hopelesshappiness.com

To say “you can do what you want” or “you can be what you want” is a lie; a lie that resulted in Trump and Hillary. On the one side, an uprising, a backlash, a revolt, a movement. On the other side, elitist, imperialist, condescending thoughts, words and actions.

Put this way, an uprising should have been expected. Except that not one of the national politicians (in either party) from Reagan forward recognized their rhetoric for what it was; until Trump. And perhaps that gives Trump too much credit. But regardless, he was somehow able to take advantage of this political blind spot by (instead of championing opportunity and hard work as all the others have done) focusing on winners and losers. It struck a chord.

As an individual Donald Trump does not represent, argue nor does he appeal to facts or reason; Donald Trump represents, argues and appeals to emotion and dissatisfaction. And he finds this anger and discontent very close to the surface in those constituents pissed off at Hillary Clinton for putting them in her “Basket of Deplorables.”

As an individual Hillary Clinton very much represents elitist, imperialist, condescending thoughts, words and actions. What I heard in her presidential campaign, directed at more than fifty percent of us, is “You have failed! Your hard work doesn’t matter! But if you vote for me, I’ll throw you a bone.”

So what? Why am I going on about Hillary and Donald? They are part of history now; right? Maybe. Maybe not. But what they represent, (as shown by the more than 74 million Trump votes in 2020), is very much alive and well and politicians are lining up to take advantage of this division.

Perhaps more insidious than Donald Trump appealing to emotion is his parallel appeal to an emotionless old guard working to maintain (and perpetuate) status quo. By inciting emotions, and continuously stirring the pot, fact and reason (and thereby progress or even much change) are stunted and/or nonexistent. This playbook will be copied. Trump was merely right place, right time. There will be others. There are others; jockeying for position.

Though I despise the pretentious hubris of center-left politics and I very much understand the anger and discontent of the working poor vocally represented in the center-right and right, I voted for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. I chose the possibility of reason, the possibility of bridging wealth and power gaps, the possibility of baby steps, over the division of emotion.

But I know the emotion is still there. I feel it in me; and all around me. And those center-left politicians who ignore it, who believe that with the election of Joe Biden we have put that Trump Monster to bed, do so at their own peril; and even more so at mine.

Forty-some years ago, when we first began hearing from our elected leadership that “you can do what you want” and “you can be what you want” I believe it was spoken as a hope; as a possibility. From there it evolved into a fact, transformed into a lie, became a damn lie, then mutated into Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump (or his handlers) came along and saw the hope that was fact that was lie and worked the same magic (on a shorter timeline) with anger and dissatisfaction to create a platform of lies to hinder progress and (even worse) to circumvent reason. The center-left platform is based on a lie that the center-left politicians believe is a fact, and (accepting the lie that “you can be what you want”), are able to reason from there. The center-right-right and right politicians simply lie, (which in a sense is more honest), and don’t even bother with reason, (which is again more honest).

And this is why we are pissed at Hillary; she is oblivious. With the republicans, we at least know that at least some of them know we’re being played and we know we’re being played. It’s an understanding that appears mutually beneficial. But many of today’s democrats actually believe the crockaganda they are feeding us.

So, if it is not the democrats and if it is not the republicans, then what is the answer?

According to American economist Frank Knight, in a paper published in 1923,

“We cannot accept want-satisfaction as a final criterion of value because we do not in fact regard our wants as final; instead of resting in the view that there is no disputing about tastes, we dispute about them more than anything else; our most difficult problem in valuation is the evaluation of our wants themselves and our most troublesome want is the desire for wants of the "right" kind.”

So what are wants of the ‘right’ kind?

Perhaps the answer will be found in ethical leadership who will recognize the disconnect between 1) a capitalistic generation of superficial wants and the resulting superficial valuation of tastes, merit and morality, and 2) the civic / social and moral generation of wants and desires that will restore dignity, educate, and encourage thoughtful effort, collaboration, compassion and long term survival.

Perhaps it is the market value engine that is the problem. Perhaps if we replace that market value engine with one of civic / social and moral value, our output will become cleaner, more productive and more efficient, generating wants of the ‘right’ kind.

But in this moment, we have the democrats, and we have the republicans.

I make a thick bean soup and I make red beans and rice. Typically, I use a canned creamed red bean from the south to attain the desired consistency for my red beans and rice, but I have previously experimented with dry beans for a fresher, cleaner flavor. This week I realized that my thick bean soup (using dry pinto beans) is the consistency I want for my red beans and rice. So I melded the two recipes together, (also borrowing from one or two others), to create the desired consistency and flavor, and at the same time come away with two distinctive dishes. I also realized as I was cooking that this method of writing the recipe and prepping, flavoring, mixing and cooking the food was similar to how our nation is governed. There are some underlying commonalities in the base foods and spices but by varying techniques, additions and flavors the result is two recognizably different dishes. Both outcomes utilize the ingredients and instructions in white. To make Thick Bean Soup follow the recipe in white and blue; ignore the red. To make Red Beans and Rice follow the recipe in white and red; ignore the blue. Below the actual recipe, I have rewritten it as it appears (to me) to apply to our elected representatives in Washington. Ingredients and instructions are changed according to my interpretation of politicians (in white), republicans (in red) and democrats (in blue). Proportions remain the same in both versions.

Thick Bean Soup or Red Beans and Rice:

1. ½ lb. dry pinto beans, soaked overnight.
2. 1 lb. dry red kidney beans, soaked overnight.
3. Olive oil.
4. 1 cup onion, diced.
5. 3 stalks celery, diced.
6. 2 cups vegetable broth + 3 cups water.
7. 3 cups vegetable broth + 6 cups water.
8. 1 can pinto beans, rinsed, drained and mashed.
9. 2 (large) medium russet potatoes, diced.
10. ¾ tsp garlic powder.
11. ½ tsp oregano.
12. ½ tsp thyme.
13. ½ tsp cayenne pepper.
14. ½ tsp cumin.
15. ¾ tsp smoked paprika.
16. 1 ½ tsp sea salt.
17. ¼ tsp black pepper.

Sauté onion and celery in olive oil. Add liquid and dry soaked (rinsed) beans. Add spices. Simmer for 10 minutes. Separate contents into two pots; one (with more liquid) for the red beans, and one for the pinto beans. Add respective (rinsed) beans to their pots. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer for 1 – 3 hours. Add potatoes. Simmer until potatoes are almost done. Add mashed beans to desired heat and consistency. Remove from heat. Pull approximately one-half of liquid from pinto bean pot and add it to red bean pot. Using immersible blender, puree pinto bean pot contents. Using slotted spoon, add red bean pot contents to pinto bean pot. Add red bean pot broth as necessary for desired consistency; (thick but still pourable). Let cool, then set aside and/or refrigerate while preparing the rice below.

• 1 cup dry rice.
• 3 cups water.

Parboil rice in water above, then drain and Rinse and finish rice prep in 9 x 13 casserole dish as directed below.

• ½ stick butter.
• 2 cups water.
• ¾ cup vegetable broth.
• Parboiled rice.
• 6 to 8 cups bean mix from above.

Plop red beans on top of liquid, covering the top; beans may settle into liquid. Do not stir; gently smooth with spoon or spatula if necessary. Cover and bake at 375 for 40-60 minutes or until liquid is absorbed by rice. Note: As a leftover you will find the beans likely drier and somewhat clumpy, though the rice should have maintained integrity and plumpness. It is recommended to add an appropriate amount of vegetable broth to restore desired consistency before reheating.

Densely Blended Soup Pot or Red Blooded Americans and Rich White Men:

1. ½ lb. dry consumers, soaked overnight.
2. 1 lb. dry red-blooded American consumers / constituents, soaked overnight.
3. Rhetoric.
4. 1 cup indignity, diced and widely distributed.
5. 3 stalks humiliation, diced and widely distributed.
6. 2 cups Market Value + 3 cups Capitalism.
7. 3 cups Market Value + 6 cups Capitalism.
8. 1 can consumers, rinsed, educated and indoctrinated.
9. 2 (large) medium gaps (wealth and power), widened, diced and largely ignored.
10. ¾ tsp welfare state.
11. ½ tsp credentialism.
12. ½ tsp nationalism.
13. ½ tsp fundamentalism.
14. ½ tsp distributive justice.
15. ¾ tsp explicit bias.
16. 1 ½ tsp implicit bias.
17. ¼ tsp opportunity and mobility.

Sauté indignity and humiliation in rhetoric to enhance palatability. Add Capitalism and Market Value and soaked consumers. Add spices (10 thru 17) for flavor according to your recipe. Simmer for effect. Segregate contents into two pots; one (with more Market Value and Capitalism) for the red-blooded Americans, and one for the remaining consumers. Add respective (rinsed) consumers to their pots. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer for 4 – 6 years. Add wealth and power gaps. Simmer until gaps are absorbed and accepted. Before adding educated, indoctrinated consumers, mash with bureaucracy. Once mashed, add educated, indoctrinated consumers to attain desired heat and consistency. Remove from heat. Pull approximately one-half of Capitalism and Market Value from standard consumer pot and add it to the American consumer pot. Using immersible bureaucracy, puree standard consumer pot contents. Using slotted spoon, add American consumer pot contents to standard consumer pot. Add American consumer pot Capitalism and Market Value as necessary for desired consistency; (thick but still pourable). Let cool, then chill while reinforcing existing wealth and power gaps with the ingredients and methods below.

• 1 cup long grain enriched super fancy white men from the wealthy side of the gap.
• 3 cups Capitalism.

Plump, Praise, and Shower enriched white men above in Capitalism to ensure individual integrity and separation from consumers, then finish recipe as instructed below.

• ½ stick racism.
• 2 cups Capitalism.
• ¾ cup Market Value.
• Plumped enriched white men.
• 6 to 8 cups consumer mix from above.

Plop consumer mix on top of Capitalism and Market Value. Depending on the consistency and degree of bureaucracy some consumers may settle down into the Capitalism and Market Value surrounding the wealthy. This is okay but do not mix or stir; gently smooth the top with spoon or spatula if necessary for amenability. Cover and bake at 375 for an additional 4 – 6 years or until all the Capitalism and Market Value is absorbed by the enriched white men. Note: As time goes by you will find the consumers have likely become drier and somewhat clumpy, though the rice should have maintained integrity and plumpness. It is recommended to add an appropriate amount of Market Value before reheating to restore desired consistency and maintain status quo.

And there you have it.

Salvation or, (if you prefer), meaning / purpose through the Ages has undergone multiple facelifts.

From:

1. The Catholic Church – Salvation through religious observance and good works, to
2. The Protestant Reformation – Salvation through Grace alone, to
3. Calvinism – Strenuous work and asceticism as a sign of salvation, to
4. The Protestant Work Ethic – Salvation earned through strenuous work, to
5. Capitalism – Capital accumulated through asceticism, to
6. An Entrenched Opportunity Gap – Capital and worldly success as a sign of salvation, to
7. An Entrenched Wealth Gap – Wealth and power as the source of salvation.

In #1 above it feels like “religious observance” and “good works” are synonymous, or at least go hand-in-hand, implying that good works is an underpinning of faithful adherence and faithful adherence works to shelter and protect good works.

Grace alone implies a complex design of predestination in which everyone is equally base and no one is deserving.

According to Calvinist thought, a sign of salvation is merely that, a sign, and does not discount or dispose of Grace.

It is the Protestant Work Ethic that transformed a sign of Salvation into a source of Salvation and put redemption in the hands of the individual.

Capitalism may seem an intermediate step, but it is the most decisive step away from Church as State and toward State as Church.

Once capital is accumulated, lines are drawn.

Today wealth and power no longer needs to be earned. Good fortune such as inheritance or right-place-right-time serves hubris as readily as strenuous work and asceticism and is too often mistaken for Grace.

Good fortune is not Grace in that good fortune not only allows but often also feeds hubris whereas Grace insists on a respectful, unpretentious, humble compassion for All.

I have recently considered some results of this evolution (here – Shedding Happiness, here – A Monopoly on Happiness, here – Candy-Coated Happiness, and here – Throttling Happiness). This week I am intrigued by our progression from a religious perspective to a more secular stance, from Salvation to Meaning / Purpose, and how or if this parallel to our political progression through the Ages has influenced thought. Looking at a snapshot from today, some claim that the lessening and/or absence of religious influence has resulted in the disappearance of civic and moral value, yet politically it is today's right who largely make that claim and it is today's right working harder to maintain the status quo of wealth and power; and it is today's left working to move us toward a greater appreciation of civic virtue. Contradiction and division. So do we need another Protestant Reformation? Because today it feels like the political left is more equitably operating under the influence of Luther and Calvin, (Salvation or Meaning / Purpose through Grace alone), and the political right has completely eliminated Grace and fully incorporated the secularism of wealth and power into their religious rhetoric on salvation. Just like the Calvinists before them, the political right has turned religion upside down to fit their agenda, only the result today, (An Entrenched Opportunity Gap and An Entrenched Wealth Gap), in the context of such rapid technological change and nearly 8 billion people, is far more insidious.

If religion has become rhetorical, it is hard to say it has had much influence. But, after the Protestant Reformation, if we would have veered toward Grace and even a worldly version of predestination (i.e. randomness and chance loom and influence large) instead of coming to believe we had the power to control our own destiny, perhaps religion would/should have had a greater impact. It feels ironic that (according to consensus definition), politically religion has become secularism and secularism has become religion.

Think about that! Religion advances the secular goals of wealth and power, and secularism advances the religious goals of equitable empathy and compassion. It appears to me that Martin Luther championed Grace and felt that all were equally (un)deserving, yet despite Luther's best efforts, the Protestant Reformation merely created a form of Catholicism with less ritual dogma. As I said, this is how it appears to me within my limited research and knowledge; please educate me if my impression is mistaken.

So, if, (since the Protestant Reformation or perhaps even since the dawn of civilization), religion has been politicized, and if religion (in actuality) is merely a vehicle for power and control, then does this place God and Salvation outside the purview of Protestant denominational religion? And have these things always been outside the purview of Protestant denominational religion? Or is this banishment more recent brought about by the (seemingly more) forceful and rapid changes of the last 40 years? I believe it could be argued either way. I could make a case that we threw the baby (God) out with the bathwater (Grace) hundreds of years ago, but I can also see how one might have still felt God's presence in the midst of strenuous work and asceticism. But in the last 40 years it feels like power (and politics) has become so far removed from strenuous work and asceticism that (as I previously said) religion has become Godless and secularism has become our only path to Grace.

I believe if we would have held on to some semblance of Grace, religion (and perhaps politics) would not be nearly so divisive, and because I believe organized denominational religion would have evolved much differently under the auspices of Grace than (as it has been for several hundred years) dominated by individual worthiness, perhaps my efforts this week, (instead of determining how or if religious thought has influenced political thought), have determined the driving force to be neither religion nor politics, but Grace; or its lack.

A lack of Grace is a pursuit of intemperate power. If Grace insists on a respectful, unpretentious, humble compassion for All, then a lack of Grace insists on an inconsiderate, pretentious, selfish disregard for all and everything beyond this moment. If intemperate power is at mile marker 1 and Grace is at mile marker 100, today's politicians would be on a roundabout going in circles between mile markers 3 and 5.

Grace. We have a long way to go.

Political discussion in recent years has retreated from a substantial, meaningful debate on civic and moral virtue to an entrenched academic exercise calculating market values. Going as far back as Confucius and Plato and as recently as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr, moral and civic virtue was a consideration; part of the equation. What has happened in the past 40 years?

Here is my take:

• Market Value is defined as consumption. It is a system of thought and action in which the individual is consumer. It is characterized by the indignity and hubris of inequality, measured by financial growth, and its failures are remedied with rhetoric, fundamentalism, nationalism, a welfare state and distributive justice.
• Civic Value is defined as production. It is a system of thought and action in which the individual is producer. It is characterized by the dignity of work, measured by social growth, and its failures are remedied with a combination of distributive and contributive justice.
• Moral Value is defined as enrichment. It is a system of thought and action in which the individual is humanitarian. It is characterized by the propriety of ethical behavior, measured by character growth, and its failures are remedied with equitable opportunity, education, and ongoing process improvement.

The three values above encapsulate systems of political thought and action over the last twenty-five or so centuries. It may be an oversimplification but I believe our recent decline is a result of our increasing capacity for learning that has enabled rapid technological progress and at the same time stymied our ability to think. We are so busy creating, we have left no time to consider potential outcomes or repercussions. We have grown smart faster than we have grown wise. So we have fallen back on this system of Market Value because it appeals to our current level of acuity and does not require the thoughtful, careful depth of consideration necessary for inclusion of Civic Value and/or Moral Value. And to further complicate matters, this capacity-wisdom gap has created a need for a fourth value:

• Survival Value is defined as synergy. It is a system of thought and action in which the individual contributes greater than one part of the whole in collaboration with others. It is characterized by the inviolability of Life, measured by symbiotic growth, and its failures are remedied with universal education, cooperation and discipline.

For the moment we are stuck with Capitalism and the global politicization of Market Value, so though I believe it would be a better world if our efforts were focused on Civic Value, Moral Value and Survival Value, for now we must consider all four values and prioritize accordingly. The challenge of course is that in this moment all of our focus and effort is on Market Value. Further analysis, discussion, written thought, below:

Market Value. Market Value as a system of thought and action is a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism is failing. In this country, our entire political structure is found within the outline of Market Value. The difference between Republicans and Democrats mostly lies in their proposed remedies; fundamentalism and nationalism vs. a welfare state and the occasional sincere effort toward distributive justice. (In my mind distributive justice differs from a welfare state in that a welfare state includes a bureaucracy doling out humiliation flimsily disguised as accountability and the resulting stigma of being on the far end of the wrong side of the wealth and power gap; whereas distributive justice includes acknowledgement that the system bears a large portion of the blame and responsibility for failure and recognizes individual worth regardless of circumstance.) Both of our political parties utilize considerable rhetoric, including opportunity and mobility as talking points, but until civic value again becomes part of the equation, opportunity and mobility will remain paralyzed. And though the Republicans today appear to bring a slightly heavier dose of bias with the far right much more explicit, that does not excuse the middle to the far left who are often implicit to the point that they don’t even recognize it as bias. Explicit bias appears more divisive, but to repair the rifts, implicit bias must also be overcome but may prove to be a bigger challenge than explicit bias. Regardless, as long as Capitalism continues to fortify the wealth and power gap, there will be no natural, instinctive remedies for failures, and there will be no to slow movement toward civic and moral virtue.

Civic Value. Civic value as production and the individual as producer sounds academic and dry and feels like an extension of capitalism and though it may be these things, it is also a vehicle for meaning and purpose. To focus on and work to understand civic value strengthens the viability of capitalism (or whichever economic system is in play) by adding dignity and esteem, by extending and fortifying social bonds, and by adding options for remedying failures. Distributive justice is fuller access and more equitable access. Contributive justice increases dignity and allows for individual meaning and purpose. Within Civic Value, where and when the system fails, we can combine elements of distributive and contributive justice creating a more well-rounded effort that will also work towards cooperation and increase the potential for empathy and compassion which in turn moves us toward moral virtue.

Moral Value. Moral value takes into consideration an individual’s reach. In my mind, moral value should be a system of thought and action in which the individual adds value, giving back however they are able for the betterment of all, but most ideally in a system in which they are allowed to pursue opportunity consistent with individual ability, thus maximizing worldwide efficiency and output. In addition, where and when the system fails, there should be no shortage of resources, no shortage of empathy and compassion, and no hesitation. We are some distance from this Ideal. Just as successful remedies for failure within Civic Value move us toward Moral Value, to maintain equitable opportunity, to increase the number and availability of educational options, and to strive for consistent proliferative process improvement seem to be necessary steps toward Survival Value.

Survival Value. Survival value demands that the individual consider beyond their self and beyond those communities within the individual’s reach and, in collaboration with others, not only adds value, but adds more than their fair share of value. An unequivocal acknowledgement of the inviolability of All Life, (sentient, non-sentient, past, present and future), today is advantageous to the survival of our species. We must somehow care about everyone. In the last 40 years, because we have become more smart than wise, to save us we need to work to save all. This last statement is especially true in the context of today's us and them.

So, to survive, we must work within survival value. But to do that we must also rescue moral value, somehow prop up civic value, and keep our hands on market value (hopefully in order to one day throttle it). So extending this thought still further, let's be truthful; nobody truly cares about everybody. Everybody only cares about individuals. Even those groups I may believe I care about, (and in some cases actually do care about), are identified as an extension of me, the individual; my family, my friends, my cohort, my community, my culture, my state, my nation, my species. It all begins with me and radiates outward to a lucky few who are fortunate to know me or to be associated with me. To truly care about everybody is to deny oneself. To deny oneself is to abrogate human nature. To abrogate human nature is to elevate Life. To elevate Life is to deny God. To deny God is to deny Power. To deny Power is to deny meaning. To deny meaning is to acknowledge infinity. To acknowledge infinity is to embrace ubiquity. To embrace ubiquity is to deny Existence. To deny Existence is to truly care about everybody. Nobody truly cares about everybody. I believe that the best I can hope for is to create occasional moments in which I am able to elevate Life so I may be reminded to think and act in a way that consistently respects the inviolability of All Life. This direction is what is necessary for survival.

This is installment #3 of a sci-fi serial. Installment #1 was posted 1/23/21; appropriately a numerically-ordered palindrome. Follow the links forward from the last sentence and backward from the first sentence of each post.

Of course we have the ships and the capability to travel back into our future, but that world was in danger when we left, and now we are uncertain what, if anything, we may find if we return. As I have said before, time travel into the future is wildly unpredictable. If our actions in these past weeks have created or led to a divergence that extends past 2275, even if (as some of our science indicates) a third divergence is impossible and a revergence in 2030 is somehow forced, we will be unable to land in either of the two realities that now exist in that 2275 TimePlace. And even if we are able to land due to this theoretical corollary to the Law of Preponderant Sequentials, we will not know how the surviving possibility track or the intervening calendar years may have altered that future. We believe even a small alteration, one not large enough to prevent a landing, could greatly alter a time traveler’s reality, possibly creating a divergence in that moment of arrival. And then of course any ships other than the first one to land, would be left with only two possibility tracks. And as previously described, if we attempt a landing in the desired TimePlace, at cusp speed with no landing spot, like a game of hot potato we will (theoretically) be tossed from cusp to cusp until we do manage a landing and are able to recharge-reset to travel at SpaceTime speed. Remember, we have lost three fleets previously, attempting to land on less than three possibility tracks. Not only might we end up in an unknown or dangerous TimePlace, once there we are not certain we could find our way back. We have only mapped out the TimePlace pattern of cusps as they are nested in SpaceTime on a single WavePlane for the span from our current year 2275 to your more recent year 1959, and only for Earth and for our own planet. Mapping is a very complex process involving a larger ship traveling at orbital SpaceTime speed towing a small craft (technically) set for cusp speed which (because it is at cusp speed) is able to take pictures of the cusps relative to SpaceTime in the orbital plane surrounding the planet. The complexity lies in the combination of a maximum orbital speed of 20,000 mph coupled with the immense amount of SpaceTime (much enlarged due to the speed abrogation necessary to enter TimePlace) of which a statistically significant representation must be traversed at cusp speed even for this short span of 300 years. Once we figured out this towing system allowing us to see the cusps, the early stages of our time travel efforts into the past were still largely trial and error; hit and miss. They weren’t necessarily much more dangerous than they are now; we were just uncertain the specific TimePlace calendar year we might end up in, and when we were off in our theory, this created the need for additional cusp speed. Additionally, in those early stages, not knowing what repercussions might occur, it was always small teams to a nearby (TimePlace) year, with very limited to no intervention. In this way we hopped across our WavePlane in short hops at first, then progressively bigger hops to confirm our theories. This all took considerable effort and many TimePlace calendar years because of the small teams and because the necessity of cusp speed was more frequent not only when our theory was incorrect but also in order to verify accuracy and symmetry of spans. Today, with 300 years mapped, we can travel at our SpaceTime speed, (up to 650,000 mph), to the vicinity (we’ve gotten very good at pinpointing this) of the desired cusp entry point, reduce our speed to orbital speed, apply the TimePlace cusp map overlay to the actual (enlarged) SpaceTime overview, find the exact entry point for the desired TimePlace calendar year, reduce our speed to cusp speed, enter the cusp, land on the proffered possibility tracks, recharge-reset, take off at an orbital SpaceTime speed of (again) approximately 20,000 mph, and here we are. It is unfortunate that we can reduce to cusp speed in transit, but we cannot increase to SpaceTime speed unless stationary. And we are uncertain still, exactly when the SpaceTimePlace calendar changes. In this trip, for example, until we entered the cusp at cusp speed we are confident it was still 2275. And we believe that before we land on the possibility tracks, it is still 2275; we are fairly certain in this regard because otherwise we don’t believe our communication chain would work. But because we cannot see beyond the sheath, we are not sure if it is the act of landing on the possibility tracks, taking off from them at a SpaceTime speed, or exiting the cusp, that actually marks the perimeter between 2275 and 2022. There is differing opinion and it probably is mostly irrelevant, but because of the “pop” like a champagne cork that is both felt and heard within the ship as it gently stretches then breaks through, exiting the cusp sheath, most people believe this is the point where we cross over. There is widespread evidence as well (including the workings of our communication chain) that once engines are engaged to increase to a SpaceTime speed, we may for a few moments be partially situated in both SpaceTimePlace calendar times. Perhaps the most compelling argument though for the crossover to be cusp exit is the psychological fascination watching the sheath wall flutter as if caught in a light breeze, then lazily lay itself back down with cracks and folds and creases hypnotically erasing themselves as if a warship had never broken through. And it is also this last observation that leads many scientists and thinkers to believe that the sheath wall encourages reparations and the ultimate revergence of the three possibility tracks.

The discovery of cusps and their possibility tracks was an accident. Scientists and fiction writers before our discoveries have long considered the possibility of time travel, and (in a sense) scientists had proven the reality of traveling into the future, but according to most commonly held conjecture, believed that to travel into the past one must either find a suitable wormhole or somehow overcome causality. We have not tamed wormholes, but by accidentally discovering the process of speed abrogation (i.e. cusp speed) and the fact of three possibility tracks, we have discovered TimePlace. Since this initial discovery in 2187, we have found that TimePlace is separate from SpaceTime, the Laws of TimePlace (so far) supersede the laws of SpaceTime, and causality is a nonissue thanks to more than one possibility track. Essentially, if I go back to a time in which I already exist, I will reside on a different possibility track from my other self, which by itself will create a tiny divergence, which in turn allows causality to remain intact for as long as I am two separate individuals and despite the fact that both of me are in the same relative TimePlace. And as long as I am conscious and careful of the possibility of disturbing the Law of Preponderant Sequentials, the small divergence created will not adversely impact further time travel to my specific TimePlace. If I did widen the divergence, I would still not be defying causality, (we believe) I would be creating an alternate reality. We also believe that this divergence, this alternate reality, will reverge at a point when the two possibility tracks have again attained SuperSimilarity. This state of SuperSimilarity is the state of the three possibility tracks when only one has been taken and/or when any divergence is essentially inconsequential. This state of SuperSimilarity typically allows intertraversal between the tracks and appears to occupants of one or both tracks as one track. But now that we have begun traveling to and on a second possibility track, we find there are momentary spans in which certain aspects of one track seem momentarily inaccessible as experienced through a differing reality from a previous span; (in this context momentary spans or momentarily can mean anywhere from a moment to a day to a week to a few months). Fortunately, this difficulty is only experienced by the actual time traveler and not the native population, (except perhaps as a conversational Mandela effect), we assume due to a widening divergence to maintain causality. And if a craft comes in on one of these specific TimePlace points of momentary divergence, at cusp speed they can usually find a point before divergence or after revergence and land there. Unfortunately, because of the amount of energy required for speed abrogation and cusp speed, a very few months is the limit a ship can travel before having no choice but to attempt a landing in order to recharge-reset.

Below, on the left is a simple two-dimensional rendering of how SpaceTime is perceived in an orbital plane surrounding a stronger gravity field (such as a planet or a large enough satellite/moon), and/or at any SpaceTime speed. On the right is how the same cross section looks at cusp speed from outside of this stronger gravitational pull. Of course these cross sections are flattened. In space imagine the rendering on the right to be extended and wrapped around the planet (in this case, Earth) approximately where one finds the low Earth orbital plane. Each continuous wavy line encircling the planet is considered a single WavePlane. The subsection rendering below extended and wrapped around the planet is what we have named the TimePlace Orbital WavePlane. Mapping these peaks and valleys to equate to TimePlace calendar years proved to be less of a challenge than our scientists and mathematicians at first imagined due to the symmetry. In these early efforts we have estimated the furthest past extreme but not yet having seen past our current year we cannot say if the future is already potentialized or if the TimePlace cusps write themselves, are carried forth, as SpaceTime years occur. We can say that based on the placement of our TimePlace neighborhood, there is SpaceTime allowance for the extension of a nearly infinite number of TimePlace cusps, especially if (as we conjecture because the sheaths can widen) the cusps are able to tighten up to create greater capacity. Fortunately, relatively speaking, our planet is in Earth's SpaceTime neighborhood and our year (2275) is in the TimePlace neighborhood of your year (2022). To travel even several hundred or ultimately several thousand more years, (to the future or to the past), in order to map and/or to reach a desired TimePlace is a daunting, overwhelming thought; but of course we believe science will one day rise to this challenge.

So how did we stumble into this discovery of TimePlace and its cusps? It was a mechanical error on board one of our explorer ships watching the essentially uninhabitable planet Earth for signs of increasing life and habitability in 2187. A simultaneous failure of a coincidental combination of propulsion engines, maneuvering engines and some elements of the fuel supply process brought the craft to such an abrupt sudden stop that many of the crew described a momentary out-of-body type of experience in which they could see their self from behind and were then gently but firmly reinserted into their flesh and blood; (we have since found a pharmaceutical to negate this disturbing brain stimulation). Once an accounting of the ship’s crew and equipment was accomplished, the view to Earth was seen as shown in the TimePlace rendering above. Checking their speed the on-board engineers determined that though they were not in a negative speed (which has never been thought to be possible), they were definitely not in a positive speed, and they were also not simply sitting at zero speed. It was as if they were hovering on an edge, a precipice, rocking between absolute infinity, total inconsequentiality, and complete nothingness. It is this unimagined and unimaginable abrogation of speed that we have termed cusp speed. Though the ship’s officers and engineers soon found they were unable to reinitiate any sort of positive speed, they were able to maneuver and slowly approach the mysterious wavy conduits surrounding the planet Earth. After (according to their time) a few days passed, when they realized the system energy reserves were steadily decreasing, the ship’s commander decided to breech the (from close examination) possibly permeable sheath in an effort to find a solution. They of course found what I have already described and after some exploration, as their system energy approached dangerously low levels, they set the ship down upon the three possibility tracks, where they found they could recharge-reset and reinitiate SpaceTime speed. Upon doing so and exiting the cusp, they found themselves back in familiar SpaceTime and made their way to our planet. What surprised everyone at that time is that this ship returned in 2189, yet for the crew only two-and-a-half months had passed. Upon analysis of all the ship’s logs, we were able to theorize what had happened, (which was made more apparent by their jump to 2189) and replicate the exact combination of systems failures to replicate their time travel journey. Many things are apparent now including how they obviously moved along parallel to the possibility tracks before landing, causing the ship to advance two calendar years. (As with the vicinity at SpaceTime speed, we have since become very adept at pinpointing the exact landing spot on the possibility tracks for coming out in the exact calendar year, frequently the exact calendar month, and about one out of seven times the exact day we had targeted in planning the voyage.)

Once at cusp speed a ship will not, cannot, move in SpaceTime; location is locked. However, the craft can maneuver and adjust its location relative to TimePlace. At cusp speed, in TimePlace, it feels like you are moving, (though instead of miles or kilometers per hour your movement is measured in days per hour), but in actuality you are not moving, TimePlace is moving. Simplistically put, whichever direction you choose to face, you are pulling the curvature of the TimePlace Orbital WavePlane toward you, creating the illusion you are moving. To enter a cusp the ship will go nose down into a perpendicular dive, but is in actuality pulling the sheath toward them, another example of sheath flexibility supporting our theory of revergence. In TimePlace our maximum speed so far has always been ½ day per hour; and we are uncertain if we will ever be able to increase that TimePlace speed. So to go back (or forward) 300 years while at cusp speed in TimePlace following the wavy line of the cusp through all its peaks and valleys would take 25 years. But of course we can avoid this long way around by traveling through SpaceTime at SpaceTime speed and by using the map overlay. With the map overlay we can equate our SpaceTime position with the desired TimePlace location as long as we can calculate the degree of SpaceTime enlargement which differs according to latitude and longitude on the gravitational body below us; which of course at this stage is only Earth or our planet. In addition we have discovered that each cusp from peak to valley or from valley to peak is ten years. So far we have remained on a single WavePlane that encircles the planet but have determined that we do have the ability to cross WavePlane Gulfs. Due to our personal sense of urgency though, regarding this 300 year span, we have not yet explored the calendar time relationship moving from one WavePlane to another. And (at least on this single WavePlane), It is interesting (and convenient) that the instant we attain orbital speed above Earth or above our planet, the calendar time as measured from when and where we took off (at SpaceTime speed), adding (of course) actual number of days, weeks or months traveled, is always directly beneath us. So as long as we mark the exact moment we hit 20,000 mph above Earth, the map overlay works perfectly.

I am not a scientist. I have no advanced degree. I am not an expert in any field. I am merely an observer here to record what I see. That said, offering the lay technical explanations I have offered, has been a cleansing experience; cathartic; healing. It is helpful to focus on detail in the midst of so much turmoil.

Now, for the matter at hand…

As a species we have seen 200,000 years. Our civilization (marked by the advent of agriculture) has seen 10,000 years. From fossil records we know that a typical mammalian species can expect to survive about 1,000,000 years, and across all species average survival ranges between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 years. As a species, in many ways we are atypical. Yet (literally) looking across time, in many other ways we are typical. Until recently, the past century or two relative to my year of 2275, we have acted in accordance with our atypicality as applied to the individual. We have forgotten, lost sight of, our commonness both individually across our species and as a species across all species. It is time. Today. Unless we remember, and act in accordance with our humble origin and our eventual unremarkable end, our atypicality will manifest as a short-lived mammalian species. Our legacy will last ten million years as the amount of time it will take Earth to heal itself after the damage we have inflicted.

Or we can change our trajectory to become a part of the healing process, and perhaps see our atypicality manifest as a long-lived species; perhaps even that same ten million years or more. The decision is ours. Today.

As observers we were asked to pen a plea to you, to help convince you of the immediate, urgent, important need for worldwide cooperation. I began by explaining time travel in an effort to bring you face to face with your future and in an effort to fill you with the wonderment of our potentiality as a species. In this moment, your year of 2022, we don't know if there is a future for us beyond 2060. We may have been mistaken coming to you for help. But we believed in you. We believed in us.

Now we are making plans to send explorers back out to our future and beyond. We do not know what we might find. Most of us will stay right here in this TimePlace and work for the future, knowing that there may be others in the future also working for the future. We will act as representatives for the future people. We should all represent our descendants. Depending on our decisions today, their future, our future, could be made more difficult, or possibly easier, or our future may not exist at all. It is up to us. It is time.