FM> By "universe" I would mean ALL THAT IS.
 DB> Excluding all that *was*, or all that *will* be?  All that *is* has
 DB> patterns that we organize by conceptualizing them along a timeline.
 DB> Whether the past existed or not is not the point, it is the way to
 DB> organize what we see that counts.
   I find myself more inclined toward the Platonic-Augustinian assumption 
hat
time is attached to the universe as the symbol for one of the features of the
universe.  What might have been BEFORE can only be symbolized negatively as
"eternity."  I only smile when I hear fundamentalists speak of "going" into
eternity - as though one were not living in "eternity" already!  I don't 
oubt
that in the world of science there is a "past" and a "future."  We are just
prohibited from ever living in it.  We approach knowledge about it through
both science and myth but in truth we can only LIVE a present - do you not
agree.  With Liebnitz and Whitehead it seems reasonable to view every entity
as being hooked to another entity and with Chardin one is tempted to 
mphasize
the "within" of things which may or may not have features of the chaotic.  
 DB> You see yourself in a body that seems to have existed for several
 DB> decades; you find it operates in ways consistent with that way of
 DB> looking at it. You, and I, and the whole universe may have been created
 DB> just last week, just as we find ourselves.  But as to the functionality,
 DB> we find it pragmatic to see the universe as some 15 billion, or whatever
 DB> years old, and gives us expectations of what we can do with what we got,
 DB> a way to organize what we see.
   Yes, indubitably!  The kicker (grin) is the symbol "week."  The 
nteresting
phenomenon is, however, that as we make archeological and historical finds we
see an amazing unity in modes of symbolizing existence in the present.  The
Sumerian historiogenesis with ITS mode of acknowledging a beyond and a
beginning differs only in details from OUR mode in which we understand the
whole from our point of view of science - and rightly so as long as we
acknowledge the boundaries of theory.  
   From one point of view, I am an infinitesimally small dot of an eyeblink 
n
a world that for some mysterious reason becomes somewhat intelligble to me in
part.  From another point of view I stare in amazement at this consciousness
of man (part of Chardin's 'within of things') in which "the gods" have
"chosen" to utilize as a nous by which an experience of tension and
transcendence can be grasped to some extent by this portion of an "eyeblink." 
   I've done some thinking on your postings relative to the expanding of
consciousness through drugs.  How this might affect the whole of reality, I'm
not quite sure but on one aspect of this I can certainly take a positive 
iew.
I don't think ANY human being should have to suffer pain and discomfort if
there are drugs that with skillful use which can relieve same.  Use by the
healthy, I'm not so certain about.  I've never quite comprehended how an
"expanded personal consciousness" could benefit ON the way down or IN the 
OWN
stage.  After I got hold of myself my highs were confined to two martinis!!  

cannot dismiss your emphasis on drugs and relation to "revelation," out of
hand.  Not sure, however, how this would promote the kind of steady
differentiation that would move from theophany to theophany.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------