Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

reply to post by corsair00


I havent read all of vallees books but that was one that I have read and found it deep, it is one of those reads I wish I could remember word for word so I can think about what was said actively because there is so much insight involved. I find insight often times more truthful then information alone. Thanks for the recap of that, in an earlier post that is long buried in this thread I put a link where you can read MOD for free online.

Brotherman
...I find insight often times more truthful then information alone. Thanks for the recap of that, in an earlier post that is long buried in this thread I put a link where you can read MOD for free online.

Good on you and corsair both in my view. The greatest depth that I can personally "grok" is in the form of questions of superior form & fathoms. Those that force me to acknowledge paradox and suggest the beginnings of answers---if that makes sense.

That's what I admire about Vallee and eschew in folk like Friedman. If one can't ask oneself good questions, how can we ever come to a personal direction or working philosophy? Barring that, we are forever at the mercy of vagary and chance.

reply to post by The GUT


Question is the canvas, your mind is the paint brush, the picture is the combination, scrutiny is the presentation. The last part of the painting is the most telling of the process but everything up to it is where personal learning happens and those types of learnings do not come with words, can't prove it, and don't need to at that point.

The GUT:

Sometimes the mind can't comprehend or define what the heart knows.
I wonder; will you know the answer when you find it?
Perhaps you haven't found the right question yet.....

It might just be a coincidence, but a few days after posting to this thread 'The Network Revolution' by Jacques Vallee, which has been freely available on Google Books for a few years now, the ebook has since been removed from that site and Vallee's personal website. I was part way through reading it when it was taken offline. You might recall in the introduction to the book, Vallee wrote (in 1982):

This book is a compendium
Of missing memory frames:
Forbidden facts of our Solid State
Erased by the Master Programmers.
We are corrupt technologists briefly recalling
The insights of Yesteryear.
When we discard these passing memories
The machine will rule without a thought
For the greed and the hope that made it all happen.

It is entirely possible that Vallee does not want people to focus on this early work, since it was seriously updated/revised into another book of his called 'The Heart of the Internet'. These books are primarily dedicated to showcasing the early history of computer and internet technology, the main players and breakthrough inventors who are largely unsung, and Vallee's concerns that corporate and government interests would usurp the internet for purposes of control. He emphasizes at the beginning of the books: Information Is Control.

Any book concerned with networking must begin with this fact.

There is no such thing as obtaining information (from consulting a file, for instance) without obtaining a measure of control over the objects or persons that the file describes; hence the fascination exerted by the Internet for advertising firms and marketing tycoons.

There are a few differences between Vallee's 'The Network Revolution' versus 'The Heart of the Internet', especially considering the first was written in 1982 and the second in 2004, and entire chapters such as 'The Engines of Humanity Are Overheating' are excluded from 'The Heart of the Internet'. The information beneath that chapter heading states: "In which the author explains why technology has a life of its own; He remarks that computer applications are out of control and builds a strong case for the creation of a new field, a science of Apocalypse Management". He lays out the profound reality of a technological and evolutionary cascade: a process of exponential acceleration.

What do these curves mean, then? Simply that human development is not going to slow down under the effects of the ordinary constraints of the environment, not after it has followed a smoothly-growing curve for three million years. What we can see for the next generation (our children, not our grandchildren) is a major discontinuity that may express itself in political and population changes, in space emigration, or perhaps through change in belief systems and human social behavior. Even if they do not involve the ultimate horrors of a nuclear war, these changes will be like nothing ever experienced before, and the computer is right in the middle of the process: even after considering all of the other accelerating patterns we have reviewed, the acceleration of computer technology sticks out in an obscene way. It suggests that humanity may be able to build the next level of intelligent beings long before Nature is able to evolve it.

For the purposes of archiving this information for posterity, I bring 'The Network Revolution' back from the missing 0s and 1s: Jacques Vallee - The Network Revolution: Confessions of a Computer Scientist.

Holy #. So if I'm reading this right:

We actually provoked a reaction by the Control System - albit the human one. And Vallee called the Singularity before Vinge...and apparently has been reading this thread.

The Gut - I have a funny feeling. I just don't know what it means. :/

reply to post by corsair00


So basically, man is being led to disbelieve in the spiritual/metaphysical aspect of themselves? It's all ET an random misfires in the brain causing a chemical malfunction?

Either there is no Creator that we are a part of, and we have no access to a higher state, or it's very important to keep us from realizing how powerful the mind can be and what it's capable of.

reply to post by nugget1


If you want to look at it from the perspective of the Christian mythos and the astrological cycles of energy that cast their archetypal influence on the spiritual evolution of humanity, the age and power of the Christian mythos itself was represented by the Age of Pisces. The shift between Pisces and Aquarius has already happened, which is why the Christian archetype is receding dramatically.

What is happening is the birth of a new spiritual archetype, and although the process is more or less organic and out of everyone's control, there are enormously powerful occult forces that might be trying to manipulate it towards a darker outcome.

But this is all a planetary birth pain, and if you want to bring your Christian perspective to bear on what's happening, you can go ahead and see it as our awaiting the Second Coming of Christ. That metaphor is essentially correct, but it will not be just some man, so to speak - but it might come "like a thief in the night".

I have absolutely no interest in pigeonholing humanity to one specific religion, especially one that was created for people in a different time and place and having been retranslated several times, thus neutering the original message - but I could go for a new global religion... at least the idea is valid. But I think spirituality is sufficient and no religious Control System is absolutely necessary. But at first, the world will need something dramatic to bring us all together...

if you want to bring your Christian perspective to bear on what's happening,

reply to post by corsair00


Not really a 'Christian' perspective; just a conviction that everything was created by one Source that we are a part of.
The Christian perspective offers clues to our origins, as does folk lore, etc.....all of which are merely convoluted adjectives.
I can sense the big picture, but it isn't in focus enough to see yet. Too many pieces still missing.
Ms.Nugget

The GUT
I'd give you a "touche" were it more than a mere scratch.

If it scratched I apologise, I must have over-extended the parry, you were meant only to feel a prick to emphasise your behaving like one.

The GUT
With you, dear braniac, I get frustrated with your many critiques minus much in the way of anything empirical, while showing much reticence to actually state where you are coming from. I beg you; state your philosophy simply, clearly, and then feel free to wax as philosophically critical--and arcanely--as though wouldst, mi lady.

How can you in one breath talk of empiricism and in the next acknowledge that we are in the territory of paradox? I have repeatedly stated that the key to my personal understanding and perception, of all things, is self-knowledge. I have not shown any reticience in expressing that whatsoever. If you have not understood my form of expressing that, and it has frustrated you, then feel free to ask a more direct question of the specific point that you require clarification on? I cannot simply lay out my life story and the various steps that I have taken to reach where I am now, and I truly hope that you can understand that. If you have a direct question, ask it, but don't expect me to predict what is troubling you about 'me' because I don't, as a rule, give a rat's ass what people think about me. If my 'critiques' as a rule frustrate you, call me out on it, so that I can clarify and/or be corrected, but again, without knowing what it is that is specifically troubling you, I have no intention of restating everything that I have stated within this thread. I have not criticised anyone's ideology, to the best of my knowledge. I may have criticised the value of the empirical evidence that has been presented to support some of those beliefs if it is outdated or contradicted, but where individuals have stated simple and personal 'belief frameworks' I have not intruded or at least I have tried not to. If you can demonstrate otherwise, then please, by all means, point them out.

The GUT
With Bybyots--I love him too--but blaming everything on temporal lobe epilepsy while refusing to address "consciousness," and vacillating on whether Persinger is a sham, or a scientific stalwart, is equally a "Doh!"

I personally find the TLL and TLE aspect deeply exciting. The vacillation that you seem so critical of merely reflects the paradoxical problem that we are looking into and why empiricism is not yet sufficiently capable of address that particular paradox.

I take it that you have seen the Goethe thread? I will assume that you have, as well as Bybyot's comments on that thread. For me, the interesting aspect is that only Goethe could see the phenomenon which clearly indicates that it was a subjective event, but also that the location of the 'event' was a quarry. Now, for the entirely secular amongst us, if we are the take the TLL or TLE as given (just for the moment, as a hypothetical), we might conclude that Goethe was having a hallucination based on a brain misfiring and that his brain conjured up something out of thin air and he saw nothing 'real'. For those of a spiritual bent, could conclude that Goethe's brain responded to certain stimuli based on numerous internal and external factors, and that due to certain conditions that he was able to see something 'real' that others could not. While Persinger does not confirm a 'spiritual' aspect, he does confirm that the brain can receive information in ways that transcend the five sensory model. The variation of results and difficulty in replication of results, which prevents it being accepted empirically by the scientific establishment, means that while we cannot categorically accept the results as 'fact' we can include them in addressing the paradox. That is, we can accept the possibility and enter it into the broader equation as we share, compare and contrast our personal perceptions.

The GUT
My remarks were a premeditated challenge…and a counter-reply was anticipated. I didn't think Bybyots would bail that easily, however. I've actually given his proffering a lot of consideration, but the "materialism" keeps sticking in my craw when all is said and done. I'm not through considering it, but until we deal with consciousness, it's a bird flying into a clear--but substantial--window

Hypocrite? I may play coy for a bit, but I always state my bottom line. Thou?

I see no bottom line, or coy-ness for that matter. Passive aggressive would be a far better summary.

I am at a loss, do you want proof that your 'spirit' exists? If you feel contained in your physical self, then is that not proof in itself?

I don't ascribe to any belief system and have no developed philosophy, I love Jesus's teachings, and as I have worked for a church for the last couple of years I have tried to fully immerse myself in those teachings, but at the same time, I feel no connection to 'the Father' which somewhat excludes me from being a Christian per see. I have also engaged with the teachings of many other faiths, and that of their masters (and mistresses). To insert a cliché, actually, it's parphrasing from a Barbra Streisand song, "the more I learn the less I know", but the learning, none the less, thrills my 'soul', so maybe that is the point or my point at least.

I am happy for you to prod and poke to your heart's content. I don't promise to be any less frustrating, but I can assure you that I respond far better to the direct approach

KilgoreTrout
If it scratched I apologise, I must have over-extended the parry, you were meant only to feel a prick to emphasise your behaving like one.

How true and delightfully stated. Gave me a big smile that's rather persistent this morn. I already felt rather ashamed of myself and have truly wondered; besides being a prick, if I wasn't also a thick one and frustrated at my own intellectual ceiling. While I do sincerely apologize for aspects of my ranty pout, I'm also somewhat pleased that I did provoke a more focused clarity--and even some personal depth--as evidenced by your reply. Less Spock, more KT if you will. So, I'm rather proud and shamefaced at the same time.

I will say that the difference in our passive-aggressiveness is that mine is more obvious in a Jekyll & Hyde-type way, while yours is more hidden and what I might call Borgia-esque ha.

Brilliant post, imo. Clear and full of mind-stretching yummies. Others have been busy, too, I see. Can't wait to reread 'em all and see if I can play or add anything. Onward...Upward.

Now that we're in the philosophical hour

Warning, this is actually a positive message, but doesn’t appear as such though it is the truth as I see it.


I believe what everything is leaning towards is self knowledge.

The operand of reality is the individual ultimately; therefore, what you know is for you.

We can’t give each other inner knowing and experience therefore ultimately this endeavor in community, although necessary for a time, is disintegrating.

In other words folks
Listen up:

The ship is sinking

Every man and woman for themselves

As the captain said
“save yourself!”

corsair00
...What is happening is the birth of a new spiritual archetype, and although the process is more or less organic and out of everyone's control, there are enormously powerful occult forces that might be trying to manipulate it towards a darker outcome...

But at first, the world will need something dramatic to bring us all together...

The sickening reality hits me that I should've been working on this post well before now, but we're finally "there." The moment I've been waiting--and working--for. It ain't an easy discussion. It HAS to be "non-denominational" so to speak. Otherwise the discussion would have imploded long ago and this thread would be a ghost town rather than a working community. Dysfunctional--as all families/communities are--but extant and viable. Even vibrant. I'm pretty sure, or at least hopeful, that we can address what I personally conceive as the "bottom line" without disaster and make up our own minds/personal interpretations from there.

It probably doesn't matter too much whether we define the issue as aspects of the dualistic nature residing in our subconscious, or as a "spiritual" matter working itself out from recorded history. The elephant is in the room and has ALWAYS been with us. An ancient battle and one most easily framed as Pisces vs Aquarius. Or Yaweh vs Babylon. Or Enki vs Enlil. Or Humanism vs Spiritualistic. Whatever.

The grand chessboard is in play and the stakes are us pawns. Don't get me wrong, I don't contend we have zero power, but I do contend that--so far--"other" hands move us. While I certainly add my voice to minor plays in the game (Syria, Ukraine, etc.) the reality is that I have little affect at that level. Maybe our greatest strength comes in choosing sides?

The various arguments are subtle and all have strengths as far as I'm concerned. I have little desire to pontificate, so much as define the parameters. The arguments will work themselves out in our own souls…or psyches. Again: Whichever. Pick one.

For me, a step back from the confusing microcosm of world events and direction becomes much clearer from the macrocosm. The grand play on the board is GLOBALISM. If you don't see that in the events playing out in our society, then my contention is that you aren't paying attention and/or haven't researched enough. I think most here see it, but it becomes a question of: Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Is it a matter of a pseudo-control system vs the legitimate control system as jadedandcynical (and corsair, too, I think) contend? That's quite possible. Where the rubber hits the road--it seems to me--is defining WHICH side the grandmasters who are moving the pieces around are on. Maybe coming to a conclusion on that could give us our best clues on which to personally define the game for ourselves?

Having said all that, this discussion will probably have to deal with the "occult." Yet again: Don't let the term throw anyone off. It can be construed from your own viewpoint whether as a philosophical standpoint or spiritual…only recognizing that it does come into play.

As a young fella, I yearned for "one world" and the utopia it seems to promise. As an adult, I shudder to think bureaucracy could ever achieve it...and how do we get around that? Here we go.

So what next guys? I'll have to read Vallee's Network book...

reply to post by 1ofthe9


The book itself is not as full of conspiracy as one might hope. Much of it is outdated and was re-worked into the newer version and is mostly a history of the internet, which I personally find fascinating since I have lived most of the past 18 years online. I was there from the beginning of the www boom in 1995 and have rode the wave throughout many different incarnations of information and multimedia networking. So to find out that the world-class researcher of UFOs was one of the main architects of the internet, to me, is quite intriguing. As he said, the advancement of computer technology is transforming the world in radical ways. Not just Facebook and smart phones in our pocket, but mind-blowing whistleblower testimony and an explosion of information breaking onto the web. From Julian Assange and his hacker network to Bradley Manning and people like Edward Snowden, we are all able to work through all of this information and finally put all the pieces together. And in fact, that is really what WE here on ATS are actually doing. Notice how most people are not actually doing that...

We have a privileged position of having insight and perspective on what is going on on this planet. We do not have all the answers, but I think we are drawn to these subjects in the same way that the main character of Close Encounters of the Third Kind was drawn to the Devil's Tower where the grand experiment to make UFO contact was taking place in the movie that was actually written with the help and consultation of Jacques Vallee himself. I understand that much of the film was for entertainment purposes, but I also strongly suspect that Vallee was allowed the opportunity to drop subtle hints and actual classified historical events into the story line. I plan on doing at least one or two posts about this movie as it related to what Jacques Vallee described as "the engines of humanity overheating" and the need for a new science of "Apocalypse Management".

reply to post by The GUT

Great post Gut!!

One thing though, as the "discussion" finally (hopefully) turns in the direction of the 'crux of the matter', I believe that some attempt needs to be made here at the 'beginning' to define 'terms'...

Whether using, 'supernatural, paranormal, occult, spiritual' or 'physical, legitimate, governmental, military', or any of the other many words which have been used as descriptives for various conceptions of control systems ----

---- it has been shown (primarily in my own attempts) that the conversation tends to get really bogged down at times due to the lack of 'specifically' designated terms for each given control system and/or types of or even subtypes of control systems...

I think if we all posted our concepts - basic construct of the control system(s) as we've been talking and learning and realizing and conjecturing about what they are - in the most basic, simplest forms we can, then see which ideas 'meld', get them 'melded', then decide on a formal set terminology for each element involved in our general compilation of our various 'concepts' - we might actually begin to truly 'communicate' our ideas efficiently enough not to end up off on tangents or talking in circles...

Just a suggestion from a tired 'wheel spinner'

p.s. Forgive me if this doesn't make much sense, I had already taken a sleeping pill (thought I was just popping in for a quick pre-bedtime read)...

Corsair, this also means the orgins of the Singulairty concept lays with Vallee and friends, and not with Vernor Vinge. Thats a pretty interesting piece of information - as our Three Letter Agency friends have been thinking about this stuff for at least a decade before it reached the ears of the public.

I'd also like to draw folks attention to this...very interesting book. I know nothing about the author. However, he managed to touch on pretty much every topic we've hit on in this thread in the course of writing fiction. It was pretty surreal reading...

reply to post by corsair00

This will seem a stupid question, but I am admittedly, computer illiterate....

Over at your archived link, I pulled up the 'online' version of the book to read, and bookmarked it..will that be good enough for me to have it 'permanently', or do I need to download the PDF of the book?

I just don't want to lose it if TPTB decides (and is able) to take it completely off the internet...(I've seen that sort of thing happen over the last year or so, always seems a bit fishy)

Thank you!

reply to post by The GUT


The battle, my friend, is ultimately raging inside each of us.

Without fear of sounding dogmatic, I can bear witness to that…as a veteran of all kinds of battles

The battle is indeed one of sight. To clear away the underbrush of delusion, illusion, and the veils of darkness that prevent clarity of vision.

For I’m afraid the average or even above average Joe couldn't even make an intelligent decision on what side he or she should be on, if any side at all.

Without obsession and with balance is the road to knowledge and then its still a hard one.

But what choice do we have?

reply to post by 1ofthe9

Woah! Just ordered it. Sheesh...am I in for a mind-effing or what? Sounds like a RAW (Robert Anton Wilson) head trip!