WIDENING THE RABBIT HOLE: The Astrology of Elon Musk

April 7, 2022

See this.

An old friend who used to live here in Bloomington Indiana, Susan Knilans, commented on yesterday’s post, urging me to “think bigger” re: Elon Musk. It’s true, I need to do that, and in fact for that post I was dismayed to realize that it was already so long that I would need to cut it short, and NOT put up Elon Musk’s astrology chart, nor the reference to an incredible interview in Vanity Fair of Grimes, his girlfriend and mother of two of his seven children, “X,” a little boy, and “Y” a little girl. Reading through that interview, I couldn’t help but feel that I was “in way over my head” to even attempt to understand either her, or him. Their relationship —  of equals — I could grok, in their need to live separately, given her penchant for messy anime in contrast with his frugal simplicity. But clearly, it appears to me that they are BOTH geniuses in their generation, and as such, way beyond this old crone.

On the other hand, Susan, I find it hard to imagine how I could “think bigger” than to speculate, the way I did in that post, on the inherent short-sightedness, incompleteness, of any relationship between the all-pervading Mysterium in which we are immersed and all names and structures, whether visible or invisible, that aim to capture, and therefore, predict and control it.

Be that as it may, what I was doing in speaking of the relationship between humans and the Mysterium in which we are immersed, is another way of saying that all our assumptions, logical or otherwise, are based on nothing, are forms floating in the Mysterium with no anchor beyond. I.e., that there is no Archimedian Point, no “reliably certain position or starting point that serves as a basis for argument or reasoning.” (Merriam-Webster).

I imagine that Elon Musk, the equal of NIcola Tesla for whom he named one of his companies, both of them archetypal American inventors, innovators, nurtured by this (formerly?) great nation — which constitutionally recognizes individual freedom as a God-given right that no human government can take away — would agree with me. That when Elon Musk invents, he plays in the Mysterium, driven by passion, forming and reforming structures, both invisible and visible, according to rules he makes up as he goes along. Why not? Once we realize that there is no “bottom line,” anything is possible, anything.

Unlike Tesla, who never was able to come out from under the industrial and economic powers determined to keep him down, Musk is not only the archetypal, celebrated American inventor, he is also an immensely successful business tycoon who sold his first company for $22 M when he was only 27 years old. 

As a curmudgeonly crone, I bow before his extraordinary prowess as well as his impish sense of humor. Furthermore, I recognize that the way he thinks and furthermore, what may be even more rare, the way, with an always experimental playful attitude, he manifests in what Clif High calls the “Materium” (to which I contrast the Mysterium, as its enclosure) is all simply way beyond what I can imagine, much less think about.

So, Susan, I wish I could “think bigger, “but I’ve reached my own limit, and I laud Elon Musk and other intrepid pioneers of his and other generations  younger than me, who hopefully, will make sure that our beautiful Earth is redirected from the dark path that has been set for her by the New World Order agenda.

And BTW: remember that Musk’s “neurolink” does implant human brains with A.I. My concerns are warranted.

Here’s his chart, set for June 28, 1971, 6:30 AM, Pretoria, South Africa.

The first thing I notice in this chart is that the Ascendant is in the final degree of Gemini at 29°18. From what I have gleaned over the years, the final degree of any sign is, or should, signify Mastery. Either the soul has learned all there is to know about how, in this case, the conscious mind, the endlessly curious left brained reasoning mind works, and is here to offer that Mastery to the world, or: this life is the soul’s final opportunity to achieve Mastery in this realm. And perhaps, no matter what the soul has already learned in this area, there’s always more to discover, an understanding that I wager Musk knows in his bones; thus his experimental attitude, which, in his case, bears so much fruit.

Furthermore:

Back to his chart: When you combine that 29° Gemini Ascendant with its near exact geometrical triangular configuration with three other planets — a 150° inconjunct aspect of continuous adjustment to a close conjunction of gigantic Jupiter at 27° of passionate, determined, depth oriented Scorpio, and visionary Neptune at 0° of reaching-for-the- stars Sagittarius, both in turn opposite serious, goal-oriented Saturn at 1° of Gemini, itself semi-sextile, i.e., 30° from the 29° Gemini Ascendant, then we can see how his inventive, visionary, determinedly passionate self really roars.

Plus, and here’s the other part of his chart that really struck home for me: His first house Sun is at 5°51 of home-loving, tender-hearted Cancer, exactly conjunct the U.S. Jupiter, and his Mercury sits at 13° Cancer, exactly conjunct the U.S. Sun. Could there be a more iconic connection than this man to symbolize the famous, constantly expanding, innovative spirit of the United States of America?

Furthermore, to me, his Cancerian nature also renders this next remark, and smile, totally sincere.

Oh, and, wouldn’t you know, both his Sun and mercury are square volatile, inventive, unpredictable Uranus in Libra and sextile Moon in detailed, figure-it-out Virgo.

P.S. I do think Musk bought the 9% twitter stake with the goal of guaranteeing free speech. However, I also note a contradiction between that goal and his neurolink designs. If one assumes, as I do, that the point of free will is to make karmic choices, the lessons of which are then learned by the soul, then what happens to the soul when humans morph into transhumans? If soulless, can AI be programmed to make ethical choices, i.e., to follow good and eschew evil? If so, then can that program be subsequently altered? If so, by whom, or what?

 

 

DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE: Elon Musk, Twitter, Free Speech, and Artificial Intelligence

April 6, 2022

I had wondered, during my recent forced 36 hour internet fast, what the big news would be while I was gone.

Yep. Here it is. Elon Musk now owns 9% of Twitter, is suddenly its largest shareholder, and has been invited to join Twitter’s board.

Does this mean he will return Twitter to its original status as a relatively free speech zone? In other words, would he “change the algorithm”? And if so, how?

Remember: “Algorithms provide the instructions for almost any A.I. system.”

Or as this long and very interesting twitter thread asks:

As late as 2018, Musk warned about A.I, claiming it’s more dangerous than even nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Osn1gMNtw&ab_channel=ElonMuskViralVideos

But then how does his warning jive with his obvious love of the enormous possibilities of A.I., not to mention his WEF-type plans to interface humans with A.I. to the point we morph into transhuman, part machine?

So yes, is Elon Musk “controlled opposition,” there on twitter to make us feel like he’s going to save free speech, when in actually, he wants to turn humans into robots; in which case, would not the term “free speech” lose its meaning?

Doesn’t a person have to be a free agent in order to have free speech? A free agent who faces choices in his or her life and can decide which choice to make, often with karmic/dharmic consequences depending?

And yet, yes, you could say that A.I. will enable “transhumans” to make decisions based on an infinitely greater number of assumptions and their permutations than can a merely human being.

And yet, I remain of the massively stubborn innate notion that each TRULY human being (letting out clones, and possibly, psychopaths) has a soul, which in turn implies a conscience, its struggle between good and evil.

Assuming one has broken free of early indoctrination (a big assumption; not many make it), from then on, each freely arrived at choice (with its karmic feedback) educates the conscience to ultimately prefer good over evil, no matter what.

Thus, ultimately, the soul leads us in the direction of our consciously chosen intent, or “life purpose,” what asks to be achieved prior to death,

Transhumanist robots, theoretically, could live forever. Death is not an issue. Nor then, would be “life purpose;” the free will to choose whether or not to follow its shining path.

Not sure where I’m going here, but I do want to add that, way back in graduate school, circa 1966, when I came across Alan Turing, and his concept of Artificial Intelligence, I shuddered. Somehow, I knew intuitively that A.I. would intrude more and more into not just the way we think, but who we think we are. That the divide between man and machine would erode. Already, a part of me was aware of the globalist transhumanist agenda.

Then there’s the question of whether or not a computer can become like HAL in the film 2001, self-aware — but soulless, i.e., with no curbs, no karma to rein one back in. What would guarantee that A.I. didn’t go psychopathic and turn on us? Would that depend on its original algorithms, how they were programmed (by humans, or another A.I.) to hook together? But how would the all-too-human creator (of the other A.I. also) make sure that this would not happen, or if it did, that benevolence was guaranteed, despite the absence of a soul?

Remember: whatever we program into machines, exists primordially, as supposedly discovered, but actually created, bits, tiny dots or data points. And remember: a point has no dimension, therefore there is always space between any two points. But what is this “space”? I’ll call it, for want of a better term, the Mysterium, that infinite presence that lies within and beyond all that we can reach, or point to, or name, with our five outer senses. Equally, the Mysterium lies within us; beyond self-awareness, there is the calm, abiding awareness of being aware. Again, the presence.

What A.I. does (what science does, what any language does), is pick up on (create) dots, link them together to make webs, and then assume that this web is both equivalent to the Mysterium as well as its more or less exact mirror, or facsimile.

More and more, I can see what Kant was getting at when he called the world outside our minds the “ding an sich” (the unknown “thing in itself”), and argued that our minds themselves contain an innate space/time framework, which we then impose on that great unknown, that Mysterium, pretending that our minds can both understand and reflect its reality.

And, assuming the Mysterium, would not it then be possible to always discover/create another data point from that great unknown which, when inserted into already existing A.I. webs, would or could then change everything?

In other words, here’s what I think I’m getting at: Is not A.I. simply the apotheosis of our unstated (scientistic) attitude that if we just keep going, some day we will ultimately know everything, and therefore: be able to predict and control the future? And yet, if we can always pluck a new data point out of the Mysterium, then all bets are off. The future remains Mysterious.

Then there’s this scholarly work that distinguishes between A.I. automation and augmentation, noting the political and economic perils of automation, but ignoring? not realizing? what I consider to be the even stronger perils of augmentation (of human minds, i.e., transhumanism).

The Turing Trap: The Promise & Peril of Human-Like Artificial Intelligence

Or, how about this? The Dalai Lama considering the possibility of someone who loves computers in one life being reincarnated as A.I. in another.

Dalai Lama on reincarnation and artificial intelligence

So, will Elon Musk influence the Twitter board to change the algorithm, to allow free speech? But, now that you’ve followed me down the above rabbit hole, what does that word “free” even mean in Musk’s promised A.I. dominated world?