also held a closed roundtable with the four Senate-confirmed inspectors general within the IC--the IC Inspector General, the CIA Inspector General, the NSA Inspector General, and the NRO Inspector General--as well as a representative of the GAO.

Z. Review of Analytc Ombudsman Report on Allegations of Poliiticization

Committee staff conducted a year-long review of ODNI's election security analysis that was prompted by an unclassified report published on January 6, 2021, by the ODNI's Analytic Ombudsman concerning allegations of politicization. Staff produced a classified report that contained eight recommendations for improvements in election security analysis.

IV. NOMINATIONS

During the 117th Congress, the Committee received 13 nominations from President Joe Biden.

Section 17 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress (as amended) and a 2009 unanimous consent agreement govern referrals of nominations to the Committee. S. Res. 445, which amended S. Res. 400 in 2004, required all nominations to positions in the IC requiring the Senate's advice and consent be reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence, even when they are positions within departments that are primarily under the jurisdiction of other Senate committees, though the committee overseeing the given department or agency may hold hearings and interviews on the nomination. Notwithstanding that general guidance, the resolution directed the Assistant Attorney General for National Security be reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, but referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence. In the wake of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which made the directors and inspectors general of the NRO and the NSA Senate-confirmed positions, the Senate adopted S. Res. 470 on July 7, 2014. This resolution directed that if the nominee were a civilian, the Select Committee on Intelligence would report the nomination and refer it to the Committee on Armed Services, and if the nominee were a member of the Armed Forces on active duty, the reverse.

A unanimous consent agreement of January 7, 2009, refers all nominations for inspectors general to the committees of primary jurisdiction and then sequentially to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Under this consent agreement, the nominations for the NRO and NSA Inspectors General are also referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The exception to this consent agreement is the Inspector General for the CIA, which is considered exclusively by the Select Committee on Intelligence.

During the 117th Congress, the Committee neither received nor considered a nomination for the Director of NCSC. The Committee has been disheartened by this lack of a nomination, particularly in light of its critical organizational assessment of NCSC, a redacted version of which was publicly released in September 2022, and the importance of the executive branch's Trusted Workforce 2.0 initiative to transform the government's personnel vetting model.

The following nominations were referred to the Committee during the 117th Congress:

A. Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence

On November 23, 2020, President-elect Biden announced his intent to nominate Avril Haines to be the Director of National Intelligence. The Committee held a hearing on January 19, 2021, and President Biden formally nominated her on January 20, 2021. The Committee reported the nomination favorably on January 20, 2021, and the Senate confirmed Director Haines by a vote of 84- 10 on the same day. Director Haines is the first woman to serve as the Director of National Intelligence.

B. William Burns, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

On January 11, 2021, President-elect Biden announced his intent to nominate William Burns to be the Director of the CIA. President Biden formally nominated him on February 3, 2021. The Committee held a hearing on February 24, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on March 2, 2021. The Senate confirmed Director Burns by voice vote on March 18, 2021.

C. Christopher C. Fonzone

On March 16, 2021, President Biden nominated Christopher Fonzone to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Committee held a hearing on May 18, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on May 26, 2021. The Senate confirmed Mr. Fonzone by a vote of 55-45 on June 22, 2021.

D. Brett M. Holmgren

On April 12, 2021, President Biden nominated Brett Holmgren to be Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. The Committee held a hearing on May 18, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on May 26, 2021. The Senate confirmed Assistant Secretary Holmgren by voice vote on September 13, 2021.

E. Christine Abizaid

On April 15, 2021, President Biden nominated Christine Abizaid to be the Director of National Counterterrorism Center. The Committee held a hearing on June 9, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on June 22, 2021. The Senate confirmed Director Abizaid by voice vote on June 24, 2021.

F. Robin Ashton

On April 19, 2021, President Biden nominated Robin Ashton to be Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee held a hearing on June 9, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on June 16, 2021. The Senate confirmed Ms. Ashton by voice vote on June 24, 2021.

G. Thomas A. Monheim

On May 10, 2021, President Biden nominated Thomas Monheim to be Inspector General of the IC. Upon primary referral, the Committee held a hearing on July 20, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on July 28, 2021. The nomination was sequentially referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs the same day. Upon sequential referral to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for 20 calendar days pursuant to an order of January 7, 2009 (S05120), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs discharged the nomination on September 20, 2021. The Senate confirmed Mr. Monheim by voice vote on September 30, 2021.

H. Stacey A. Dixon

On April 27, 2021, President Biden nominated Stacey Dixon to be the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. The Committee held a hearing on July 20, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on July 28, 2021. The Senate confirmed Ms. Dixon by voice vote on August 3, 2021.

I. Matthew G. Olsen

On May 27, 2021, President Biden nominated Matthew Olsen to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Upon sequential referral to the Committee following primary referral to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee held a hearing on July 20, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on August 10, 2021. The Senate confirmed Mr. Olsen by a vote of 53-45.

J. Shannon Corless

On September 27, 2021, President Biden nominated Shannon Corless to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of the Treasury. The Committee held a hearing on November 30, 2021, and reported the nomination favorably on December 15, 2021. The Senate confirmed Ms. Corless by voice vote on December 16, 2021.

K. Kenneth Wainstein

On November 17, 2021, President Biden nominated Kenneth Wainstein to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee held a hearing on January 12, 2022, and reported the nomination favorably on March 8, 2022. The Senate confirmed Mr. Wainstein by a vote of 63-35 on June 7, 2022.

L. Kate Heinzelman

On March 8, 2022, President Biden nominated Kate Heinzelman to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee held a hearing on April 6, 2022, and reported the nomination favorably on May 10, 2022. The Senate confirmed Ms. Heinzelman by a vote of 50-41 on July 14, 2022.

M. Terrence Edwards

On June 7, 2021, President Biden nominated Terrence Edwards to be Inspector General of the National Reconnaissance Office. Upon primary referral to the Committee, the Committee held a hearing on August 2, 2022 and reported the nomination favorably on September 14, 2022. The nomination was sequentially referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which discharged the nominee on November 28, 2022. The nomination was sequentially referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which discharged the nominee on December 18, 2022. The Senate confirmed Mr. Edwards by unanimous consent on December 22, 2022.

V. SUPPORT TO SENATE

Under Senate Resolution 400, which established the Committee in 1976, the Select Committee on Intelligence has an important role in assuring that the IC provides ``informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation.'' The Committee fulfills this responsibility by providing access to IC information and officials to the U.S. Senate.

The Committee facilitated access to IC information for members and staff outside the Committee by inviting them to participate in briefings and hearings on issues of shared jurisdiction or interest. The Committee also provided intelligence briefings by its professional staff to Members outside the Committee and assisted Members in resolving issues with intelligence agencies.

VI. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTIONS

A. Number of Meetings

During the 117th Congress, the Committee held a total of 132 on-the-record interviews, meetings, briefings, and hearings, as well as numerous off-the-record briefings. There were 39 oversight hearings, including 13 hearings on the IC budget. Of these 39 hearings, 14 were open to the public, including open confirmation hearings for 13 administration nominees, while the remainder were closed to protect classified information pursuant to Senate rules. The Committee also held 10 business meetings including mark-ups of legislation.

B. Bills and Resolutions Originated by the Committee

S. Res. 53--An original resolution authorizing expenditures by the Select Committee on Intelligence.
S. 2610--Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
S. 4503--Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

C. Bills Referred to the Committee

S. 849--Supply Chain Vulnerability Assessment Act of 2021.
S. 1348--COVID-19 Origin Act of 2021.
S. 2345--Preventing Terrorism from Hitting America's Streets Act.
S. 2590--Directed Energy Threat Emergency Response Act.
S. 2654--September 11 Transparency Act of 2021.
S. 3657--A bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to provide notification to Congress of abandoned United States military equipment used in terrorist attacks.
S. 3759--Afghanistan Vetting and Accountability Act of 2022.
S. 4456--A bill to prohibit certain former employees of the Intelligence Community from providing certain services to governments of countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, the People's Republic of Chain, and the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.
S. 5250--A bill to modify requirements for certain employment activities by former intelligence officers and employees of the Intelligence Community, and of other purposes.

D. Committee Publications

Report 117-2--Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence covering the period January 4, 2019-January 3, 2021.
Report 117-37--Report to accompany the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
Report 117-132--Report to accompany the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

[all]

The Principal PRE-Contact “Public Policy” Questions Are

Policy Making Process

What is the best “process” for making decisions which affect the community – given the fact that there exist seven entirely different “Worldviews” which shape and mold personal and group perceptions of issues, possible solutions, and evaluation criteria?

Personal Independence

What degree of independence and personal freedom should each person retain with regard to her or his personal conduct and social conduct?

Personal Rights Safeguards

What agreed-upon community institutional safeguards ought to be established by the community to safeguard this appropriate degree of personal independence and freedom?

Norms and Sanctions

What agreed-upon community institutional rules and structures ought to be necessary to enforce community-adopted norms and rules?

Persuasion and Social Pressure

Over and above the formal laws that must be obeyed, what measures should the individual be encouraged to obey through social pressure and persuasion? What are the most effective ethical ways to improve acceptance of these regulations?

Social Safety Net

What provision should be made for the basic necessities for survival and a life of dignity for everyone over and above the purely private personal efforts on the part of each such individual to provide for her or his own such personal needs and for the needs of her or his own immediate family members?

Personal Physical Security

What provision should the community make for personal physical security for its members against internal and external threats?

Personal Protection and Development Services

In addition to providing for physical protection, what other services or protections should the community afford its members? In addition to education, health care, sanitation, civil infrastructure, housing, and food, what other safeguards and programs should the community offer its members?

Global Policy Coordination

What steps should the world community undertake to coordinate public policy in these areas?

• Economics
• Agriculture
• Transportation
• Water
• Sanitation & Environmental Protection
• Defense
• Education & Self-Advancement
• Medical Care; and
• Recreation.

Planetary Governance

Should all of the individual communities on our planet be progressively subsumed into one global collective community as communication and transportation technologies become advanced to the state of making this possible? Or are there specific practical advantages or important values to be realized by having less massive communities maintained…or even initiated, such as “Bio-Regional” Communities.

The Principal Post–Contact Public Policy Questions Are

In the case that we should discover an extra-terrestrial civilization, should we make our presence known and the way in which we came across them?

This would not be a good idea until we have found out what level of intelligence they may have and their possible reaction to us.

If we have picked up their radio or some other electronic emission from this Extra- Terrestrial Species, then our presence may still remain a total secret from them. If this is the case, we should keep it this way until we have undertaken a process by means of which our entire human family can participate in the decision as to whether (or when) we should decide to “communicate” with this extra-terrestrial species.

I, of course, would vote that we do contact them. However, others may disagree – even violently – with this position. Since this issue is of such an absolutely extraordinarily important nature, we should undertake every possible step to see to it that every Human Being is provided an opportunity to vote on this permanent species-altering decision.

If, on the other hand, the specific means by which we have “discovered” the existence of this extra-terrestrial species has compromised the secrecy of our existence. Then we should await some kind of outreach from them while we undertake the above-recommended decision-making process as to whether or when we undertake to contact this new intelligent species.

Again, I would, of course, recommend that we reach out to them and communicate our peaceful intentions taking the initiative to establish a positive relationship between our two civilizations.

Other human beings may, of course, view such a course of action to be a demonstration of weakness, opting, instead, to await the initiation of substantive contact from them. This would allow us to evaluate the import and frequency of their communication to us before we commit ourselves to any specific disposition toward them.

This, of course, would be the very first worldview clash between adherents to different human worldviews as to the policy that our human family should adopt toward the extra-terrestrials.

In order to avoid these clashes, we recommend that we undertake to make these policy decisions now instead of waiting to make them under the duress of first contact.

Who should be informed of this discovery? Who should know that we have established contact?

• Top military officials only?
• Key executive branch officials?
• Top level elected domestic officials?
• International allies?
• Leaders of all nations?

Our view is that all of the above groups should be notified and briefed as soon as possible.

Shouldn’t we avoid making any contact with extra-terrestrials until we have addressed the philosophical and theological questions that will be posed by this encounter?

To withhold this information from the public is something that leaders of societies all around the world believe is not only their prerogative but also their obligation to protect the people from themselves.

Should public officials disclose the discovery of an advanced extra-terrestrial society?

This is, of course, the most sensitive of all public policy questions dealing with first contact. In fact, many Americans believe that their government is withholding just such information and has been doing so for many decades. This case has been made forcefully by Dr. Richard Dolan in his two-volume work: UFOs and the National Security State.

This decision against transparency appears to be inevitable due to the structure of administrative agencies, which exercise their power through dispensing and withholding information.

Despite this probability, our New Paradigm Institute should actively support the! establishment of the United States Government Policy and a United NATIONS policy mandating transparency to governments and the worldwide community.

Should we inform the general population?

This is a complex issue. Please see the following answers.

Should we withhold all information about first contact until we have evaluated whatever military threat might be posed?

While such a policy might, at first impression, seem to be logical, prudent and even responsible, upon closer analysis, it will be revealed to be nothing more than a habit- response fostered by a national security state mentality. Such a policy institutionalizes a mindset that is explicitly contradictory to the very mindset that is uniformly espoused by virtually every spiritual, ethical teaching known to our species.

Therefore, our New Paradigm Institute should, I propose, actively espouse the establishment of a United States Government and United Nations public policy affirmatively mandating the public disclosure of any information establishing the existence of life on any other planet in our universe within 24 hours of the confirmation of the credibility of this information.

What is the best way for us to reveal first contact to the public at large in order to generate the best possible response?

This “Public Policy” Decision is, of course, the subject of intense discussion within The UFO Community.

Some long-time and trusted members of our International UFO Congress Community such as Randolph Koppang, believe that they have come across very-persuasive evidence that such a public policy decision has already been made by the United States government. Some believe that the government, even before the Roswell crash in 1947, has been engaged in a program of inoculating our society and culture by introducing data that they thin will help the public overcome the shock of first contact. This is supposed to consist of phased revelation after phased revelation through timed releases of factual information through good faith investigators who believed that they were extracting this information from an unwilling government.

Others in our community are equally convinced that a firm decision has been made by our government to take every step that might be necessary (including the use of physical violence) to keep this secret concealed from the public for as long as they possibly can. And there is certainly evidence to support this thesis as well, such as the public testimony of many witnesses surrounding The Roswell Crash Investigation who assert that they were directly threatened with physical violence if they did not remain silent about what they had seen surrounding the removal of debris and bodies from the crashed saucer site on the Braswell Ranch.

I propose that our New Paradigm Institute undertake to establish the public policy – both on the part of our United States Government and on the part of the United Nations – that any and all information about the existence of any and every potential Extra-Terrestrial form of Intelligent Life be transmitted to public through official classes taught in every public school in the world.

I also propose that we undertake to establish a policy on the part of every faith-based community to instruct all of their members as to the details that we come to know about any extra-terrestrial species so as to have these teachings undertaken in a way to build an ever-growing community who will approach our relationship with these extraterrestrials from the perspective of “the better angels of our nature” rather than out of fear and mistrust.

Should we first establish some form of covert surveillance of this E.T. civilization to assure ourselves that they are peaceful before we reveal its existence?

We should undertake every ethical method at our disposal to find out everything that we possibly can about these extra-terrestrials. We should be overt, not covert.

Would it be ethical to attempt to use our discovery and the knowledge gained from it to try to secure some advantage over other nations?

Absolutely not. This is the most important opportunity since the beginning of the nation-state system under the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to start setting aside the dysfunctional aspects of this intrinsically dangerous human institution.

Given the profound negative implication of the public policy questions above, shouldn’t we consider establishing a new global joint institution to develop these important policy positions in the common interest of people everywhere?

YES, and the make up of such an Institution must be very carefully analyzed and discussed so as to receive a virtual consensus on its make-up. This should be done as soon as possible.

Should we conduct ourselves toward these extra-terrestrials in basically the same self-interested manner we deal with other human nation-states?

NO. This is precisely why such activities should be undertaken by nongovernmental civilian organizations. Ideally, this organization would be grounded in and motivated by genuine spiritual values and aspirations such as the New Paradigm Institute.

Should we trust or distrust extra-terrestrials more or less than we trust or distrust other humans? We should handle these relations from the very highest principles. First Contact can give our species a chance to start over again in the way we frame and conduct our communications and establish relationships.

If the E.T. civilization is substantially more advanced than we are technologically, what steps should we take to protect ourselves from the destructive effects that were suffered by human societies when they encountered others with more advanced technology?

This is a very challenging public policy issue. Our own history gives us the reason for the great pause here on the threshold of encountering what may be an extra-terrestrial culture that is much more advanced. This threatens to cause our entire distinctly human to be almost immediately subsumed by such an advanced culture which may be right here in our own galaxy.

Should we avoid making any contact with extra-terrestrials until we have addressed the philosophical and theological questions that will be posed by this encounter?

To withhold this information from the public is something that leaders of societies all around the world believe is not only their prerogative but also their obligation to protect the people from themselves. Our view is that the public should be informed.

This challenge gives us all the more urgency for us to update and affirm our own culture as a species to prepare us for the effects the First Encounter will have on our music, art, religion, science, and technology. Our social norms will also be influenced regarding the structure of ethical and political systems and interpersonal relationships, including sexual mores.

Professor Samuel P. Huntington’s landmark work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order strongly advises any culture that finds itself on the brink of encountering a more powerful culture should take every step to identify and strengthen its most fundamental values, beliefs, spiritual practices, and other fundamental aspects of its own culture.

Professor Huntington’s remarks were made in the context of the rising economic and political strength of China and its potential influence on western culture. However, this advice is a useful warning regarding the unintended consequences of First Contact.

Consequently, the New Paradigm Institute should encourage our human family to ascertain what it is that beliefs and values we want to retain in the face of an encounter with a more technologically inter-stellar advanced civilization. It is important to remember that we are not supporting or advocating xenophobia – a fear and rejection of other cultures. By the same token, we should not adopt beliefs and values that are diametrically opposed to our own.

We may well be at that point in our history in which we have the opportunity and the challenge to affirm positive beliefs and values and to shed and discard others as we step out together into the stars.

The Nature of Philosophical Questions in General

Philosophical questions are directed to our human family’s most profound and fundamental questions about the nature of our universe, our place in it, and why we exist at all.

1. How did this universe in which we find ourselves actually get here? Has it simply always been here? Did it come into existence at one specific point in time in the past, just as each one of us did?
2. Will our universe and all of the wonderful things that we have achieved as a species simply disappear one day in our future just as it began in one single moment or might it all simply dissipate out into Infinity?

In short, such philosophical questions are directed toward our human family’s understanding of the principles pursuant to which events are taking place and what the importance might be (if any) of our human family within these unfolding events.

As we also noted in our 2010 opening discussion of this topic, the enterprise of philosophy is our human family’s attempt to:

1. Acquire, categorize, analyze, and evaluate the sensory data that is acquired by us Human Beings through the exercise of our five physical human senses as well as our experience of intuition; then to
2. Arrange ideas, assemble thoughts, and reflect upon this experience through the application of our human intellect
3. Construct a sound and effective mode of ethical reasoning which we can
4. Apply to guide our human conduct, both individual and collective, to address the individual problems of life and
5. To try to answer the cosmic, profound questions of life so that we, as thinking, logical, rational, and logical beings, can
6. Rationally determine how best to comport our human conduct – both individual and collective – in a manner that is right and to refrain from engaging in human conduct that is wrong.

The Principal Pre-Contact Philosophical Questions and Pillars of Belief

The Cosmological Question

WHEN and how did this entire material universe and all things that we see all around us come to be? In short, why is it that there is something rather than nothing? Did all of these material things come into existence at one single moment in time, in the past, or is it possible that all of this has simply always existed? What difference -if any – does the answer to this question make?

The Teleological or Purpose Question

However, our material Universe came into physical being, is our universe physically unfolding or physically moving in some particular direction toward some specific, ascertainable end or objective?

In short, is there any pre-ordained or pre-programmed purpose or end game toward which our universe seems to be heading; are the consequences of this purpose operating in the universe as natural laws?

The Ethical or Meaning / Purpose Question

If there is such a specific end or objective toward which the universe is steadily and progressively unfolding, does that end or objective implicitly provide some kind of relative meaning or purpose for the existence of the universe?

The Ontological or Being / Consciousness Question

How did consciousness come into existence within this entire apparently strictly material universe? More specifically, how did this consciousness which I experience myself come into existence? What is the nature of this consciousness which distinguishes it from the rest of the seemingly non-conscious or strictly material universe?

The Epistemological or Nature of Truth Question

What are the means by which we, as human beings, can possibly ascertain the knowledge to answer these cosmic questions?

The Free Will Question

Do animals or insects think or do they just do whatever comes naturally to them by pure instinct alone by dint of some entirely unreflective DNA programming? In other words, are animals and insects somehow physically programmed, simply mechanically, by nature to act in all of the ways in which they act?

If so, are we human beings mere animals in this way as well? That is, am I and are you to some degree simply biologically programmed by nature to act merely mechanically as all other animals do?

On the other hand, are we, to some degree -if any- capable of choosing to consciously diverge from any such physical programming that we have received from nature?

Comparative Social Ethics

If we are capable of freely choosing what conduct we will – or will not – engage in, then what norms, standards, criteria or objective principles are we to choose to guide our conduct? Pursuant to what criteria are we, in turn, to ascertain or discern these standards?

The Philosophical Endeavor

Once we identify an effective and persuasive mode of ethical reasoning, the philosophical endeavor is our effort to apply it to guide our individual lives on a daily basis.

Political Philosophy

We engage in political philosophy when we apply this same specific mode of ethical reasoning to guide our collective human decision-making in areas which affect entire communities regarding individual and group choices that confront us in the course of our daily community living.

Theology vs. Philosophy

When we attempt to answer these philosophical questions with regard to activities outside of the physical parameters of our universe, we are in the realm of theology.

The Principal Post–Contact Philosophical Questions

Since the discovery by our human family of the existence of technologically advanced intelligent life forms what are the philosophical implications, in general, of this transformational discovery? Specifically, what are the philosophical implications of our discovery that we as a species are not necessarily at the apex of evolution in the universe?

The discovery of advanced extra-terrestrial life forms dislocates humanity from the center of the universe. It is analogous to Galileo’s discovery that the earth and other planets orbit the sun.

Can we as a species accommodate this change philosophically the same way we eventually adjusted to the notion that the earth and planets orbit the sun? Is there a way to retain our assumed “privileged” states as a species?

While it is possible that extra-terrestrial species may be more advanced than we are in certain ways, there is the possibility that our faculties of intuition and spirituality would help us keep our preferred status. For example, aliens who focused on reason at the expense of emotion or aesthetic values wouldn’t meet our criteria as advanced in some ways. Also, our encounter with other intelligent life forms may lead us to place less value on intelligence as the hallmark of evolution if aliens have a low social IQ by our standards.

If the members of this newly discovered extra-terrestrial, intelligent species are more biologically evolved than we are, what effect has that had on them relative to us? Do they still retain the basic survival, predatory, and dominance drives that we do or have they gone beyond them in some way?

If they have evolved in a way in which they can transcend basic survival drives for violence and domination, we may find ourselves having to deal with a greatly reduced sense of our place in the universe. This will be particularly true if it appears that their evolution is being directed to an endpoint of perfection in a purpose-driven teleological fashion. This situation of inferiority may be compounded by encounters with more than one extra-terrestrial group with a higher state of emotional integration.

Even if other intelligent life forms are more evolved, is there something about our intuition that is purpose-driven (teleological), which still gives us a unique superior place in the universe? In other words, does intuition replace intelligence as the key indicator of evolutionary progress?

The short answer is yes. If we perceive and believe theologically in the power of grace as a divine free gift that has been bestowed on our species, we can see our status in a different light. Once again, the primacy of intuition and spirituality may differentiate us from other advanced species we may encounter. Others who take the opposite theological tack that we can consciously increase our state of intuitive and spiritual function will focus more on the possibility of human growth and achievement. In either case, our status would not be threatened by the discovery of other more advanced life forms since their participation in consciousness and evolution is analogous to ours. As a more evolved species, they would be further along the development cycle but would share a common development dynamic with us.

If the biological experience of the unitive Intuition of being is the next phase of human evolution, will the extra-terrestrial species we encounter already have evolved to this state? What are the implications if such beings do not show a higher state of consciousness?

Crane Brinton marked the end of his 30-year tenure as Chair of the Department of Intellectual History at Harvard University with a talk in May of 1968. His topic was the single most important idea that he had encountered in his 50 year career as a scholar.

In brief, Professor Brinton said that just as the development of intellect caused our species Homo sapiens sapiens to diverge from Homo erectus, the evolution of the faculty of intuition would be the next transformation of our lineage.

“And it is by biologically experiencing this unitive experience that one comes to truly know that everything is one…including each of us…with all that exists. And by means of this direct, biological experience (like seeing, hearing, or smelling), we can each experientially come to know what specific form of human conduct – both individual and collective is either harmonious with or disharmonious to the natural order of being.”

It may be that our unique contribution to other intelligent life forms may be our ability to achieve higher states of consciousness – such as the biological experience of the unitive intuition of being – as individuals now and perhaps as a universal trait in the future. In fact, this is a common philosophical theme in the various forms of the Star Trek sagas. The quest for such a faculty on a personal level is personified in the character of Data, an android with amazing intellectual and physical capabilities who can conceive of this faculty but does not experience it. This faculty allows us to experience the physical phenomenon of the Unified Field, which physically bonds together every single, ultimately non-divisible unit of matter in the entire universe into one integrated and harmonious whole.

Through this unitive experience, each of us will come to know what conduct is either individually and collectively harmonious or disharmonious with the natural order of being.

How would our encounter with an extra-terrestrial civilization change the context and dynamic of our internal political, economic, and social disputes? Shouldn’t we be recasting our relationships and institutions in preparation for this encounter?

“The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.” -Carl Sagan, astronomer, and writer (1934-1996)

It is now clear that we, as a species, ought to be directing our immediate collective human attention to resolving these disputes, which now appear to be petty in the context of a broader galactic perspective. This will be essential if we as a species hope to convey to the leadership of an extra-terrestrial civilization that we intend to retain certain absolutely fundamental principles and values.

How will we explain to them our less than “stellar” qualities as a species without creating distrust and defining ourselves as inferior primitives?

Our only real hope in this type of encounter is to present our strengths as well, particularly our sense of compassion. However, we need to strengthen and improve our species through compassion and affection for all humans.

So, we should begin now.

Do they have philosophical questions and answers to such questions as to the physical source and origin of the universe and its organizing phenomenon? Do these philosophical answers lead to some type of ethical system? Would they try to impose this system of values and behavior on us?

Professor Carl Johan Calleman of the University of Washington in The Purposeful Universe: How Quantum Theory and Mayan Cosmology Explains the Origin and Evolution of Life (2009) asserts that scientists are, just now, beginning to discover evidence that there may well exist a physical vertical axis at the very center of our universe. This may be the so-called yaxin or Tree of Life to which the ancient Mayan culture attributed a personality whom they called Hunab-Ku.

Three perpendicular axes emerge from this physical vertical axis. The physical vibrations which these axes send out create the three physical dimensions of length, breadth, and depth in the universe.

Such a fascinating idea may or may not turn out to be true. However, if it is true and an extra-terrestrial civilization already has the same or a similar notion, they may expect or even require that all intelligent beings adhere to these norms individually and collectively in order to harmonize with this source.

This change would give the Sixth or Radical Monist worldview priority among all seven human worldviews. In fact, this discovery might eliminate the other human world views or drive them underground.

If the extra-terrestrial civilization we encounter does not have such an absolute source for its ethical system, what might their views be – if any?

The answer to this question is very important because it will determine whether:

A. Can we trust them to keep their promises?

B. Do they lie?

C. Do they kill other sentient beings?

D. Do they steal property, resources, or territory?

E. Do they engage in conduct all humans consider unethical?

There are ways in which we can determine the underlying value system or principles and the way in which norms or standards are embodied in the ethical system. This is a complex task. It can be done by looking for an internally self- consistent set of answers to four key questions which are the underpinnings of any philosophical system. You may recognize them since we have already discussed them.

A. The cosmological question – Why is there anything?

B. The teleological question – Is there a guiding purpose?

C. The ontological question – Why are we here?

D. The ethical question – What is right and wrong?

It is possible that extra-terrestrials we may encounter will not have definitive and verified answers to these questions. If that is the case they may also have developed alternative answers to each question. This would mean that they had also arrived at the same octave alternative answer giving them an octave of extra-terrestrial worldviews. We would then have a basis to relate to them.

What is the likelihood that such a species created homo sapiens or directed our evolution?

This provocative thesis which is outside the scientific mainstream is advocated by Zecharia Sitchin in his books Genesis Revisited and the Earth Chronicles. In this scenario, humans have mythologized our creators into gods. Similar speculations are put forth by Erich von Daniken’s book In Search of Ancient Astronauts.

While this appears to be a theological question, it is not since we are speaking of creation in a material and mechanical sense within the bounds of space-time. Even if humans are the result of some type of technical process, it only moves the theological question to the species responsible for our development. In other words, “Who created them?”

The Nature of Theological Questions in General

We define theological questions – in general – as questions which seek to acquire knowledge about the most the most fundamental truths to explain what is going on – if anything – outside or inside our physical universe that is beyond our perception. To answer these questions can be done purely within philosophy. This is called metaphysics – the study of the underlying principles that explain and give meaning to the physical world.

To deal with these questions from the standpoint of religious experience, spirituality, or a formal religious belief system is theology. For our purposes here, I will gloss over the fine points of these distinctions between metaphysics, the philosophy of God, and theology since for most people the every day common sense world is divided into rational scientific or philosophical questions and moral and theological questions.

Consequently, I am limiting my approach in this presentation to the enterprise of theology. I am delimiting theology as our human endeavor to attempt to:

• Acquire, categorize, analyze, and evaluate the data that is acquired through the exercise of an entirely separate and distinct sixth human sense- our faculty of intuition or spirituality and then
• Arrange, assemble, and reflect upon this data again through the application to this differently-derived data of our human intellect – which is our ability to distinguish between one thing, concept, or experience and another.
• Using both the intuitive and intellectual faculties, we can supplement an otherwise strictly materially-derived mode of ethical reasoning.
• Arrive at norms of collective conduct that are right from a strictly utilitarian perspective and from an intuitionist perspective as well.

This approach allows us to address the everyday problems of life as well as profound cosmic human questions rationally and intuitively.

The Principal Pre-Contact Questions Are

Origin

If our material universe has not simply always been here and it somehow came into existence, then was this creation event caused by some factor or some phenomenon that was or is not simply some sub-component material aspect that has simply always been an internal component of our physical universe? If the universe became materially manifest, what might this non-material factor or phenomenon be that caused our universe to come into material existence or manifestation?

The traditional Christian answer to this question is that God created everything that is and holds it in existence. The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions conceive of the Creator God as personal. These three “religions of the Book,” with their common Semitic Middle Eastern origins, present God in the mode of an autocratic desert patriarch or tribal potentate. However, if in the process of learning more about life in the universe and encountering other advanced life forms, what will happen to our notion of a paternalistic God who made creation for us? What if we find that all or parts of the “mulitiverse,” the infinite variety of universes posited by string theory, leads us to the conclusion that this perceived coming in and out of existence is part of a “natural” process?

Origination Phenomenon

If our universe – the sum total of all detectable and inferential dark matter and energy – came into existence by some phenomenon, what might possibly be the nature or qualities of such a phenomenon?

Does this phenomenon have to be non-material in its nature since, by necessity, it must have preceded all matter and energy? As we begin to incorporate more of early 20th-century physics based on quantum mechanics, even the notion of “materiality” is giving way to “packets” or quanta energy/matter. The concepts of dark matter/energy that can only be inferred mathematically are also pushing the notion of what “materiality” is. If we meet an advanced species, their concept or story related to the existence of the universe may be a purely natural phenomenon or they may have a radically different set of constructs. However, if we can push our cultural horizons to have a broader understanding of these questions, we will have a better sense of our purpose and that of the multiverse.

Characteristics of the Originator

It seems then that this originator phenomenon would not possess any of the qualities of a noun at all since virtually all concrete nouns (other than abstract concepts or ideas) refer to material things. This creative phenomenon, therefore, possesses certain noun-making qualities that are intrinsic to material or conceptual objects, such as shape in terms of finite boundaries, size – a finite quantity, and duration, a finite temporal existence.

In fact, it is possible that such an originator phenomenon would have only the qualities of the entirely non-transitive verb of being itself. As such it would not have any of the noun-making qualities or conditions at all, such as specific location, height, length, width, weight, finitude or any other measurable features. In turn, this lack of or excess of three dimensions might make this phenomenon incapable of being perceived by our senses or scientific constructs which convey qualities or characteristics of objects in the four dimensions of space-time. Consequently, this originator phenomenon may be beyond our detection because it is not qualified or conditioned by such qualities. Perhaps, such a being is entirely unconditioned, infinite, and eternal, entirely un- differentiated consciousness itself.

Creator and Creation

If the universe came into existence or material manifestation by a non-material phenomenon that is not some sub-component physical aspect of our material universe, then what might be the relationship between the creator and creation?

Universe As Conscious and Always Existing

Is it possible that the confluence of the sum total of all of the matter/energy that makes up our entire universe is self conscious in the same way that we are and that it has always existed?

Self Consciousness and the Universe

Whether the universe has always existed or was “caused” to come into material existence at some specific point, what relationship does my experience of consciousness have with the universe and to whatever this creator/originator phenomenon there may be?

How Does One Know?

How can we know the answers to questions like these? Do really understand our experience of reality by just using our intellect to focus the material data we can perceive? Is there a sixth sense, a different intuitive faculty that allows us to grasp matters in their totality? Is there even a seventh or spiritual sense, or are the spiritual and the intuitive one and the same?

Purpose and Meaning

Is there any conceivable specific purpose why such an infinite and eternal, entirely undifferentiated consciousness might generate an initial, unique locus of differentiation within its undifferentiated and infinite being? – Was this locus of differentiation the singularity from which our universe blossomed?

Assuming that the singularity was this locus of differentiation, why did the singularity come about? What purpose can it have, if any? Can the unfolding of the universe disclose any hints or ideas as to why it exists, and what is the purpose of it unfolding?

If indeed there is a purpose, does it also then tell us what all of this means for us an individuals or nodes of consciousness separated from the undifferentiated consciousness?

In short, if there is no purpose or end, is there any reference point by which we can evaluate and set standards for our conduct to be in harmony with the universe, or are we lost in a meaningless universe?

Does this entirely undifferentiated consciousness choose to intervene or break into the natural laws of the universe to enlighten individuals to understand the purpose and direction of the universe and the norms of our conduct to be in harmony with it?

Is such an illuminating human experience potentially available to everyone through education or simply by the recognition of what lifestyle practices would lead to such a special experience?

Higher Consciousness as the End Point of Evolution

It is possible that our entire species is undergoing a purposeful evolution in with we will all have this enlightenment faculty that will allow us to have immediate and direct access to this special experience. This development would be analogous to the way in which sensory faculties developed within Earth’s life forms that gave them access to the vibratory phenomena of light and sound. Indeed, there is also the possibility that this development of our species is being driven by a bonding phenomenon of an infinite and eternal field of mutual attraction that transcends our universe and extends infinitely out and away in formless consciousness.

From this perspective, we can actually see the universe as a type of condensed or contracted consciousness which is surrounded by a completely unified field of simple unconditioned being which is conscious of everything.

Life after Death?

Would it be possible for me as a self-conscious being to survive this individuated material incarnation in this state of undifferentiated being outside energy/matter?

If this is possible – is there something that I might do to be able to access this state of non-material being or will it be experienced by all humans eventually, regardless of their individual conduct in this material incarnation?

The Principal Post–Contact Theological Questions Are

Do these extra-terrestrials have any sense of theology or are they exclusively intellectual in the sense that they grant no credence to or role or an intuitive or spiritual faculty?

Intelligent sentient species are generated by the same infinite and eternal sea of entirely undifferentiated consciousness. Consequently, extra-terrestrials as conscious beings are generated as we are from undifferentiated consciousness and are in relationship with it. They would also be self-conscious since this is a pre-condition for intellect which allows us to distinguish ourselves from all other things.

Since the relationship between the individuated consciousness and the unitary consciousness that exists out beyond the physical universe is the very subject matter of theology, it is reasonable to assume that intelligent extra-terrestrials have a theology. In short, their reflection on their relationship between the self and the source of consciousness constitutes theological reflection.

Even though they are intelligent beings, it is possible that they might not give credence to such a source of consciousness and might not have a theology. Like many humans, they may have a purely secular or scientific perspective.

This would pose the greatest possible threat not only to our traditional human theological institutions but, indeed, to our entire human theological enterprise as a whole. This crisis could pose the danger that our ultimate quest is short-circuited by purely secular answers. On the other hand, these secular answers could be seen as freeing us to investigate the deeper problems of matter and the universe. In this case, we would have to develop a field of endeavor – a ministry – to help humans to adapt these secular answers to the questions of meaning and purpose in their lives.

If they do not have our sense of theology, have they developed purely secular or scientific answers to questions about what lies beyond the space-time boundaries of the universe? If so, what influence does it have on our planet?

Their theology might confirm or contradict some of our various theologies. It might also trump all of ours. If we adopted their theology, it might cause us to adopt their moral, ethical, and political systems. There are other possibilities. We might add their theology to our collection. We could insist that our theology is superior. How we could come up with a comparative ranking of theologies is not at all clear. Such a claim to superiority could be very dangerous since conflicts over theological systems have been very destructive to human society and progress.

If they do have a theology, how will it affect our various theologies on Earth?

* Will we adopt their theological system and the philosophy and social organization that derive from it?
* Will we just add it to our collection as a new “earth” theology?
* If we or some of us judge that our particular theology is superior to theirs, will it lead to a religious conflict?
* What quality or charism could justify such a position on our part?
* What quality or charism would cause us to accept their theology as superior?
* What if we shared the same desired quality and charism underlying our theologies? If so, what effect would we have on each other’s theologies?

There will be a wide variety of beliefs and responses to these questions by members of both civilizations. However, the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience will be paramount. We will have to protect the right of humans and extra-terrestrials to practice their faith as they see fit. All groups should be free to present their beliefs and to proselytize or recruit members. Although either group may feel that its belief system is preferable, it may not compel anyone to adopt a belief system.

The review and study of alternative beliefs, religions, and theologies will be an important undertaking. We may find that there are certain comparisons that may make one system seem to be superior to others. However, this can lead to the dreaded human institution of theocracy. Despite any preference or priority philosophical and theological might indicate, the secular state should never establish a religion, whether human or extra-terrestrial, on our planet and others.

This brings us to the inevitable issue of what we understand to be the relationship between biological evolution and spiritual consciousness. Some believe that consciousness is directly related to one’s level of spirituality, which is a function of progressive, teleological, and biological evolution. Within the Catholic Christian Tradition, this belief is championed by persons such as Jesuit paleontologist and theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Meister Eckhart. In the Hindu Spiritual Tradition, this belief is championed by Sri Aurobindo and theosophists such as Madame Helen Blavatski, Alice Bailey, and Annie Besant. The theosophists suggest that Human “Prophets” or “Adepts” such as Jesus Christ; Moses; The Buddha; Lao Tsu; Confucius; Mohammad, and or Zoroaster are, indeed, biological mutations who are precursors of the New Human who is biologically latent within our species and who will evolve into full fruition over time teleologically as part of the purposeful unfolding of the universe.

If this is a correct assumption, then there is good reason to believe that there are literally tens of thousand of planets within our galaxy which possess life. These life forms have been evolving progressively pursuant to the same directional principle that we have. More than likely, many of these societies are much older than we are, given the age of their sections of the galaxy. Their longer experience of this purpose driven evolution indicates the strong possibility that they are more consciously evolved than our species.

On the other hand, David Wilkerson, a Protestant theologian and physicist, believes that the spiritual development of a human being has nothing to do with the state of biological evolution. (Wilkerson is also a fellow of the British Astronomical Society.) Wilkerson presents his views in his book Alone in the Universe? (1997). Theodore Peters is a professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific Lutheran Seminary. In his article “The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life,” Peters cites Wilkerson in his article “The Implication of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion” (Royal Academy Philosophical Transactions 2011). According to Peters, Wilkerson bases his position not on the natural, progressive development of spiritual consciousness but on Biblical revelation.

“Christianity’s central claim is not based upon the principle of spiritual evolution, which will take us closer and closer to God as our knowledge increases. Christianity recognizes that our fundamental need is not a super-religion but a reconciliation which we cannot achieve for ourselves. At the heart of the Christian faith is the belief in a divinely-initiated redemption, an action of a gracious God on behalf of a fallen cosmos… This message of salvation coming directly from God is something we can learn only from revelation it cannot be produced through spiritual evolution.”

Wilkerson believes that revelation is possible even for extra-terrestrials, whether they are more or less biologically than we are.

In my view, we must develop a new quantum physics-based scientific understanding of the truth, which underlies many of the spiritual truths that have been expressed as metaphors and myths. By sorting through these beliefs, we can focus on those that we want to preserve and present to off-world societies. We must also be willing to see the theological systems of extra-terrestrials as an important part of their culture and include them in our own comparative studies of religion. However, if their beliefs or principles contravene ours, we must make every effort to preserve ours on our planet and in our conduct on other worlds.

For many Christians, one of the crucial questions is whether Jesus – in the form of a human being has visited other planetary civilizations or become incarnate as a true member of their species.

* If the Christ has only manifested on Earth are other intelligent life forms “saved”.
* Are humans the only ones saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus?
* Does this question – as criticized by certain liberal Christian thinkers – actually show the misconception of a metaphorical truth for a literal truth?
* Since this type of salvation question derives from the explanation of Christian beliefs in the contexts of Graeco-Roman, Medieval, and other cultures, shouldn’t there be a priority to re-conceptualize these beliefs in a Post-Contact worldview if non-literalist Christians are going to save their belief system?
* Can we be open to the fact that another species has actually grasped the “truth”? Conversely, are we willing to present our notion of the “truth” to an intelligent species that does not have a notion of intuition or “spirituality” if we judge it to be a better explanation?

When we ask the question of whether Jesus in human form became incarnate and brought redemption to an off-world society or whether his salvation is exclusive to humans because of his death and resurrection on earth, we show this confusion of metaphorical and literal truth.

This question of salvation has two distinct subsets. The first is the Christian doctrine of redemption, in which Jesus dies to atone for our sins and reconciles us with the Father. The second question is the actual meaning of the life of Jesus.

We need to deal with these questions in reverse order since one’s position on the second question will define one’s position on the first.

The majority of the world’s religious population – approximately 66% – is not Christian. Another 22% do not subscribe to a supernatural or religious dimension of life at all. Of the one-third of the population that is Christian, the person of Jesus is central to their beliefs. However, the meaning and purpose of Jesus' life on earth and his resurrected presence in everyday life is capable of many different interpretations. Since the largest Christian denomination is Roman Catholic (1.2 billion of 1.4 billion Christians) with its standardized teaching and belief formulas, we can say that most Christians adhere (at least nominally) to the centrality of Jesus as Divine Savior. This is also true of other Christian denominations since it is the central tenet of the faith.

There is a small minority of Catholic and other theologians who see the life and meaning of Jesus in more metaphorical terms. This position meets stiff resistance since early Christian teachers and formulators of the religion, such as St. Paul, specifically rejected non-literal interpretations offered by the philosophers and mystery religions of the first century.

It is also worth noting that another 1.4 billion humans are followers of Islam. Moslems accept Jesus as a minor prophet. The prophet Mohammed is the messenger of an utterly and completely transcendent God. Attaining salvation – entry into heaven in the next life – depends on adhering to the five central teachings or Pillars of Islam and observing the Islamic moral code.

In this context, it is interesting to note that a small minority of Christians have moved from a literal understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus to a symbolic or metaphorical one. For some in this group, Jesus is the precursor of the fully evolved human. This goes against the grain of orthodox Christian teaching, which views Jesus as truly human and truly divine. Wilkerson states the traditional consensus Christian view that Jesus as the Incarnate God, Second Person of the Divine Trinity, is God’s gracious act of reconciliation.

The question of God’s revelation to extra-terrestrials is a prime concern for Christians and Moslems. It off world civilizations have not had the Savior or The Prophet, they can be seen as tools of the devil and/or ripe missionary fields. A simple review of Christian and Islamic expansion gives us a preview of their likely perspective on the spiritual welfare and status of extra-terrestrials.

If we make the reasonable assumption that off-world societies that are capable of interstellar travel are older and, therefore, more evolved just due to the time interval, it seems highly likely that they would have had some type of Christ figure or an actual incarnation. This is true if we assume, on the one hand, that persons like Jesus represent a more advanced stage of our evolution. On the other hand, the redemption of other worlds could be explained by the universality of God’s grace and mercy. However, a successful First Contact will require that Christians and Moslems, as well as other faith traditions deal with these possibilities now.

Much of the current language and concepts of present-day Christianity are the result of the synthesis and tumult of the Roman Empire of the west combining with the great migratory invasions of tribes from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. This synthesis is known as the Middle Ages. In fact, the pre-eminence of punishment and hellfire, the use of Aristotelian logic, and the significance of numbers show the great influence of Islam on European Christianity in this medieval formulation.

Christians face a similar challenge in dealing with Asian religions and cultures and those of indigenous people. The modern social justice ethic has led to a strong critique of missionary activity as part of cultural and economic imperialism. Accommodating other cultures is more of a challenge for those Christians whose only rule of faith is the literal interpretation of the Bible. These smaller free churches do not have a hierarchical structure, and they can be anti-intellectual.

Christianity has now been through a strong demythologizing phase over the last fifty years. This has led to a more metaphorical interpretation among some academic Christian elites. More importantly, though, it has opened a key space to see belief formulations as pale attempts to convey a deeper reality beyond the physical.

The Second Vatican Council (1961-1965) changed much of the medieval language and practice of Catholicism to that of the mid-20th century. Clearly, a Post Contact Earth will require similar adjustments and transformations. Protestant and Orthodox churches also made similar, if less dramatic, changes. Turkey became a modern successful secular state in an Islamic religious context.

The post-colonial encounter with Hinduism, Buddhism, and contemporary neuroscience has already led to changes in the notions of sin and guilt. There has been a shift away, in Christianity, from individual sin to the social structure of sin as oppression and exploitation.

1. Can we be open to the fact that another species has actually grasped the truth? Conversely, are we willing to present our notion of the truth to an intelligent species that does not have a notion of intuition or spirituality if we judge it to be a better explanation?

2. Doesn’t the increased likelihood of contact require us to work on a clearer understanding of intuition and spirituality as distinctive beneficial human characteristics to be placed at the service of other advanced intelligent life forms?

We must also prepare to present off-world civilizations our faculty of intuition and use it to develop our belief systems in the Post Contact world. In fact this has been a core theme in Star Trek and other space sagas. The uniqueness of our species with a soul and a conscience has been our trump card in these mythic encounters with more advanced and more powerful beings.

If, indeed, this turns out to be the case, we should prepare and support humans with these advanced gifts as our ambassadors. These would include men and women from Sufi, Christian, Hindu, Jewish and other mystical adepts.

In fact, we should embark on a major effort to develop and use this sixth intuitive sense as a common medium of communication between ourselves and extra-terrestrials.

Is it possible for extra-terrestrial life forms to be “Angels” or “Demons” in the sense that they are basically good or bad? Are they like us in terms of being good with moral failings? Given the potential for vast numbers of advanced life forms, is it possible that their cultures would cover a spectrum of values between malevolence and benevolence?

There can be a dialectical mindset in which we are tempted to see extra-terrestrial societies as angelic or demonic. To the extent that they are rational beings, more than likely, they are like us in terms of behaving well and behaving badly at times. Our best approach is to give these societies the benefit of the doubt and to use the tool of cultural relativism to understand these cultures on their own terms as opposed to ours.

The primary challenge to theology has to do with the fact that it is anthropocentric. It is centered on the importance of humans to God and the dynamic of divine and human interaction.

What aspect of our theological belief system will be most affected by encounter with extra-terrestrials?

THIS is the prospect that I discussed in my article published in the Special Vatican UFO Issue of OPEN MINDS Magazine entitled: “Catholic Dogma Faces E.T. “p. 77.

In this article, I presented several themes that have already been discussed in this monograph. The key challenge for the Judaeo Christian tradition is the challenge to the belief that the creation was made for our species and that we have a unique central place in it. In fact, Christians see the history of the solar system as an unfolding of “salvation history.” In this context, humans renounce their centrality in the cosmos through disobedience and suffer the consequences of this alienation: death, murder, war, starvation, and the whole panoply of evils. Humanity is reconciled to God through the death and resurrection of God’s Word, Jesus, who is both truly human and divine.

Some have, indeed, already embarked upon the intellectual process of attempting to try to transform ETs into the mythological pagan gods or into the position of the angelic beings in the classical Catholic theology.

I believe, however, that all of these entirely-understandable and good-faith human efforts to try to shoehorn these extra-terrestrials into the shoes of these mythological beings are destined to achieve no happier an outcome than that which was experienced by each of the stepsisters of Cinderella in their vain effort to force their undeserving foot into the magical glass slipper.

We must, I believe, instead, come to the true meaning of the phenomenon of our own human spirituality and its mysterious, intimate relationship to the realm of consciousness (the Great Ontological Mystery) in the broader context of quantum physics. This task is all the more urgent as the probability of First Contact increases. If we are not to be relegated to an inferior status by a more advanced off-world civilization.

I am confident that extra-terrestrials, too, will have discovered the secret of that most important faculty upon which the ultimate success or failure of our common mission together will be our mutually shared faculty of intuition, our shared spiritual faculty that is rooted in what we hope is our shared capacity to experience, in common the unity of all being.

If I am correct in this assumption that this Extra-Terrestrial Species has also learned this important “Secret,” then the pathway to our true “Partnership” with them will be clear. It will lie along the pathway which resides within each one of us, in both of our species. For it is truly the individual access which each one of us has to this intimate experience of unity, as a member of our human species and as a member of an extra-terrestrial species whom we are in the process of encountering, that constitutes the true gateway to the stars. Let us hope and, yes, let us pray that this pathway will lead our human family home and that along this pathway home; we will encounter our extra-terrestrial partners on our way back to our common home.

If other advanced life forms are more advanced in their notion of intuition and spirituality, won’t that reduce our belief systems to mere primitive attempts to deal with these questions?

IF this is true, it is possible that we may still possess a theologically important quality according to even an entirely new, more-expanded theology.

A. If so, what precisely is this unique or special quality?
B. How important, exactly, is this quality to us, even though it may be something we share with a non-human species?
C. What might this new, expanded theology be?

However, in the spirit of full disclosure… and to encourage an equally complete and open communication on the part of others in their response to the important subjects addressed in this work, let it be said, at the outset, that Daniel Sheehan believes that there exist eight entirely separate and distinct “Human Worldviews” from the perspective of any one of which the present national and international crisis that presently confronts our world, here in the post Cold War era, might be perceived and evaluated – with complete integrity.

It is our belief that:

The largest and best-educated Generation in the history  of our human family (the so-called “Baby Boom Generation," born during the 21-year period between  November of 1942 and November of 1963) IS INDEED a classical “IDEALIST” GENERATION as such a Generation is identified and described by Strauss and Howe in their 1991 work;

The second largest – and hopefully the  newly-best-educated – Generation in the entire history of our human family (the so-called “Millennial” Generation) born in the final 25-year period of The 20th Century between 1975 and the Year 2000, will be a classical “CIVIC GENERATION as is identified and described by Strauss and Howe in their work;

The essential “issues” around which The IDEALIST Generation and The CIVIC Generation of the 21st Century (“Cycle”) will coalesce will, indeed, be essentially “SPIRITUAL.” This means: Cosmology; Teleology; Ontology; Epistemology; Mode of Ethical Analysis, and Mode of Spiritual Expression;

The 10-year period between 1965 and 1975 in the United States constituted a classical “Spiritual Awakening” as identified and described by Strauss and Howe;

It is extremely likely that there is going to occur within  the United States (and within Western Civilization in general) a “SECULAR CRISIS” of absolutely “strategic proportions” in the next few decades – which will result from the failure on the part of the “Civic Generation” of the 20th Century “Cycle” to adequately “reconstruct” the social, political and economic institutional structures of the United States and Western Civilization (following the “Secular Crisis” of the 20th Century “Cycle” which occurred between 1929 and 1942) to adequately inculcate within them the essential “Spiritual” Principles enunciated by the “IDEALIST” Generation of the 20th Century “Cycle” (i.e. THE PROGRESSIVE GENERATION of The Chautauqua Movement) and as a result of the resistance on the part of this same “Civic Generation” to agree to “amend” these post World War II institutions to attempt to inculcate within these reconstructed institutions these same “Spiritual” Principles when called upon to have done so by the “Idealist Generation” of the 21st Century “Cycle” between 1965 and 1975 during the “Social Movement” identified as “The Sixties”;

That this “21st-century Secular Crisis” is going to take the form of either:

• A resurgence of a radical nativist movement in the United States (such as we experienced between 1890 and 1929 during “The Gilded Era” led ideologically by neo- Hegelianists and Neo-Darwinists) which will evolve into a Fascist State such as that experienced in Germany in the post 1929 events IF the “Neo-Cons” of the nature of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and others remain in political power in the United States… which will result in another worldwide collapse in upon itself of the global Capitalist economic structure and another “World War” against the global imperialist Fascist State (this time it being the United States instead of Germany).

  OR

• The establishment of a new “Northern Industrial Alliance” between “The G-8” Nations of NAFTA and the GATT Nations of Europe with RUSSIA against CHINA…which will result in a major thermonuclear “showdown” between China and “The West (and Russia) before 2050;

That both of these foreseeable alternative “crisis” scenarios can be effectively addressed by:

• Establishing the “alliance” between the Baby Boom Generation 21st Century Cycle  “Idealists” Generation activists and the Millennialist Generation 21st Century Cycle “Civic Generation” activists (which Strauss and Howe have identified as having been successfully established in each of the preceding five 100-year historical “cycles” studied in Western Civilization);
• Identifying a common set of Spiritual Beliefs (i.e. pertaining to: Cosmology; Teleology;  Ontology; Epistemology; Mode of Ethical Reasoning and Mode of Spiritual Expression) which can be commonly adopted with complete integrity by at least a plurality of the 82 million members of the American Baby Boom Generation and by at least a plurality of the 75 million members of the American Millennial Generation;
• Devising and putting into concrete operation a massive grassroots public education and grassroots Congressional District-by-District public organizing and mobilization project which can effectively “tender” these specific beliefs to this plurality of American citizens and “mobilize” this plurality of American citizens to freely choose and adopt these specific beliefs;   and
• Providing to the American People a Political Party Apparatus that will “translate” this specific set of “spiritual” beliefs into concrete Principles, Public Policy Proposals and Public and Private Programs which will effectively translate these “spiritual values” into the public policy of first the United States, then of Western Civilization as a whole.

It is our further belief that:

The “deductive” structural conclusions of the sociological studies undertaken by Harvard University’s long-time Chairman of its Department of Sociology, Dr. Talcott Parsons, and his student Dr. Ralph Potter, the long-time Chairman of The Department of Comparative Ethics at Harvard University – as these conclusions have been explained and supplemented by Daniel Peter Sheehan in his 2005 work entitled: PARADIGM POLITICS: The Clash of Worldviews and The Remaking of The American Political Order at The End of The Cold War – are in fact correct.

SPECIFICALLY, this means that:

It is our further belief that:

There exist EIGHT distinct human “Worldviews” pursuant to which adherents to each of these distinct Worldviews hold a distinctly integrated set of beliefs pertaining to: Cosmology; Teleology; Ontology; Epistemology, and a resultant Philosophy: which, in turn, generate a specific: Political Philosophy; Theory of Human Psychology; Mode of Ethical Reasoning; Mode of Spiritual Expression and Social Form;

These eight distinct human Worldviews derive directly from the fact that members  of our human species possess, as an integral function of our human anatomy (within the specific “octave” range of vibrational frequency within which our solar system/galaxy arises) eight distinct biological “energy centers” within and immediately above our human body…that, in turn, generate eight distinct “energy fields” which surround our physical bodies, each of a different vibrational frequency (each “energy field” of which vibrates in sympathetic resonance with the specific vibrational frequency of the corresponding “energy center” from which this “energy field” originates) and

Each individual human being directly experiences “Reality” prism-ed through the distinct complex of the eight contiguous differing energy fields which surround his or her body;              

It is our further belief that:

The subjective structural conclusions of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the 20th Century Jesuit Paleontologist are also factually correct. SPECIFICALLY, this means that:

There exists objectively a biologically pre-determined “ideal”:

• frequency at which each of the eight human biological “energy centers” in the human body should vibrate;
• rate of “rotation” at which each of these eight distinct “energy centers” within each human body should rotate; and
• angle to the ecliptic at which each of these eight distinct “energy centers” within each human body should incline

Which, we believe, would result in each such human being, within whom each of these three ideal conditions obtained, being an “ideal” human being who would be able to experience “Reality” in an entirely “objective” manner.

However:

We believe further that:

Our human species is presently at a point at which virtually every human being presently dwelling on our Earth is in a state of only partial evolution toward an ideal “OMEGA POINT” of human evolution at which each of we human beings will have fully evolved eight distinct physical senses (one correlating to each of our eight distinct human “energy centers”) by means of which eight distinct human physical senses each of us will be able to fully experience Reality as it “objectively” is;

That there exists CO-TERMINUS WITH the physical confines of our Universe a functioning HOLOGRAPHIC PHENOMENON which is naturally drawing up into Holographic Harmony with The Master Hologram of The Universe each and every sub-structure of this Hologram (of which we, as human beings, are one such sub-structure.)

We, therefore, believe further that:

There is a natural evolutionary teleology functioning entirely physically within our physical Universe pursuant to which we, as a physical species, will inevitably and progressively evolve toward that “Omega Point” at which each and every individual human being will be perfected … So long as we do not physically destroy ourselves…and our planet …before we naturally reach this “Perusia.”

However:

There are a number of specific physical exercises and physical practices which can be consciously undertaken by individual human beings during their natural lifetimes which, if assiduously practiced, can – and will – accelerate that individual’s otherwise entirely natural biophysical state…so that one

• increases one’s Sixth Sense of “Intuition” (“Pure Reason”),
• gives one access de novo to one’s SEVENTH FACILITY of direct experiential access to THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS from which our physical Universe emanated … and
• gains one direct access to one’s EIGHT FACULTY … by means of which one begins to experience life as HOMO DIVINIS.

We believe, further, that:

We, as human beings, are distinguished from previous stages of biological evolution on our planet, by our evolution of a sixth physical sense (over and above all of our five traditional physical senses of: touch, taste, smell, hearing and seeing), this being: INTELLECTUS (or self-conscious linear thought.) But we believe that there have existed, in the past – and presently exist among us – individual human beings who are biological harbingers of a NEW SEVENTH PHYSICAL SENSE – which is a biological physical sense by means of which these extra-ordinary individual human beings are able to directly physically experience the holographic BONDING PHENOMENON which constitutes the MATRIX of the physical Universe…thus providing these individuals direct access to “NON-local” knowledge (both spacial and temporal) of the full contours of REALITY.

These beings we call “PROPHETS” and their insights and pronouncements (and their extraordinary physical deeds) are the basis of the Seven Major Human Modes of Spiritual Expression.

We believe that:

The bio-physically-based Worldview that entails the knowledge of this REALITY is THE SIXTH PARADIGM WORLDVIEW, which is the Worldview of INTUITION.

We believe that:

Which “miracles” are also the “product” of the fact that all eight of their “energy centers” are functioning at their “perfect-ed” vibrational frequency, rate of physical rotation, and angle of inclination.

There exist TWO ADDITIONAL potential human “senses” or “faculties,”…these being:

A new biological “faculty” by means of which each individual human being can potentially directly experientially access union with THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS out of which our physical Universe emanated,

and

One other new biological faculty – the nature of which we do yet know… because this experience is the experience of a new faculty that is the first “faculty” of the next species into which we are evolving after we reach “perfection” as members of the species homo sapien sapien… a species which we identify as HOMO DIVINIS which exists in another “octave” of harmonic vibrational frequency ONE FULL OCTAVE HIGHER than the “octave” within which our REALITY physically “manifests.”

Attorney Daniel Sheehan, a Harvard College-trained Political Scientist; a Harvard Law School-trained Constitutional Legal Scholar and a Harvard Divinity School-trained Comparative Social Ethicist, in the pages of the Open Skies Ministry, will set forth the TEN “Key Categorical Beliefs” that go into making up each of the EIGHT Classic “Worldviews” that compete daily, in our everyday world, for our conscious (but more-often un-conscious) “loyalty.”

These are:

“Cosmology” (or theory as to the origins of and the presently-functioning operative physical principles of our physical universe);

“Teleology” (or theory as to the “direction” [if any] in which our physical universe is “unfolding” …and what its ultimate “destination” is);

“Ontology” (or theory as to the source and nature of “Consciousness” …and how it “evolved” out of apparently “inert and impersonal matter”);

“Epistemology” (or theory as to what the “means” are which we have at our disposal, as human beings, by means of which we can possibly come to “know” the “answer” to such “cosmic” questions as these);

“Mode of Ethical Reasoning” (or methodology be means of which we determine what is “Right” and what is “Wrong”, what is “Good” and what is “Bad” – or even what is “Better” and what is “Best” from among apparent “options” presented to us by our universe);

“Philosophy” (which is generated by the composite of specific “Answers” that one determines for oneself to these previous “Cosmic Questions”);

“Political Philosophy” (or theory as to how we, as human beings, “ought” to go about collectively deciding how to decide what the Principles, Policies and Programs are pursuant to which we should make our collective “community” decisions governing how we live together…and what the comparative degree of importance is that we should attribute to “The Collective” or “The Individual”);

“Theory of Human Psychology” (or theory as to how our individual human Mind “works” in conjunction with “The outside world.”);

“Mode of Spiritual Expression” (or “Theological” and/or “Meta-Physical” theory pursuant to which we as human beings might comport ourselves “in the face of The Mystery” which is The Universe and/or its “Source”); and

Its ultimate “Social Form” (or particular “form and structure” that Adherents to each such “Worldview” believe ought to be put into place, through the “authority” of The Collective Community, in which we, as human beings, should live together in our human communities.)

Urged by a growing number of the participants in President Gorbachev’s State of The World Forum to set forth his personal insights gained from his almost four-decades of direct personal experience and public service as the person who initiated and supervised more than one dozen of the most famous private public interest investigations of his Era into matters which are of central importance to most members of his Generation, Daniel Sheehan was given a private grant in the Spring of 2006 by a generous benefactress which allowed him to take time necessary from his busy schedule of public trials, public speaking engagements and radio and television interviews to set down the details of the most important insights of his past forty years of legal and public policy experience and to make these details available to the other members of his Post World War II Generation, and to the members of his sons’ “Millennial Generation” who need to know these facts, now more than ever – because their Generation must now become the new Full-Partners of The Baby Boom Generation in taking up the challenge of fulfilling the too-long-delayed promises of Western Civilization made to the people of the world.

The Post World War II “Idealist” Generation – must take immediate concrete steps that will enable us to succeed, within our lifetimes, to return the leaders of our Western Civilization to the utilization of an up-dated, or “modernized”, Natural Law Mode of Ethical Reasoning to arrive at our collective global public policy-making decisions… before the now-immediately-looming global thermonuclear war “simply occurs” between China and The United States – leaving us all wondering, in those last dark, final moments of human life on our planet, whether there was ever a way…for even for one bright and shining moment…when this ultimate tragic end to our entire human experiment might possibly have been avoided.

The successful discernment, identification and public articulation of such an up-dated and “modernized” Natural Law Worldview is, then, the ultimate strategic objective of this work.

We find our planet confronted with the imminent consequences of massive Global Warming, threatening, within our lifetimes, to inundate literally hundreds of millions of square miles of our global coastlands with salt water, thereby destroying literally hundreds of trillions of dollars of business and personal property and the homes of hundreds of millions of people, thereby generating millions of human refugees. This phenomenon will also result in the contamination of one-quarter of our planet’s available, potable drinking water that is contained in coastal, underground freshwater aquifers. It will also melt (and thereby cast into the sea) a second one-quarter of our planet’s presently-available, potable drinking water that is presently contained in the one-mile-deep polar glacial ice-fields that extend one thousand miles from the North and South Poles of our planet toward our Equator, thereby not only eliminating a full one-third of the then-still-remaining potable drinking water available to our human family but also dramatically altering the salination level of our oceans, thereby, altering the under-sea currents which directly effect our global climate-patterns as well as destroying the plankton in the sea which constitute the very base of the sensitive “food-chain” in our seas. On top of all this, there are dozens if not hundreds of nuclear power plants along coastlines throughout the world that will be compromised as the sea level rises and storms become more severe.

We also presently find our nation more deeply in debt to other nations – and to the international banking industry – than at any time in our nation’s history …while, at the same time, spending the largest annual military budgets in our nation’s history, with the lowest percentage levels of income taxes being paid by the wealthiest 5% of our population and our corporations since the point in time immediately preceding the 1929 collapse of our entire global economy.

And, as a direct result of the foreign policies and military policies embraced and pursued by the American Administrations of George H.W Bush and George W. Bush at the very end of The Cold War, we find ourselves, as Americans, confronted by the most deeply-felt and aggressively-demonstrated degree of “Anti-Americanism” on the part of members of the radical Islamic Fundamentalist religious community in our entire history, manifesting itself in the form of the generation of multiple Islamic “terrorist” cells presently organizing and arming themselves to launch paramilitary attacks against our nation here at home and against our nation’s citizens and “interests” not only throughout the entire Middle East but, indeed, everywhere across on the entire planet. These “terrorist” threats, in turn, threaten the stability and reliability of our supply of petroleum….which, amazingly perhaps, remains, even today, our almost exclusive source of domestic energy.

So, one should be VERY interested in precisely what criteria we, as members of the American Electorate, are going to employ in making our “choices” from among the various Official Candidates for the House and Senate who will present themselves to us for each of the seats in our Congress- and then precisely what criteria we will employ in choosing between the two Final Candidates offered to us by the two Major Political parties to serve as our representative?

However, the vast majority of the members of our American Electorate do not, to any meaningful degree, understand the differences between the “Principles, Policies and Programs” that are likely to be espoused by a Candidate whom one might accurately identify as “Liberal” and the “Principles, Policies and Programs” that are likely to be espoused by a Candidate whom one could accurately identify as “Conservative.” Nor do we really understand the “differences” between the “Principles, Policies and Programs” that are likely to be espoused by either of two such “Liberal” or “Conservative” Candidates and the Principles, Policies and Programs that are likely to be espoused by a Candidate who adheres to the more-recently-encountered “Neo-Conservative” Worldview …or of the “Progressive” Worldview. Indeed, we aware totally unaware of the fact that there exist EIGHT entirely distinct human “Worldviews” from amongst which one can logically choose in determining what the “Principles, Policies and Programs” will be that one wishes to adopt, here in the 21st Century, by means of which to address – and, hopefully, to remedy – these, and the other, “national” … and “global”… public policy problems that will confront us over the next ten-year period…and on through our 21st Century.

Very few Americans can tell which of these alternative “Worldviews” any particular Candidate for public office actually espouses…IF ANY…in attempting to make our “choice” between them – because virtually EVERY Official Candidate does the very best that he or she can to convince the members of whichever audience he or she is speaking to at any given moment that that Candidate adheres to that “Worldview”- that is the “Worldview” that is shared by the majority of the members of THAT particular audience to which he or she is speaking at the time. In short, virtually ALL Candidates for modern American political office attempt to conceal his or her true “Worldview” from potential voters…or, even worse, he or she insists that he or she does NOT even HAVE ANY specific “Worldview” at all….so as to avoid being characterized as being “Ideological.” He or she always insists, instead, that he or she will simply always simply “strive to do what is the ‘right’ thing to do in every situation.” So, just “TRUST Me!” So, just decide whether you LIKE me…and whether you think that I am LIKE you. Don’t worry about the fact that you often can’t tell WHAT my ‘position’ is ON ANYTHING.”

Such a “reality” hardly recommends such a person to hold the most important political positions in our community, a position in which he or she will be presented with repeated situations in which he or she will have to make almost immediate – and potentially world-altering – decisions. For, without such a “Worldview”, what criteria might such a person resort to in making such important – and potentially world-altering – decisions?

To remedy this serious “public policy problem”: that so few of the members of our American Electorate are adequately well-informed as to the precise nature – and “range” – of the “Principles, Policies and Programs” from amongst which we must choose in order to effectively address – and hopefully to solve – the many complex and serious problems that confront us, as American voters, here at the beginning of our 21st Century.

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

Phone

Street Address

Apartment, suite, etc

City *

State/Province

ZIP / Postal Code

Country *AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaArubaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBruneiBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCabo VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos IslandsColombiaComorosCongo, Democratic Republic of theCongo, Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCôte d'IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEast TimorEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrance, MetropolitanFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench South TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGuernseyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island And Mcdonald IslandHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJohnston IslandJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKosovoKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauNorth MacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontserratMontenegroMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairn IslandsPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarReunion IslandRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSaint HelenaSaint Pierre & MiquelonSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and South SandwichSpainSri LankaStateless PersonsSudanSudan, SouthSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwan, Republic of ChinaTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks And Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUS Minor Outlying IslandsUnited States of America (USA)UruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican CityVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis And Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemen Arab Rep.Yemen DemocraticZambiaZimbabwe

Relevant Experience *

How Would You Like to Help? *

AdministrativeEventsField WorkFundraisingLegalResearchTechnologyOther

Send Message

Please do not fill in this field.

Paddy oversees the Christic Institute Archive and supports all the Romero projects with his experience in security, equipment, shipping, the online store, and maintenance. His work in social justice began in 1988 when he joined the Christic Institute as a computer technician and security officer.

Chris edits our videos, manages our YouTube channels, contributes to graphic design, and helps lead our video and audio production. He also runs a small music studio. He holds a BS in astrophysics and a minor in electronic music from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Sara Nelson is the executive director and co-founder of the Romero Institute and former national executive director and co-founder of the Christic Institute.

A former TV reporter and news anchor, Sara was educated at Cornell University and U.C. Berkeley. She served as the National Labor Secretary for the National Organization for Women (NOW) in Washington D.C. in the mid to late 1970s. Responding to the concerns of NOW women, she assembled the Karen Silkwood Fund and launched the national campaign to find out who killed Silkwood, a young union leader working at a plutonium factory in Oklahoma who was run off the road while delivering proof of irregularities and safety violations to a New York Times reporter. The ensuing investigation and jury trial, on behalf of Silkwood’s children, won a record-setting $10.5 million judgment, and prevented the construction of new nuclear plants for more than 30 years.

Encouraged by their victory in the Silkwood case, Sara, lead counsel Daniel Sheehan, and Father William Davis formed the Christic Institute to combine their efforts as champions of social justice. At its height, it became a national organization with 50 staff members in five offices supporting hundreds of action teams. From 1980 to 1992, Christic litigated several landmark cases, including:

• Representing victims of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster
  (PIRC v. Three Mile Island)
• Defending Catholic workers who provided sanctuary to Salvadoran refugees in the American Sanctuary Movement
  (U.S. v. Stacey Lynn Merkt, et al.)
• Seeking damages from the KKK and American Nazi Party members for the murder of civil rights demonstrators in the Greensboro Massacre
  (Waller v. Butkovich)
• Bringing charges against 29 people involved in the civil case associated with the Iran-Contra Affair
  (Avirgan v. Hull, et al)

In 1999, Sara served as the executive director of former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev’s & former United States Secretary of State James Baker III’s State of the World Forum in San Francisco. The annual event brought together 1,000 former world leaders to meet with dignitaries, the world’s most prominent business executives, scientists and Nobel Laureates, activists and national public interest organization chiefs, religious leaders, and agency heads of the United Nations in an effort to collectively discuss global problems and solutions.

Sara formed the Romero Institute in 1980 with Christic Institute co-founder Daniel Sheehan. A law and policy center based in Santa Cruz, CA, the Institute exposes and implements solutions to serious threats to the environment, structural injustice, and human and constitutional rights violations.

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

What's on your mind? *

Sign Up for Updates? *Yes, I'd like to receive email updates.No, thank you.

Send Message

Please do not fill in this field.

Daniel Sheehan is a 1967 Honors Graduate of Harvard College where he took his Bachelor’s Degree in the fields of American Government Studies and United States Foreign Policy.

Mr. Sheehan was Harvard College’s Nominee for the Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University from New York State in 1967.

Mr. Sheehan is a 1970 graduate of Harvard School of Law where he took his Juris Doctor Degree at Harvard Law School in the field of American Constitutional Law and International Law studying Constitutional Law under Lawrence Tribe; International Law under Louis Sohn; Public Policy under Adam Yarmolinski (Robert Kennedy’s prospective Secretary of Defense) and International Policy under Abe Chayes (Robert Kennedy’s prospective Secretary of State.)

At Harvard Law School, Mr. Sheehan served as Editor of The Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review and served as the Chief Research Assistant to Professor Jerome Cohen, the Chairman of the Department of International Law, in the preparation of Professor Cohen’s book on The Illegality of The American War in Viet Nam.

Mr. Sheehan served under Prof. Milton Katz (then the President of the Association of International Jurists) as the Director of The Nigerian-Biafran Relief Commission which airlifted emergency food supplies into Nigeria in 1968.

Mr. Sheehan was selected by Professor Abe Chayes to serve as one of Professor’s five Point Briefers to the United States Senate on The Cooper-Church Amendment which was authored by Professor Chayes to terminate all U.S. Congressional funding for the War in Vietnam.

While still a law student at Harvard, Mr. Sheehan initiated, filed and personally litigated the cases of Eisenstadt v. Baird (winning the declaration of unconstitutionality against the Massachusetts State Anti-Birth Control Law for the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood League before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston – this decision being cited in the United States Supreme Court Case of Roe v. Wade as the source of the reasoning used in that case recognizing the constitutional limitations on the power of secular government to criminalize the choice of a woman and her doctor to terminate that woman’s pregnancy) and In re: Pappas (asserting, for the first time in American jurisprudence, the First Amendment Right of Professional News Journalists to Protect The Identity of Confidential News Sources Against Compelled Government Disclosure before the Massachusetts State Supreme Court – winning the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on this issue.)

Upon graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Sheehan was retained as Associate First Amendment Counsel at the Wall Street law firm of First Amendment Attorney Floyd Abrams (Cahill, Gordon, Sonnett, Reindle & Ohl, Chief Litigation Counsel to NBC News and the #1 litigation law firm in America).

As Associate First Amendment Counsel at Cahill-Gordon under Floyd Abrams, Mr. Sheehan briefed the case, before the United States Supreme Court, of In re: Pappas (which Mr. Sheehan had originated) and participated as a major member of the drafting team of the Amicus Curiae briefs to the United States Supreme Court for The New York Times in the companion cases of Caldwell v. United States and In re: The Kentucky Currier-Journal (asserting, before the United States Supreme Court, the First Amendment Right of Professional Journalists to Protect The Identity of Confidential News Sources Against Compelled Government Disclosure.) In that case, Mr. Sheehan served as Associate Counsel before the United States Supreme Court with Floyd Abrams and Yale Law School Constitutional Law Professor Alexander Bickel.

At the Cahill-Gordon firm, Mr. Sheehan served as Co-Counsel, before the United States Supreme Court, with New York Times General Counsel James Goodall, Floyd Abrams and Professor Bickle, to The New York Times in “The Pentagon Papers Case” (United States v. The New York Times) against the Richard Nixon Administration (winning the right of The New York Times to publish the 47 volumes of the classified Pentagon Study revealing the secret history of the Viet Nam War.)

Mr. Sheehan served under William vanden Heuvel as Special Counsel to The Rockefeller Commission which oversaw the work of The Knapp Commission Investigation of the New York City Police Department (which conducted the Hearings into New York City Police Department Corruption featuring the testimony of Frank Serpico.)

Mr. Sheehan served as Chief Counsel to the United States Native American Rights Committee of the National Office of the American Civil Liberties Union and as Amicus Curiae Counsel to the American Indian Movement at The Wounded Knee Trials in South Dakota.

Mr. Sheehan served as Chief Trial Counsel to the National Office of the American Civil Liberties Union for the Ten Rocky Mountain States.

Mr. Sheehan was the principle author of the Legal Briefs filed before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the National American Civil Liberties Union in Mancari v. Morton (successfully asserting the right of the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to engage in racially-preferential hiring of Native Americans.)

Mr. Sheehan then served as Trial Counsel in the Boston law firm of Bailey & Alch (the law firm of Attorney F. Lee Bailey). There, Mr. Sheehan successfully participated in defending Attorney F. Lee Bailey against federal criminal charges in the case of United States v. Glenn W. Turner & F. Lee Bailey in Florida and served as Special Counsel in the case of United States v. McCord et.al (“The Watergate Burglary Case”) before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Attorney Sheehan then returned to Harvard University to undertake his studies for his Masters Degree and then his Ph.D. Degree in Judeo-Christian Social Ethics and Comparative Social Ethics at The Harvard Divinity School.

Before completing his Ph.D. Thesis in Comparative Social Ethics, Mr. Sheehan was asked to become Chief Counsel to The United States Jesuit Headquarters’ National Office of Social Ministry in Washington, D.C. and became a Candidate for the Jesuit Priesthood.

Mr. Sheehan served for ten years as Chief Counsel to the United States Jesuit Headquarters’ National Office of Social Ministry in Washington, D.C. from 1975 to 1985. There he directed the formulation of, and drafted, the national and international public policy positions of the United States Jesuit Order of the American Catholic Church on behalf of the ten Jesuit Provincials of the United States.

While serving at The Jesuit National Headquarters, Mr. Sheehan was appointed to serve as Special Counsel to the United States Library of Congress’ 1977 Congressional Research Services preparation of two Special Research Projects for President Jimmy Carter: “Whether Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence Exists” and “Whether There Is Any Connection Between An Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence and the UFO Phenomenon.”

While in Washington, D.C., Mr. Sheehan also served as Chairman of the National Inter-Religious Committee on Civil Rights & Civil Liberties and also as The Chairman of the National Inter-Religious Committee on Criminal Justice; and as

The National Chairman of The Fund For Constitutional Rights;

And as Chief Counsel in the following federal trials:

Karen Silkwood v. The Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation (winning a $10.5 million judgment for the Estate of Karen Silkwood and a Federal Court Order declaring unconstitutional the federal financial “cap” imposed upon private civil tort recoveries for contamination damages caused by private nuclear facilities – thus ending the construction of all new private nuclear facilities in the United States) & The Three-Mile Island Litigation in Pennsylvania (winning a Federal Court Order stopping the release of radioactive effluents from the damaged Three-Mile Island Nuclear Facility into the Susquehanna River which had been already authorized by the Federal Atomic Energy Commission);

The American Sanctuary Movement Case (winning a Federal Court Order declaring unconstitutional the secret Reagan/Bush Administration executive order banning the granting of Political Asylum Status to political refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala);

The Greensboro Civil Rights Case against the North Carolina Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party (winning a federal civil judgment against the North Carolina Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and the Greensboro Police Department under the Federal Civil Rights Act after the acquittal of 12 members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party for First Degree Murder of public anti-Klan demonstrators by an all-white North Carolina state jury); and as

Chief Counsel on The Iran/Contra Civil Case against the Reagan-Bush Administration (forcing the appointment of Iran/Contra Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh – but failing to obtain any civil judgment against the Iran/Contra conspirators when George Bush, Sr. granted Presidential Pardons to the main conspirators and this case was dismissed by Miami’s Chief Federal Judge).

Attorney Sheehan has been the Presenter of Advanced Seminars in Constitutional Law and American Politics at Harvard University; at Yale Law School and at Notre Dame School of Law.

Attorney Sheehan has taught Constitutional Law at Antioch School of Law in Washington, D.C.; and Constitutional History and Legal Studies, at the undergraduate level, at the University of California at Santa Barbara as The Caesar Chavez Visiting Professor in 1993 and 1994.

Mr. Sheehan served as First Amendment Legal Counsel for Dr. John Mack, the Founder and Chairman of the Department of Clinical Psychology at Harvard Medical School, before the Harvard Faculty Committee in 1994 when Dr. Mack was called before the Harvard Faculty Committee to defend his publication of Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens. Since then, Mr. Sheehan has been featured as the keynote speaker at the International Convention of the Mutual UFO Network and the International UFO Congress and as General Counsel to The Disclosure Project, which has presented the sworn testimony to members of the United States Congress of two-dozen former high-ranking United States Military Officers and top-level Federal Employees of the Federal Aviation Agency and NASA attesting to their direct personal knowledge of the conscious cover up and concealment by United States Government agencies of information relating to the UFO issue and the potential existence of Extra-terrestrial Intelligence.

Mr. Sheehan is also General Counsel to the Institute for Cooperation in Space, a U.S. citizens group dedicated to the banning of all weapons from space and dedicated to the banning of the development of any and all potentially offensive weapons to be used against any potential extra-terrestrial civilization.

Between 2001 and 2021, Attorney Sheehan served as General Counsel to Dr. Steven Greer’s Washington, DC DISCLOSURE PROJECT.

In 2013, Attorney Sheehan served as General Counsel to Steven Bassett’s CITIZEN HEARINGS ON UFO DISCLOSURE.

Mr. Sheehan was the Director of The Strategic Initiative To Identify The New Paradigm of President Mikhail Gorbachev’s State of The World Forum in San Francisco and is the Co-Founder and President of The Institute for The Study of Alternative Worldviews at Harvard University and is the Director of The Institute’s “New Paradigm Project.”

From 2020 to the present Attorney Sheehan has served as Legal Counsel to Luis Elizondo, the ten-year Director of the United States Pentagon’s secret UFO Investigation office: the Advanced Aero-Space Threat Identification Program (AATIP).

Mr. Sheehan is an active Member of the Bars of the State of New York and of the District of Columbia and is an active Member of the Federal Bars of the Southern District of New York and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Sheehan has been admitted pro hac vicae to the Bars of seventeen states in which Mr. Sheehan has conducted trials. These states include: Pennsylvania; Georgia; Ohio; North Carolina; Nebraska; Florida; Idaho; Colorado; Wyoming; Oklahoma; North Dakota; South Dakota; Virginia; Texas; Mississippi and California.

Mr. Sheehan now lives in Santa Cruz, California with his two sons and his wife of 45 years, Sara M. Nelson, who is the former National Labor Secretary of the National Organization for Women in Washington, D.C.; the former National Executive Director of The Christic Institute in Washington, D.C.; the former National Executive Director of Mikhail Gorbachev’s “State of The World Forum” at The Presidio in San Francisco, California; and is presently the Executive Director of THE ROMERO INSTITUTE in Santa Cruz, California.