HomeOld Letters and PapersLetters to “C” (2014-2019)

Letters to “C” (2014-2019)

Letters On the Philosophy of Science and Repressed Physics
I thought I would take a minute to follow up with you and share some of the material I am reading in case you are interested.

I enjoyed our conversations lately and I appreciate your insights and suggestions.  I am looking forward to reading that Jacob Klein book.  It looks like it will fit in well with the other things I am reading.

I feel like my vision is starting to fill out concerning the problems and opportunities in Western culture, the process of civilization, and the desire for universality, and I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback you might have on any of this.  I am very much a metaphysical thinker but I think there needs to be more productive dialog between the mystical and rational if we are ever going to have a sustainable civilization.  I know you are more of a rational marxist and logician, but I think these distinctions are just interesting contrasts and I am sure any thoughts you have time to share I would find helpful, assuming they are not at the level of your book, which was quite beyond my comprehension. 🙂

Here are some contemporary thinkers I am engaging with that you might find interesting.  John David Ebert is a great resource for media studies.  I like his take on the cycles of culture, though he follows Oswald Spengler too strongly in seeing civilization as the decadent commercialization and formalization of culture and so is more starkly critical of technology and pessimistic about contemporary civilization, putting his hope in a new cycle of culture(here is a link to one of his best video series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwC2NmfExW4).

Whereas I am more strongly influenced by the more radical spiritualists like Sri Aurobindo and Dane Rudyhar who believed in a possible evolution of culture and consciousness.  Like Rudhyar, I think Spengler’s insights are brilliant but there is great potential as well as danger in the formalization of culture through science and philosophy that need not be uniform or repressive of difference (though I don’t think contemporary Hegelian Marxists like Zizek go far enough in their radicalizing of traditional dialectics).

While post-modern theory (see Arkady Plotnitsky: http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~plotnits/publications.htm) tries to formalize this radical opening through a utilitarian undecidability(Derrida, Godel) and complimentarity(Bohr), I think there is a whole counter culture of researchers that are already laying the ground for a network of new ideas that are coming out of alternative science, which is itself a recontextualizing of ancient and esoteric mystical (phenomenological) science and metaphysics. The new science has been progressing outside traditional channels ever since it was scooped up into the black ops programs during ww2 and barred from mainstream public development(see Joseph P. Farrell and Paul Laviolette).

Unfortunately, too many of these new theorists are engineers and scientists and get caught up in their own personal theories (Tom Bearden, Paul Laviolette, Bill Tiller, Richard Hoagland), and consequently there isn’t enough discussion around what exactly is a torsion wave or scalar wave, etc, outside of everyone’s pet theories.  There are people like Dan Winter who are doing good work and have a flair for integration but are way too far out to make any headway in the culture at large. There are people like Suzie Vrobel and her fractal research institute that are doing some cool work with observer physics or what they call “endo-physics”, but it also is rather insular and idiosyncratic, though with more acceptability than the new “ether” theorists.

Peter Wilberg is a philosopher with a similar point of view as me.  Like me, he is attempting to integrate western critical theory and radical spirituality, science and metaphysics.  I like his view of Marx as a spiritual visionary, which I find a refreshing break from all the academic debates around the dialectic:http://peterwilberg.blogspot.com/

Mae Wan Ho is the scientist I mentioned to you who is doing the most to organize and formalize a science based on “quantum coherence” with all the critical perspectives of current biology and physics that fall out of that concept:

This guy Douglass A White is a very nice, little-known man I found on the internet who is also trying to integrate science and metaphysics through phenomenological concepts and critiques of number theory.  I especially recommend his “Great Velocity Equation” and “Superluminal Phase-Wave Civilization” papers, though I am still struggling through the rather simple math.:

Anyway I hope you are well and you find something of interest here.  Thanks again for your recommendations and time.


I had never heard of Charles Muses before but he reminds me of Arthur Young and it looks like they knew each other.  What do you think of Young?  My first search on amazon for Muses for some reason brought up the book Stargate Cosnpiracy which -if you haven’t heard of it- accuses a lot of esoteric thinkers like Young as being involved with the intelligence community and possible attempts to create a new techno-astral religion.  I agree with you about neo-primitivsts, but most of the techno-critics I read are not against science just critical of the the way we are doing it, and as regards the esoteric science thinkers, the potential of a new trans-humanist religion is cause for concern.

I am reading David Noble’s book right now called the Religion of Technology.  I have never been fond of the political tone of much conspiracy theory but I have long been fascinated by the occult and recognize its less than savory aspects.  Though most of what the conspiracy right reacts against is hardly as dark as they make it out to be.  Still even as I sympathize with the esoteric science tradition, their fascination with techno-transcendence sometimes worries me, especially as I look around and see the trajectory of our civilization.  While I definitely am more of a progressive optimist, I can see the problems with most of the developmental schemes playing out in liberal politics and New Age religion, so the value of certain traditionalist thinkers like Guenon, Spengler, and in some aspects, Heidegger, seems relevant despite their limitations.

Spengler for one was very fond of mathematics and science, he just despised its culturally-derived form-language being turned into a naturalized and petrified framework.  He thought mathematics should be poetic and creative and that a culture where philosophers lost touch with mathematics was reaching the stage where creativity is lost and thinkers become merely engineers and critics.  Like

Heidegger he thought science was too important to be left to the technologists.

I have never read McLuhan but have learned a lot about him from John David Ebert and his friend William Irwin Thompson, who, like Logan, studied with him and later extended some of his ideas.  I think I will have to read Logan, and definitely Muses — I mean chronotopology is what I am all about!  I would be very interested to hear about your experience with him and how you came to be involved with this stuff.  We should definitely get some dinner sometime soon.

But to make my point..
Thompson sees a developmental scheme in McLuhan that along with his friend Ralph Abraham he develops into a theory of mathematically defined ages of consciousness.  All this is very interesting, and compared to the average New Ager like Ken WIlber who perverts Aurobindo, or Jose Arguilles who has turned his friend Rudyhar’s ideas into a joke, I shouldn’t complain too much about Thompson.  In fact Thompson is anything but a wide eyed believer in progress, and often comes off as a real bitter jerk.  As of putting as that is, he was the first person I read to point to the astral-matrix-like dimensions of the internet.  A far cry from the techno-ascensionist rhetoric of the Burning man culture or the Omego-point like narratives of Teilhard de Chardin and his progeny in the trans-humanist circles.

Still, it seems like most of these guys, even when they are critical of certain developments have a hard time thinking outside the box of linear development itself.  I don’t think it is a matter of New Age science narratives not playing out as was promised in pop-culture books like the Celestine Prophecy.  Quite the contrary.  The narrative is playing out all too faithfully to the structure of occult science dreams– right into the astral ascension of the masses into the pure energy of instantaneous vital expression in holographic utopia.

We are witnessing this mass migration into the astral realm and it is cause enough for me to agree with certain techno-critics that science is a religion with an apocalyptic teleology.  So I see spirituality and science as desperately needing the tools of critical theory and post-structuralism.  Post-classical theory is often hung up on its own metaphysics, whether it be called deconstruction or complimentarity, but one thing you cannot call it is linear or reductionist, though it definitely is acausal.  But of course that doesn’t stop most physicists from ignoring the radical aspects of post-classical physics and using a statistical determinism, much as deconstruction ends up meaning relativism to most theoretically shallow commentators on post modern theory.

I agree that even at its most radical, post-classical theory leaves much to be desired.  It shows the limits of causal schemes and the trap of the traditional dialectic, but it does not have the proper metaphysical depth to take us beyond them into the true source of continuity and process.  For that one needs phenomenology, needs to understand the mechanics of consciousness, which are always a subset or organismic coherence.

For that reason I have never been a big fan of Bohm, or Krishnamurti for that matter.  Krishnamurti was always a reluctant messiah and ended up a walking contradiction, poor bastard.  Leadbeater should have left him alone when he saw him playing on the streets, he probably would have been better off. Certainly Theosophy would have been better off.

I am much more impressed with deBroglie and I have been trying hard lately to really grasp the implications of his time-frequency uncertainty.  I think it points to a more general uncertainty that we see not only in quantum physics but harmonic analysis–one that points back to consciousness, phenomenology and observer physics.

Obviously Bohm was hip to this possibility but everything I have seen by him seems like an attempt to shore up classical causality through non-local determinism, which to me makes strange bedfellows.  I suppose after reading countless books on Bohm and Jung in my youth and watching what the counter culture has done with these attempts to make the mystical conform to deterministic models, it was easy to  run for the post-modern critics who at least were able to take the critical edges of Freud and Bohr and open up a space for something new, something beyond the classical subject and the causal structure.

I like what Peter Wilberg has tried to do with Heidegger and his critique of causality, but even he is still too conservative for me.  There is too much uncritical posturing of “pure” consciousness in Wilberg which echoes what Derrida deconstructed in Heidegger, namely that he has an entrenched preference for tradition over novelty, communication over creativity, “pure” over the heterogeneous and all the dangerous implications.  Though Wilberg is pretty hip to the abuses of this logic, especially in medicine which is one of my primary fields of theoretical application.  I realize Derrida is problematic for many people and I can see why, but he developed the most rigorous critique of language and metaphysics possible.  While deconstruction is no complete metaphysics it is a powerful point of view and a necessary one for dealing with metaphysics in an age of linguistic confusion.

The same goes for complimentarity, which is similarly incomplete but pregnant with possibility.  Both complimentarity and deconstruction mark the end of the road for realism, determinism, and causality as defined by a neutral observer.  We create the world… so one can try and formalize consciousness into a metaphysical paradigm as neo-classicists and new age science religion try to do, or admit that consciousness is not some “pure” awareness, non-local deterministic factor, or transcendent object.  What the classical view gets us is a trajectory towards further subjective codification or to put it simply as Foucault did, subjectivation as subjugation.  As much as I admire Bohm, Jung, Joseph Campbell, I think they and the counter culture they helped create fit too nicely with the naive subjectivity of late-capitalist consumerism ideology.  Krishnamurti, nice guy that he was, was the worst.  He always reminds me of that skit in Monty Python’s life Of Brian, where Brian, tired of being followed says to the masses convinced he is a savior: “You are all individuals!” to which they parrot “We are all individuals!” in perfect unison.

In contrast I think there are people in the academy like Peter Sloterdijk who are trying to build off post-modernism and connect with the mystery traditions, recasting the layers of being into a post-post modern sphere-ology.  But I think what he, Zizek, and Deleuze (the three most influential academic philosophers right now) are/were reaching for– a new metaphysics grounded not in tradition but in the radical openness that post-modern society makes possible isn’t going to be found without a radical shift to a subjectively grounded topology.

Zizek and Deleuze are materialists and Sloterdijk is a great cultural critic but he can’t fathom the dynamics of subjective construction outside a self layered around selves in metaphors that mirror capitalist consumption.  I like to reach back to Whitehead and Bergson and the impulse to create a new philosophy of life and creativity.  Physics isn’t the ground.  Even Einstein didn’t want to return to classic causality, he just didn’t want to embrace a utilitarianism.  He wanted truth and I respect that.  But that is what the study of the material medium produces:knowledge of a tool, a utility. The truth isn’t a structure, it is a structuring force, a power as Aurobindo characterizes it.  And that power arises through phase harmony, quantum coherence, (which is what consciousness really is as detailed by my favorite spiritual books, the Seth books).

deBroglie was on to the truth, Einstein and Bohm sensed it was there, but they couldn’t go any further than linking their intuition to a pilot-wave.  Einstein didn’t much like that answer, and neither did Bohm really in the end.  But now I think we are seeing what they sensed but couldn’t understand–since no one told them what a fractal was, as Dan Winter likes to joke.

People like Frank Znidarsnik or Juliana Brooks are making sense out of the quantum, not as particle that needs a pilot wave but as phase resonance, or impedance matching of “light” with “sound” or the harmonic interaction of information/light with the pressure/phase waves that form the temporal context and determine the meaning of all information.  Nottalle has shown that relativity when extended to analyzing the scale of reference frames shows a fractal, continuous but non-differentiable fabric to the field.  This is what Mae Wan Ho likes to call organismic space-time, following Whitehead.

Dan Winter and other New Age electric engineers have been teaching and creating all kinds of useful applications of fractal cosmology understood as a simple translation of ancient hermetic “as above so below” principles applied to electric fields.  Charge flows unimpeded  by heterodyning between frequencies  when the phases are correlated and nested fractally, recursively.  It isn’t a matter of tapping the void as Bearden seems to imply.  Such a thing is very difficult to achieve with normal electrical technology since phases are always in flux.  Life on the other hand is what Winter calls a phase-conjugate dialectric.  And of course the more adept we are at navigating the art/science of phase conjugation, the more charge we attract and therefore the more we can rise out of the phase mismatched world of seemingly causal forces and relative speeds and times that are felt in comparison to the light of phase harmony.


Thanks for the detailed response. And thanks for questioning my hyperbole.  When I laud Derrida’s critique of metaphysics, I do not mean to single it out at some some ontologically singular event of supreme rigor or “full” development.  Such a thing is precisely what Derrida’a work exposes the limits of.  His work is anything but complete, just as complementarity is anything but complete, and I share yours and Einstein’s dissatisfaction with quantum physics. Post-classical theory is by nature quite dissatisfying because it merely exposes limits to certain assumptions.  To go beyond those limits we need new ways of thinking and perceiving.

Yet I do think post-modernism serves as an end point to a line of development.  Spengler would no doubt place post-modern theory alongside similar skeptical trends in previous cultures, points where the organizing metaphors that had served the culture where questioned and challenged.  Unlike Spengler, I don’t see this as a bad thing, a sign of unequivocal decay which is bound to come if one sees cultures as autonomous organisms.  I definitely think there are larger cycles at work, so I wouldn’t merely equate deconstruction for instance, as another repetition of universal structural trends.  Post modernism is a breakdown not just of Western European cultural values but a crises in the structure of thinking that undergirds culture and civilization itself.  The East had had its share of deconstructive logic, but these truths never really bothered them that much.  That truth was a relative convention was part of their traditions.  And even when it was formalized, it merely fulfilled the underlying disconnect between the relative and absolute that the East has always struggled with.  It allowed their conventions to continue while the philosophers looked to transcendence.

Deconstruction is more radical than Buddhist dialectics though.  It points not to emptiness but to sensitivity to context.  Not to a loss of faith in language and thinking when the mind realizes they cannot contain reality, but to an understanding of their power to shape reality.

When I say deconstruction goes to the limits of the mind, of language and metaphysics, I really mean it shows they cannot do what Western metaphysics has long assumed they could do: represent… unequivocally point to things.  But to me this merely points to the way forward: to a science of creation.

In any case, it sounds like you have lead an interesting life and have done some significant work.  I wish I could understand it!  But I will catch up.  So far, I get the gist of what you are saying here and I like what I hear.  Lets get dinner Friday, yes, that sounds good.  You like Sushi? Maybe you can breakdown some of this hyper-number stuff for me.

In the meantime, let me say I understand quantum mechanics is linear and this fits with my overall characterization of post-classical theory defining the limits of linear, causal thinking. Many see its linearity as preventing a more fully causal theory.  I disagree.  I agree there are many hidden variables and non-local influences, but these are not mechanical forces.  I do not think mechanical causal forces are fundamental, because they are just metaphors, merely an approximation that works with mediums that are devoid of life, at or near equilibrium.  I think what post-classical theory shows is the limits of fundamentalism and foundationalism.

Thermodynamics can model “emergent” properties but that doesn’t mean it less or more fundamental.  More complex models and systems can be built off theories serving as foundations, which require constants and causes to work.  But all this has limits and loses relevance with complex systems far from equilibrium.

Thompson would argue chaos theory is a symbol of the new mentality capable of modeling life, Gebser, living before chaos theory, was pretty fond of general relativity for similar reasons:  Non-linear causal systems are very powerful and attractive metaphors for dynamical systems and powerful models for predicting complex entities like life and consciousness.  So-called complexity theory seems to have become the the natural outgrowth of such efforts.  And I admit there is much to be learned here, but all these things remind me of modeling a possibility space that is still determined by a mentality rooted in determinism, no matter how non-linear.

If we want to map a possibility space that isn’t just an abstract mathematical

phase space, but a real changing living cosmos of qualitative principles and their organizing power, then we need a phenomenological science.  And by that I mean including the observer, not as a neutral perspectival entity in a field of motion and causation, but a field of meaning that gives rise to the field of motion not through causation but through resonance and systems of superposed coherence.

These things were integral to the occult way of doing theory and science, but now in biophysics we are able to understand what they meant.  Mystical phenomenon have always been “co-experiencable”, but repeatable and measurable, not in the modern scientific sense.  Astrology attempts to model astral phenomenon with determinism, though Rudhyar tried to make it more interpretive.  But it is more than variable time that confounds spatial modeling.  (And Smolin’s book seemed to be just a small step in that direction.  I liked his exploration of network logic, something that complexity and information theory has been exploring in depth).

By drilling down to the foundations people like Derrida and Bohr found there were no self-same entities, simple causes, forces in a literal sense, but they gave us no new metaphors.  Now we are seeing new metaphors that may dispense with the need for such classical concepts.  As to whether the work of the people I mentioned was “co-experiencable” I am not sure I follow your meaning exactly.  Mae Wan Ho interprets quantum biology, from which many of the new metaphors I have hope for are derived.  Same with Dan Winter, though he is a New Ager and Mae Wan is an esteemed scientist.  There are many things to measure and test and experience in this field, but it all can be experienced and interpreted differently depending on the meaning of the person experiencing it.
I think non-linear mathematics could hold many keys of understanding and can help us understand how effects propagate.  I hope to learn more.  But to the question why?  What we call “cause” has been much reduced by our literalizing of our metaphors than say even from Aristotle’s time when so much of our modern concept of causality was formalized.  But I look forward to hearing more of your view.
I would love to do a Cosmos series to contrast with the propaganda series that Sagan and now recently Neil DeGrasse Tyson put out.
For my “history of the cosmos” I would do a history of consciousness thing drawing on Steiner and Jane Roberts/Seth’s description of how we emerged into this “objective universe” gradually.  Apropos our conversation in the store about big picture thinkers of the early 1900’s, Steiner has a pretty detailed history of the different ages of the earth and the kind of consciousness in each age and in each major culture.  It would be fun to look at different thinkers and compare.  John David Ebert has some you tube audio lectures that touch on some of the qualities of Steiner and Spengler’s historical models building off of Nietzsche and Goethe but of course with very different conclusions, and then how Toynbee and Gebser were reacting to Spengler.  Rudyhar’s short book Culture Crises and Creativity is also a great reaction to Spengler and Toynbee.  Aurobindo didn’t read any of these guys, but his books would fit right in there with them.  Ebert’s lectures cover all these guys, along with Arthur Young, and of course the academic tradition big names too, with Kant through all the German idealists including Hegel and then Heidegger who saw himself as the end of the metaphysical age.
Its funny though that time period really was an end of sorts.  The metaphysics didn’t go away, it just split into an academic tradition that turned away from explicit metaphysics following a very materialist reading of German thought filtered through the French rationalist mind.  While the creative Germans became more mystic and counter cultural after the war following Goethe and a more biological model.  That vitalism has resurfaced and is combining well with the the anglo-american pragmatism that has developed so much biological science and information theory into things like complexity theory and hologenome theory, quantum biology, etc.  And that French POMO stuff lead to some great aesthetics and ethical work.  Maybe it all had a purpose.  But the frontier now is in bringing these perspectives to bear on the science that is emerging from the shadows.  We need that post-modern ethical attitude to temper the power of the field-physics that has certainly corrupted our leaders since that crucial post-war time period where so much changed.  Supposedly, this was also the time where they “brain drained” a lot of talent from around the world to populate the early secret space programs.
If I really had some funding it would be great to get some visuals to illustrate some of the physics and cosmology of the electric universe/torsion models.  It is a very coherent visual collection of models that would make black holes and big bangs seem boring.  I had better start putting stuff out there though.  No one is going to give someone a TV show that doesn’t already have an internet following.  You can barely get a book published these days outside the establishment if you haven’t already published one yourself or have an audience already.  So much to do!

I love the book so far. Thank you.  I am about 50 pages in and from what I can tell flipping through the rest it looks like it will be a big help in my work.  It is kind of like what I was hoping for from that Robert K. Logan’s book on the poetry of Physics, which I was really disappointed with.  I like that that guy had awoken a little from his physicist stupor after hanging out with McLuhan, but his actual ideas in that book and the one you recommended were still severely hemmed in by concepts he did not understand or examine very deeply. The book on language was like McLuhan “light”.

But Thomas Simpson is great.  I am particularly looking forward to going deeper into Maxwell since I am trying to understand electric engineering principles since it is such a big part of the alternative science scene I am writing about.
  As you may know, people like Bearden claim Maxwell’s writings hold a lot of the potential of developing a truer understanding of the ether that was later distorted and forgotten.  I have been listening to some of Eric Dollard’s lectures and reading Ken Wheeler’s free e-book on magnetism which draws a lot from Eric in understanding Tesla and the post-Tesla alternative energy science scene.  They both hold Maxwell in high regard along with Steinmetz and even Heavyside whom Bearden blames for losing the important ideas when he converted Maxwell’s 20 pages of differential equations into a couple lines of algebra.  Eric makes a good point in talking about how Tesla wasn’t some weird eccentric anomaly but was the culmination in field theory that had been developing for decades with these people, which was completely marginalized and repressed as Tesla started getting too far with it.
But now we are rediscovering the truths so long hidden from view, truths all the greats were obsessed with, especially Newton.  I am enjoying reading about him, whom I have had an interest in for sometime.  I like that the author is approaching his thought as one coherent picture, rather than separating his alchemy from his mechanics.  So many of Newton’s concepts like “force” for instance have become so naturalized that nobody questions the real meaning and connotations which vary widely depending on context and which get covered up much as Maxwell’s concepts were (and Marx of course), as science formalizes and reduces rich relationships down to simple formulas.  I was surprised to see Newton’s concept of force as being an essentially metaphysical principle which fits with the esoteric/ hermetic/ alchemical/ New Age tradition I am trying to trace and put into post-modern, post-disciplinary context.
An important aspect of this explored by Dollard and Wheeler in electrical terms is the notion of counter-space on which Tesla’s work seems to depend, but which Rudolf Steiner developed more extensively in his work with mathematicians on projective geometry.   In Steiner’s projective geometry, the “point” takes on a different meaning, which dovetails well with the more contemporary esoteric understanding of this stuff in terms of different “spaces” and timelines emerging as projections out of higher spin symmetry fields.  This is talked about by insiders reporting on the secret space program and the exo-political scene, and others in the New Age scene which have been in contact with higher density entities, with various degrees of distortion and accuracy.  There has been a new insider that has come forward recently which is really helping determine what is disinfo in an obviously problematic field of research.  It can be quite difficult to piece together what is going on behind the scenes, but thankfully, with the internet, one can piece together enough information that leaks out in correlation with changes in the global political scene, that a pattern does emerge, albeit along with many patterns of disinfo from the elite.  There is so much going on right now!
You might think this all far out, but for me it is all just confirmation of things I see in my own spiritual vision and psychic experiences, and conforms to what mystical scientists have been saying since the beginning of writing albeit in different terms in each age.  The alternative science scene is struggling to reproduce what has been hijacked by black budget science projects dating back to WW2 when our race started figuring this stuff out.
  Whether its the alternative cosmology of plasma physicists or Tesla tech engineers, intuitive speculation from spiritual experience/psychic communication or direct involvement with these programs, the principles are the same.  Alchemy works because the medium is not matter or space, since both can be formed out of the ether which is metaphysical, counter-spatial, dielectrical. Magnestism is the spatial antithesis, and electricity is the synthesis of magnetism and dielectricity. The dialectic of the dielectric field:)
Manipulating and conjugating field symmetries is what its all about.
I think your work hints at what is on the other side of that veil that the mind alone cannot penetrate, but which can be modeled analogically and engineered, though always in ways less flexible than the ultimate technology of life and and a living being who, when sufficiently evolved, can phase conjugate with so much harmonic inclusiveness that time and space are no barrier to him.

I wish I had more time to read this stuff in depth.  It is always a balancing act.  There is so much I want to learn.  Everything takes more time to process than I think.  I already have so many half or barely read books in front of me.  And right now I am feeling a bit impractical.  Christina and I are looking at houses to buy and our wages don’t allow for too much.  I am tired of paying landlords’ mortgages but having a house is one more distraction from the daemon of knowledge I am chasing.

Though as more things leak out of the black programs and elite/breakaway groups, it feels like I am chasing futile scraps while those on the inside are hoarding what should be the substance of our cultural heritage.  It is a good reminder to take care of my own life and consciousness because the evolution of this planet depends more on our spiritual development than figuring out what the elite of the elite are up to or furthering any of the science both are almost beyond comprehension. Even by them it seems.
To answer your question I think Tesla discovered things that were the beginnings of the technology that launched Earth’s most recent breakaway civilization.  His and Thomas Townsend Brown’s work were funneled into classified programs here in the states.  I think the classified programs of the time may have also used Einstein’s and some of the other unified theories of the time, though they modified them.  Specifically Einstein’s torsion tensor might have been applied to model the local distortions in the medium they were experiencing with high voltage counter rotating fields.  An engineer named Gabriel Krohn wrote a lot on this and there is evidence they were looking for ways of modelling local distortions in the medium that relativity only predicted around large bodies but which could be manipulated with high voltages (Brown called it electro-gravitics).  The theory at the time was undeveloped and I don’t think they quite knew what they had.
 I think we were behind the Germans who were the first to really harness the power of the ether in this era of mankind.  Though by the time the war was over those with their hands on the tech (Kammler and co.) had already bargained their way into the u.s. group and soon they were pretty integrated or at least working together, if not calling the shots.  There were obviously several interest groups, both state and corporate/financial, and now there are many cooperating and competing factions with different allies and trading partnerships with ET races.  The nature of the covert wars happening between factions has become more and more clear as whistleblowers and evidence trails are piling up.  They have kept a good secret, mostly by keeping most of the involved parties completely off-world.  But things are changing, and I think we are already seeing a gradual soft-disclosure.
As to the nature of counter-space and what all this secrecy is about, I am not sure if any of this will sound believable to you without having done a lot of research or having experiences yourself.  The real evidence comes from inner experience, though there is a technical component that ancient civilizations knew and we are rediscovering aspects of.  So much of ancient culture was centered around the secrets of life, of organizing centripetal forces in the medium to nourish and grow life and consciousness, creative and procreative powers.
The higher tech component that was lost long ago I think was clearly rediscovered early last century. There is plenty of trails from the 30’s in the West and much that has come out of Russia before it too was classified.  I think the Russians got into ET tech later in the game, but insiders say now they are big players.  Supposedly Putin knows more about what is going on space than most world leaders.
  But without getting too esoteric, the basic idea of counterspace was for Steiner a way of talking about the tensions and polarities between inner and outer space.  Dewey Larson talks about time/space as opposed to space/time in his reciprocal systems theory.  The idea is roughly comparable.  Basically the spatial and temporal coordinates get shifted around, the pressure gets manipulated or diverted into these reciprocating systems becoming more or less spatialized or temporalized as inertia gets stored in rotation or channeled into other systems.

Some people say dielectricity is counterspatial in the sense that it is radial lines of charge that move towards compression and elimination of space.  Magnetism is its opposite, spatial reciprocating vortex.  Magnetism stores inertia in space, dielectricity wants to store it in time.

The “point” in Steiner’s projective geometry is not in space just as fields are not in space.  There are spaces in fields and points of convergence that depend on the perspective of the consciousness projecting the space.  The point is an abstract ideal but it is also a real by product of dielectricity which is the compression of space by the perturbing conjugating consciousness on the ether.  Basically, the ether is counterspace, which becomes a localized space through the distortion of an observer/ system of awareness.

   I am not sure these terms are necessarily coherent.  But there are so many people working on this or who have worked on it sense the real development was pushed black.  There has been a real brain drain of talent either into the black programs or mostly away from this stuff in the mainstream. What has been accomplished in the alternative culture, mostly by eccentrics and loners, seems like a valiant attempt to make physical theory more consistent with visionary philosophy and dialectical process.  Whatever the state of alternative theory in our culture, I am certain it at least describes something that is going on in the breakaway civilization with a level of sophistication that exceeds our efforts by leaps and bounds.
The more I learn, the more it makes sense, the more unbelievable it sounds if I explain it to anyone that hasn’t studied esotericism, UFO’s, etc.  I certainly cannot demonstrate any of the high technology since it has been systematically suppressed and co-opted by the elite.  There is plenty of research to demonstrate the basic principles.  But the implications are far beyond what can be accomplished without more advanced equipment, materials and knowledge.  Though I think that is starting to change and things are about to get very interesting.
What interests me however is the principles, since what makes technology possible are principles that when realized and developed inwardly and applied holistically to our environment can far exceed even the greatest machinery.  Within the higher dimensions/densities, the distinction dissolves completely as the bio-engineering of vehicles with greater phase conjugating abilities becomes paramount.  But that is where things get really weird.  The genetic component is the real core to what is going on in this planet.  For though there are some benevolent spiritual realities involved, there is much room for some rather dangerous fumbling with timelines and the evolution of gene pools.
The danger lies in this middle zone, where technology outpacing spirituality leads to some rather dark and disturbing scenarios with AI and a general desire to maintain coherence through force rather than negotiation and dialectic.  This is where many of the elite have been lead.
I think Muses understood a lot of what was at stake, but it seems like he conflated the spiritual and technological like so many in the esoteric tradition do.  I just read how obsessed he was with finding one of the natural portals and believed he would be the first human to cross the bridge in 3 thousand years.  Finding one of the portals would not have freed him from the “archons” as he seemed to believe.
The more I read him it seems like he was trying to play their game of black magic.  Our salvation lies in making ourselves and our environment more coherent not finding the keys to the gates out of this level of the prison.  Advanced mapping in chronotopology may be important, the channels through our system can be mapped, modeled, navigated and even manipulated, but if one can’t hold the field together through more advanced higher spin symmetry geometry (higher density, greater harmonic inclusiveness), than there is no escape.  At best one can merely contend with the beings who already know and control this system, though even they are merely playing a game that knows no limits and can be superseded by a collective effort of humanity or intervention from a higher density.

I was a little overwhelmed with your critique of alternative science since I wasn’t sure which people you were referring to, or what kind of evidence you were requesting for which theory, given how general our discussion was mostly.  I responded mostly from my point of view which is decidedly not one of an experimental scientist but of a philosopher of science trying to make sense out of so many different theories all of which are looking at evidence of many different kinds.

I have been dropping a lot of names to you before and I wasn’t sure if you had looked up any of them, but it sounds like you haven’t looked into anyone but Miles Mathis and that blogger Drew Hempel, which I sent to you because I wanted your help understanding their mathematical arguments, not because I thought they represented any great argument for alternative theory and research.  Though both of them write extensively on research.  As crazy as that Drew Hempel guy might have seemed,  he was more grounded in a wider swath of scientific research than anyone in the mainstream and alternative scene.  All he did for 10 years is read research and meditate.  Despite your claims, this is much more effective for advancing knowledge now since we have millions of people doing research yet no one actually critically analyzing all of it.  Just take the nutrition community for example.  People like Kresser are way ahead of any real scientists because they are busy studying one thing.  He is read all the research and experimenting on himself and his patients like any good physician should do, but no one has the time to do these days.  All the more so for metaphysicians.  Science has not “exceeded” philosophy, accept that science is suffering because it has stopped thinking about its concepts and is instead proliferating them to fit the mountains of data, even if they don’t fit together.  No one is looking at the whole so most of the time they dont notice if things dont fit.
Mathis also is analyzing every new physics discovery and altering his theory if needed.  He has an essentially mechanical theory of physics which I think cannot account for the most interesting and promising aspects of science .  Though his mathematical insights have been incorporated into RS2, the the updated reciprocal systems theory(http://rs2theory.org/books/rs2/Preface.html), which also incorporates the projective geometry from the Steiner tradition, as I have mentioned.  I like their fundamental postulates–I think they are looking at the right fundamentals, whereas Laviolette(http://etheric.com/paul-laviolette-bio/) like so many “real” scientists, gets caught up in his own theory and mathematics.  Though he has some good ideas and a fully fleshed out theory and many confirmations:
 Same with William Tiller, whose name was escaping me earlier.  He did the most exhaustive tests at Stanford on consciousness affecting reality and has followed in Bohm’s footsteps with the whole pilot wave concept, which I think is a dead end. But his theory is used heavily in the alternative healing field.  Physicist Claude Swanson relies heavily on it with his exhaustive compilation of alternative healing research.  There is mountains of evidence in the health and healing field that contradict mainstream physical theory. (Swanson is more accessible and his books are at the library, along with a journalistic overview of consciousness studies called The Field by Lynne McTaggert).  Hal Puthoff is another distinguished scientist in this group who worked for the CIA declassified psychic spies and ran tests with one of their best with plenty of solid evidence.
But the list of crazy inventors, scientists and theorists who have found evidence that violates mainstream theory and leads towards the kind of models we are talking about here are legion.  There is so much Russian research, Kozyrev being one of the greats that contributes to this.  David Wilcock has compiled much of it here: http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online.  He has a best seller called “Source Field Investigations” you can check out at the library that is much more succinct and well edited.  The books in this link though are full of interesting experimental research, especially Science of Oneness and Divine Cosmos if you can skim past the New Agey tangents and flaky tone.  Chapter lists are at the bottom of each page once you click on the books.
Also here is Ken Wheeler, one of the best contemporary electricity experimentalists.  His book and videos are full of ferrofluid experiments and all kinds of fun with magnets.  Like many electricity people, he really hates Einstein! Dont hold it against him. 🙂
But as I have said before, I think the best evidence comes when biology is brought into physics.  Thats why my favorites are in that field.  Mae Wan Ho is the more rigorous scientist.  She is synthesizing research in that field that comes from many great scientists that are challenging reductionist biology.  Then there is Dan Winter, the crazy biofeedback engineer.  They are both focused on education.  Mae Wan Ho has an institute that is fighting the good fight against corporate science, and Dan is the leading voice in educating people on bioenergetics:
and a more general interview on her awesome website full of critical research against corporate biotech:http://www.i-sis.org.uk/quantumJazzBiology.php
here is Dan in a recent video talking about his recent projects:
They both focus on the golden mean and are big fans of the mathematical theories of el Naschie
and if you want to get more far out and less rigorous but comprehensive, here is one of the best summaries of scalar physics and the magic of water. the interviewer is annoying but Harald summarizes some of the deepest issues very well, though this first hour is a set up for some very fringe topics…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA
Central to what Harald and Dan talk about is M-state matter or “mono-atomic” metals, which the notorious Dr. Keshe is supposedly using for propulsion.  It was discovered in the 80’s and you still haven’t probably heard of it.  studies show its dramatic effect on brain waves despite being chemically neutral.  you can find supplements with low doses of it that can be used as meditation aids. higher doses are so superconductive that they are dangerous to the etheric field like LSD.  Lawrence Gardner’s book at the library is a good history of this which is central to alchemy and ancient occultism.  it is related to einstein-bose condensates and buckeyballs.  its just one of the hundreds of experimental anomalies that we are trying to understand here.  There is no shortage of experimental evidence in this field.  As Dan points out in the video talking about his latest device, the problem is the lack of theory to model and replicate these things we know work, or work sometimes.  Which is why people like Tiller talk about consciousness changing or “raising” the gauge in symmetry theory terms because consciousness effects how this stuff works.  The Tesla tech people have been getting voltage from gravity for decades but they havent been able to make it work reliably because of the lack of theory.  The field needs good mathematicians and theorists precisely because it is mostly experimentalists and a very few less-than critical theorists trying to help these guys get their work out.  But it all depends on the coherence of these fields lines which are drastically altered by environment and consciousness.
…… In any case the point is that the ideas I pitch to you do fit the data, and fit it much better than the normal interpretations.  This is partly because physicists have increasingly abandoned meaning. Back in Einstein and Bohr’s day they would pour over the data and spend a good portion of their time discussing and debating what the data meant.  When they couldn’t really understand what the quantum data was telling them, Bohr’s complementarity set the pattern for the future that the meaning didn’t matter.  Bohm at least tried.  I think Feynman was bothered but had no solution.  Most physicists have been happy with positing new metaphysical entities with magical properties called forces that do whatever they need them to do with no ground or connection to deeper principles that would carry the discovery over into further extrapolations and discoveries.
That you say this about the practise of adding new assumptions for every theoretical problem just to fit the data blows my mind:
And, in my, as well as in the views of many others, rightly so.  If it is not designed to do so, it is not science.
I hope you just mean here that the theory shouldn’t contradict the data, but if that is what you mean, I have to wonder about so many assumptions you must be making about things I am saying.  I am critiquing ad hoc theorizing.  It doesn’t explain anything, open up new research, or even make predictions beyond the formal details of what was already known. All it does is formalize what the data says with arbitrary constructs.  This is what the epicycle theory did.  If this is science we would have never got Newton or Maxwell or Einstein.  I thought this is what we were discussing.
The progress that has happened in physics, since now it is forbidden to have any new revolutions like those that have defined the discipline, has mostly been due to increasingly powerful instruments that usually serve to disprove previous theories rather than confirm them.  But rather than use that data to spur a new revolution in understanding, new metaphysical entities like “dark matter” are invented and the game goes on.  This is bad metaphysics and ends up being bad science because it does not understand what it predicts or finds, and therefore limits its value.
The rest of science has progressed much better than physics precisely because they had to do real science, which means real thinking, as opposed to just improving techniques to refine data and extrapolating mathematics to no end, the “shut up and calculate paradigm”.  As you know, when the systems are just too complex to solve completely, which is almost every real system, you can’t just calculate, you have to think, you have to make decisions about meaning. And because a lot of smart people have been thinking about complex systems for decades now, thinking and testing, testing and thinking, there are definite truths about the way things work that emerge, though there is much room for different interpretations.
 Philosophy as a specific field can come in and help us choose the better interpretations, but there is no sharp division between philosophy and theory.  Philosophy tends to be more general but even strictly experimental scientists have to do some theoretical thinking.  Contemporary philosophy often goes by the name “Theory” for that reason because all the best thought is interdisciplinary. The sharper you make the distinction between science and philosophy, the more it sounds like the medieval “scientists”, claiming the epicycles are proven merely because they model observation, and any other theory that models the data with a new system is heresy.  We truly are at a similar crossroads.  The epicycle theory fit the data well.  Feyerabend has even argued that in some sense the facts were on the side of the Church and they had good reason to distrust the new theory and even refuse to look in Galileo’s telescope.  Feyerabend’s whole “philosophy” by which I mean his analysis of science history,  is a challenge to this notion that science progresses by facts.  Facts are meaningless without interpretation, and different interpretations come and go and often return in new forms, depending on sociological factors.
What often happens is the wrong meaning gets smuggled in without much thought.  And by wrong I mean limited.  As Feyerabend says “there is no idea, no matter how ancient or absurd that can’t add to our knowledge”.  Bad ideas add very little but it isn’t always clear which ones are bad, especially if the context for understanding them is not there.  Which is why older abandoned theories often come back in new forms.  Sometimes an idea or model can explain a little corner of existence, but the better ideas connect that corner with other things, illuminating them and carrying the mind further to new truths and experiments.
But I feel like this is not what this disagreement is about. I mean you gave me Thomas K Simpson.  You seem well read in the scientific literature.  You know the importance of theory.  It is what you do.  You are not an experimental scientist, except in the realm of ideas and mathematics.  The two of Simpson’s books I have are all about how the great theorists like Maxwell used mathematics along with rhetoric to illustrate new theoretical ideas that change our relationship to the data and the world.  You have to know this, so what is this disagreement about? It seems to boil down to your belief that whatever I am interested in may have value you admit, but it must be purely speculative and aesthetic and have no real importance on scientific progress.  I admit I have had similar thoughts of your work, but I took the time to address the ideas as best I could.  And I still would never say that with any certainty because I haven’t really engaged the ideas in any depth.
It seems as if you come to your conclusions because you assume if any of the alternative science stuff was true people would have realized it so you don’t have to actually consider it seriously.  I have directed you to evidence many times but you have never taken it seriously because I think you expect some singular experimental event that everyone recognizes as significant right away.  But this is the way it always is despite the physics mythology.  Michelson/Morley is presented as some key moment that proved the ether theory dead and set up the need for relativity.  But just what it means is still debated and some people still argue it only applies to some of the then current ether theories.  It is considered a turning point because of many factors that are sociological and not just a clear example of evidence breaking theoretical continuity.
 Evidence for my views abounds just as in hindsight we can see how the evidence pointed to new conceptions in key points in physics, but it is never obvious to everyone.  In the past, when there was more respect for conceptual coherence, scientists were hungry enough for new fundamental theories if the old ones didn’t work.  So much so that relativity was given a hearing, despite its radicality and its many problems, because it made some sense, and people cared about sense.  Nowadays it is much different for new radical theories.  As long as they merely add to the structure and don’t challenge any dogma they can be as weird and ridiculous as the worst of the alternative scene.
 But that is different.
You must see that the current paradigm inhibits any new change in view.  I am reading about Maxwell’s revolution with the field concept right now.  It would have never flied today.  No one wants a new view of the universe.  Every new discovery that points to these alternative models I study, or opens up the space for new ones is ignored or neutralized. The significance is not seen because it is easier to explain it away with a new assumption or force than it is to really understand and follow its significance.  Even if the incoherence is so stark they have no explanation, no one notices or cares. (I am reading about the solar eclipse effect on a Foucault pendulum right now, something easily explained with the systems physics, specifically Kozyrev’s model).
Most theories today don’t predict much at all, they have such limited scope and merely fit the data that was already recorded.  The RS fits the data for all science on a general level; it changes the meaning of some fundamental theory, but it doesn’t actually alter the majority of the details, while at the specific points it disagrees with current theory (but not data) it points towards important research that could be done that would add to its predictive superiority.  Only a dozen or so independent researchers have really been working on it, and mostly at a level of generality that is not going to be able to compete in the game of precise predictions at the level of detail that most specialists working with complex instruments at the edge of physics are doing.  There have been successful predictions, but mostly they are playing catch up, as we are all doing with the mountain of research data out there.  But unlike the mainstream, they are finding much of the results coming in from our society’s increasingly sophisticated engineering, makes sense in the RS and flows deductively from the few postulates of one fundamental theory that cover all of nature.
Now you are talking rather metaphysically so I will give you my summary thoughts on this idea which follow Deleuze/Delanda’s theory which they base on systems theory, along with my interpretation of the systems-style physics like the RS:

 What we render as space and time are constructed out of a cascade of symmetry breaks from a unified continuum.  But unlike the “hylomorphic model” that presupposes logical categories imposed on an inert substance, whether that be matter, space, energy or even time as some primordial substrate or attribute of some fundamental objects or monads, the unified continuum contains its own ordinal difference.  In a way you are right that the idea of seriality must presuppose any manifestation.  But this is logical order not necessarily “time” as we know it.  Ancient chinese philosophy says yin and yang are equiprimordial, but in practice, yang is logically prior to yin, ontologically in the sense that heaven, the creative seed of idea, pure motion and incessant change is prior to the receptive, Earth, the seed idea’s specific manifestation.

  But it isn’t that space receives the forms from heaven/mind/time as a passive receptacle.  There is a cascade of symmetry breaks that creates increasingly bound and eventually metric and euclidean spaces each with their own kind of time, all in order to realise and develop the values of the higher topological levels (Klein’s hierarchy).  Delanda emphasizes that this actualization of the virtual is not realization of an essence because the topological singularities that structure all actual processes, are realized divergently.  The qualities that actual things posses don’t resemble their attractors and in fact often hide the “intensive” dynamics that created them under the cover of the the contingent convergences of process in the resulting form (like parallel evolutionary convergence).
This is just my summary of ideas that fall out of the logic that is suggested by the whole paradigm of evidence that is systems thinking.  Categories are useful if the sets are fuzzy and contingent, but one must not reify the abstractions, but understand their genesis historically and topologically.  Things form out of an intensive continuum, not just in some primordial beginning, which assumes linear time, but in every moment, whether it is the birth of elements in stars or the birth of life out of a chemical gradient. That continuum is always a meshwork of abstract relations of pure magnitude, ratios of change that can be given a framework that translates the ratio into space/time or time/space.  This idea inductively derived from general science is roughly the idea that the RS starts with and deductively predicts and explains everything on.
 Most science is done these days as exploratory research, not explicit adherence to the scientific method with formal hypothesis and all that. Feyerabend argues it never was done that way.  It is difficult to generalize across all fields but some of the best data is being generated from the many strategies of data collection that don’t originate with a specific falsifiable hypotheses, and some of the most corrupted data is coming from those with a particular point to make with much pressure to find what they expect to find.  Tactics range from deliberate tampering and obfuscation, to the universal method of mathematical fudging in physics.
With so much research and so many conflicting conclusions being drawn, the most practical and useful  theory is done to model the data gained from research for further analysis and extrapolation.  Besides the mediocre niche predictions of the specialists, the most important theorizing is extrapolation to general and qualitative directions that can open up new avenues of research, like yours and Larson’s; very little of important science fits the falsifiability process that Popper idealized and Feyerabend repeatedly debunked.
I was attributing to you the belief in things like “dark matter”, which is by all admitted to be a name for something they don’t understand. It is little more than a placeholder.  I understand you think that you only accept theories provisionally, until a better model has been demonstrated in experiment.  What you have to understand is that all the models in physics have been breaking down for decades in face of new data.  The experimental technology is way beyond the theory and the theory is so broken that even the fudges and ad hoc theories aren’t working.  You can’t buy the hype of the main science news.  Plenty of physicists are speaking out and even mainstream news stories are coming out with pieces on the corruption of science research in general.  People like Miles Mathis are documenting much of the problems in physics and have been offering more coherent models for some time, but there are plenty of dissenters in the establishment too that still use some of the old theory even as they point in new directions.  Better alternatives abound.  What the smart dissenters are doing is looking at the system of theory itself for the truth rather than taking the theoretical objects in the theory for granted as truth.  This more abstract approach is having more success at the highest levels of mainstream theory as the ideas of particles and forces are becoming more and more just abstract symmetry relations.  It’s all coming back to topology.  It’s all about the structure of differential relations.  This is no absolute truth either but it gives us a more general picture of the phenomenon we are dealing with as opposed to the often misleading generalizations and predictions coming from models based on specific objects and their supposed qualities.
 For example, what Delanda is at pains in his books to show is how often the qualities we ascribe to entities as being their essence in relation to some category are exactly not essential to their meaning and history.  Yes a certain chemical element has a certain number of electrons but what is important for real understanding and prediction is precisely the things that change about an entity, its differential structure that emerges from the possibility space, in this case the space of possible atomic structures, isotopic variants that determine transmutation potentials and patterns between elements that predict the patterns of chemical synthesis
There is a difference between the rather generic notion of objects affecting each other at a distance or together creating a field that conditions or constitutes an entity, and the concept of multiplicity that Deleuze gets from what Bergson and Husserl developed from Riemann.  Again, I think you realize the need to get beyond essentialism and want a truly immanent theory, but what these guys are saying is that dialectical philosophy, by merely opposing and combining the one and the many, fail to produce the immanent structure of possibilities that constitute an entity in its differential structure.  The categories created by dialectics are much too general and abstracted from identities reified from other abstractions. The concept of multiplicity helps us instead evaluate each thing as an accumulation of capacities–not a static and definable list of qualities, but something with a structure of possibilities where we must be aware and justify the choice of parameters that define this structure. Unlike Derrida who highlights this core of choice and undecidability,  Deleuze has definite suggestions for modelling things along possibilities that highlight their potential for new connections, which is why he tends to put down the “arborescent” structure of dialectic in favor of the “rhizome” pattern that creates divergent spaces of actualization.
 I don’t think the contrast between identity/presence and difference/multiplicity is as black and white as he makes it, and think dialectic has its place. But we can see the limitations of this approach of placing things within a singular organizing space with general relativity, which in my opinion stops short of the radicalization of space that Deleuze sees in Riemann.  The result is we still have a global embedding space, even if with Einstein it is no longer Euclidean, even if, as you say, the object can affect itself, you still have space as a container or universal medium.  Instead I am suggesting space emerges in progressive symmetry breaks through a virtual possibility space that imposes a reference system on a unified but heterogeneous continuum, thereby creating spatial and temporal relationships that structure any entity through its unique history and differential relations in possibility space.  The RS gets specific with the physics of this idea, as it deduces all the ways abstract ratios at the projective layer of manifestation can get distributed through different reference systems depending on the level of symmetry and the combinations of motion. These combinations can create very different speed ranges which drastically affect the manifestation of time–this makes a big difference in astronomy and lead to Larson’s correct predictions concerning pulsars and quasars since only in his theory are these things understood with their necessary involvement with high speed motion (faster than light through motion combinations) 
Nothing guarantees validity.  The fact that what passes for hard science has kept reductive models and distorted reality into meaningless niches doesn’t indeed mean they are wrong, but in this case the trend in Theory, where people are actually thinking through the consequences of ideas and finding ways of modelling that liberate, connect and open a wondrous space for new ideas and exploration, suggests it is a promising path.  All you are doing is siding with the mainstream trend.  We are all working with the same data.  Even within the mainstream there are always many alternative ways of modelling, especially in complex fields.  It isn’t just fashion that decides competing theories that both fit the data.  Numerous forces are at work in every field.  I am merely advocating for an alternative thread that has penetrated the mainstream more in fields where cooperation and interdisciplinary knowledge can guide us.  This was Feyerabend’s suggestion as well.  Not to collapse field boundaries, but let the connections between fields guide are evaluation of theory.  Science studies as a field is an important bulwark against the ignorance many seem to display when it comes to process of peer review and scientific consensus.  ‘—————————————————-
The key point here is that everything is a unique individual, especially more complex individuals like humans or a society;  we are all singular and unique.  That isn’t to say devoid of structure, but everything derives its structure in ways that are part of other entities not just in some diffuse external way based on external qualities or placement in extension space, but rather placement in space and time are ways of representing that differential structure itself so our categories tend to obfuscate the inner space of possibilities that define an individual by thinking about it as a member of a class of entities bound by their sameness.  Difference is older than Being as Derrida was fond of saying. Or Being is that differential continuum which Heidegger seemed to have meant.  Deleuze says Multiplicity=univocity.
The topological continuum is very limited by its extreme symmetry, so yes the introduction of projective, affine, metric, euclidean stratas introduce increasing breaks in symmetry and make possible the richness of form we see here.  But even at the most primordial/complex layers of Being, there is always difference, asymmetry as you say, which unfolds as Being, as difference, as those ordinal series become embodied as motion in space, of which the affine layer, which begins the assumption of in/out in what Larson calls “scalar motion” is a natural consequence. 
 The basic scalar motion of what he calls the “outward expansion of the natural reference frame” which happens at the speed of light, is only viewed as a motion from the stationary reference frame in the space we inhabit of low speed motion because we experience the inward scalar motion of gravity which, like all forces are products of motion not the cause.  At the level of unity, light speed, the ratio is 1/1 so it isn’t really motion except in combination with other motions that are inherent within the possibilities of a unity which not a static blob of symmetry but a ratio of unity that can create worlds of realization within the reference frames wedged between zero and 1 and 1 and infinity.  
Post-modern to me means complex… defying representation in a single metanarrative. Postmodern theory didn’t create the decadence or complexity of our postmodern society, they have just responded to it.  At its best in the complexity paradigm, truth, metaphysics, ontology, metanarratives, whatever you want to call them or it, aren’t abandoned as much as they are used with awareness of the dangers and contingencies. The practical fruition is the evolving maturity of our ideas that are becoming more adapted to dealing with difference and diversity, to truly appreciating each individual without homogenizing all their complexity, without undermining them down to their parts or overmining them up to some generic category.
No. It is a rigorously developed concept that wraps through and practically defines the last century of Theory.  I can’t do it justice in a few words, but it wraps through the themes of these emails as it is.  Basically a thing is made out of difference, it is not self same.  You might say in you terms that it has self duality, but that dialectical tension is not between any two things that are ever completely present either.  For Derrida Being is Differance with an”a”which he coined because it isn’t just another spatial concept of difference but also temporal; things don’t just differ from themselves they defer themselves.  Everything is within a context and we cannot take any context for granted as being the right one.  We always have to justify our selection.  In the context of this discussion, drilling down to the bedrock of reality only gets us smaller and smaller mirrors of our chosen framework.  It won’t show us the larger context in which these things are appearing, just more debris from our assumption that things are made out of stuff.  Larson’s assumption is that everything comes into being through motions not of any thing but through the absolute magnitudes of differential relations that can be fed through reference frames that change motion from an abstract cross-ratio tied to the the unity of lightspeed as a natural reference frame, into vector motion and patterns of motion that create the objects we see.
Everyone has their reasons for why they think the way they do.  Some people are more aware of those reasons.  Some people have better reasons.  You seem to think you are above the personal but we are all on the same ground.  I have my experience, and I listen to as much of other people’s experience and try to understand the world that would produce all the experiences I have and am exposed to.  My preferences reflect the ideas that explain more of the world in a better way.
Great talk. The physicist I mentioned is named Wolframm Schommers.  He isn’t the most sophisticated or up to date philosopher either.  He is an explicit Kantian.  But his “projection principle” is an example of a more mainstream physicist coming to the same or similar conclusions as most of us who try to think through the problems of physics.  I have several of his books if you want to borrow them.  But I think the inversion that Deleuze does to traditional thinking is necessary to truly get a grasp on what we are talking about.  Projection or “emergence” as you called it are two ways of talking about the abstraction process, one more subjectivist one more objectivist, but both assuming a causal chain originating in a transcendent source.  The Big Bang is just a projection/abstraction, but every projection is also situated within a differential process of continual creation and improvisation.  Deleuze and Derrida don’t destroy the subject, they “situate it” as Derrida once defended his work.  I think Deleuze accomplishes true immanence in a way that Spinoza, Peirce and Hegel were all trying to do, not by making subjectivity and novelty merely an emergent phenomenon conceived as epiphenomenon, not by reversing Hegel into dialectical materialism but by refusing to “tether” the dialectic to any foundational opposition as Plato does, and instead acknowledging that all beginning and endings, all limits, are just contextual negotiations between regimes of signs.  That is more of a semiotic way of putting it, whereas Deleuze has a detailed materialist philosophy, but he is a unique Spinozian materialist where the essential substance is difference itself.

“Diagrammatic Immanence” explores this well.  Here is an excerpt from the Deleuze section:

  “Deleuze’s thought is best understood as formally topological in essence. The model of Ideas that Deleuze differentiates from the regulative one of Kant through a kind of quasi-inversion of Platonic-Husserlian eidei neither serves a limiting function nor plays the role of original or type with respect to possible copies or tokens. Instead, Ideas are the higher-order thresholds that mark qualitative shifts in the real transformations of actualities themselves. As Bryant puts it, ‘Deleuze conceives Ideas topologically as sets of variations or deformations in which one form can pass into another while maintaining a structural identity, rather than as fixed forms to which individuals more or less correspond. More exactly, Ideas are not mere collections of variations but are rather determinations of the relative cohesiveness of such collections. The Ideas are immanent, ideal, structural conditions determining relations among the variables (the real variations) of some domain: ‘what Ideas define is an ideal topological or differential essence characterizing a field of variations or permutations’. The Ideas define the field itself, and are at a second remove from the objects or entities the field’s transformations map. The model of philosophical experience proposed by Deleuze is thus one of purely conceptual (second-order) dilations, contractions, inflections, gluings and tearings. These are characteristics of continuous multiplicities, not properties of objects. And as Peirce emphasised, continuity is never composed of points even if points may always be abstracted from continua. Deleuze’s conception of Ideas as singularities may be understood in this sense as being in accord with a broadly Peircean approach to metaphysics: A singularity is not a point. So long as we conceive singularity after the fashion of a point, we remain unable to understand the different properties which Deleuze attributes to them. Rather, we must treat singularities as being a sort of thread, flow, distension, or ‘smear.’ A singularity is a thread or expanse of becoming. It is a duration.”
I would say, ala Dewey Larson’s scheme, that the quantification of every relation as a ratio can deductively anticipate or explain the empirical data of physics, where the intensive, topologically invariant processes are “projectively” actualized through material processes through the successive symmetry breaks of increasingly segmented geometry in Klein’s descending hierarchy.  So there are not basic units of space or time, but rather basic units of relation that are not transcendentally conditioned but immanently formed into basic units of change, becoming, process that always necessarily has two aspects, one that is fixed or normalized to judge the other against. We translate these as space and time, but there are different ways of actualizing these ratios and those actualizations reciprocally alter the original abstracted relation.  Different spaces/actualizations affect each other in shear stresses explored by Steiner’s and Larson’s students:  My paper discusses this more coherently and concretely:http://www.creativecoherence.org/2019/02/10/it-could-have-been-otherwise/
Here is a relevant passage from another book on Deleuze:
“…as x and y become infinitely small and approach zero in the differential relation dy/dx, we end up with a differential relation that is irreducible to the determinate, extensive terms of the differential itself, but the differential can come to be identified with the limit of the relations.  In other words, the differential relation can come to be seen as identical to the determinate , extensive limit that is reached as x and y become zero., or in the differential relation dy/dx=z, it is the determinate value or limit z that takes on–in a true cover up–the identity of of the differential relation as x and y become infinitely small….On this reading, therefore, every determinate, finite term can be understood as the limit of a differential relation.  Deleuze, however, is interested in the absolute nature of the infinite , the absolutely infinite or unlimited (apeiron in Greek).  As a result, each determinate finite phenomenon is not simply to be understood as the determinate limit of a differential relation, but more importantly for Deleuze, each of the terms of this relation is itself the limit of yet another differential relation, and so on ad infinitum.  In other words, and as the fundamental theorem of the calculus argues, the derivative of a function gives us the determinate slope of the tangent, and this can become in turn the antiderivative or integral that is the infinite sum of infinitesimals.   This relation between a determinate phenomenon (the slope of a tangent one reaches through the derivative of a function) and an infinite sum of intensive differences and infinitesimals (the integral) is what Deleuze, as we have seen, calls disparity.”
Or to sum up, from the same book:
“[Deleuze and Guattari] seek to challenge those who take the transcendent and determinate to be the condition when it is precisely that which is conditioned. “