Daniel Sheehan - Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact - New Paradigm Institute

1
Daniel Sheehan’s
New Paradigm Institute
Defining and Exploring Our Worldviews
The Implications of Extraterrestrial Consciousness
Embracing the Arrival of the COSMIC HUMAN

2
The Octave of Worldviews and the Philosophical, Theoretical
and Public Policy Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact
Short Summary for This Document
Octave of Worldviews – Daniel Sheehan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLsQQxc-n0
Brief Biography – Daniel Sheehan
Daniel P. Sheehan is a Harvard College-trained American Government & Foreign Policy
Scholar, a Harvard Law School-trained Constitutional Trial Attorney and Appellate Attorney
and a Harvard Divinity School-trained expert in the field of Comparative Social Ethics &
Alternative Worldviews.
Over the last forty years, as an attorney, public speaker and university educator, Mr. Sheehan
has helped to expose injustice, protect fundamental rights and elucidate a compelling vision
for the future for our human family in many fields.
In no field has his work in these three areas been more important or more appreciated than in
the controversial …yet highly-important…field of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence and its
related field of the UFO Phenomenon.
Attorney Sheehan’s passion and dedication to this specific issue…despite all of the “raised
eyebrows” that his interest in this field has occasioned on the part of his professional
colleagues in both the legal field and his role as a university educator…have placed Daniel
Sheehan at the forefront of some of the most important legal studies and forums in this unique
and important field of human endeavor.
Mr. Sheehan is a forty-five-year member of the State and Federal Bar Associations of the
State of New York and of the District of Columbia and he has been admitted to practice
before the Courts of 28 States.
Source: Contact in the Desert, http://contactinthedesert.com/danielsheehan
Key Excerpt from Daniel Sheehan’s Biography from His Website

3
Dan also served as Legal Counsel to Dr. John Mack, the Chair of the Department of Clinical
Psychology at Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Mack was a
Pulitzer-Prize winning biographer who, utilizing the scientific methods of medical
psychology, conducted extensive research into the phenomenon of alien abduction. In 1994,
the Dean of The Harvard Medical School called Dr. Mack before a special hand-picked
Faculty Committee and ordered Dr. Mack to "defend" his publication of his book Abduction:
Human Encounters with Aliens. A clear violation of his free speech rights and his status as a
long-tenured Professor at harvard University—as well as a highly-respected clinician—Dan
suucessfully represented Dr. Mack before this committee, and secured his right to academic
freedom.
Dan's work for - and the, later, with - Dr. Mack was not the first time Dan had come into
contact with the issue of the potential of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. In 1977, Dan served as
a "Special Counsel" to the United States Library of Congress' investigation into the existence
of extraterrestrial intelligence that had been expressly requested by then President Jimmy
Carter. Following this work Dan was invited to present a THree-hour, closed-door seminar on
the Theological Implications of Our Contact With Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence to top 50
scientists assigned to The SETI Project (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Given these experiences, Dan was in a unique position to
handle legal issues surrounding the extraterrestrial intelligence debate.
In 2001, Dan was invited to serve as General Counsel to The Disclosure Project, which
coordinated the sworn testimony—before staff members of the United States Congress—by
former U.S. Military Officers, Federal Aviation Administration officials, and NASA
employees attesting to their own direct personal knowledge of Government information
confirming the UFO phenomenon and the belief on the part of important agencies of our
government in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Dan also served as General
Counsel to the Institute for Cooperation in Space, a U.S. citizens group dedicated to banning
space-based weapons and the development of any weapons intended for offensive use against
potential extraterrestrial civilizations. Dan has, since that time, been invited, on numerous
occasions, a speak on "The Philosophical and Theological Implications of the Human
Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence at the International UFO Congress and at The
Mutual UFO Network.
More recently, Dan's work has focused on identifying and cultivating non-dialectical,
cooperative models for change. After arriving in Californai, Dan served as the Director of the
New Paradigm Project at Mikhail Gorbachev's State of the World Forum. There he joined
world leaders in examining the obstacles to a new era of sustainable economic and social
organization and development. Through the Romero Institute, Dan is currently working to
establish the New Paradigm Academy, a year-long program that will give young leaders of
the Millennial Generation the tools they need to effectively address global challenges. The
New paradigm Academy will house The Worldview Institute, a think-tank that will utilize an
understanding of human worldviews to apply to the resolution of global political and policy
problems.

4
Source: Daniel Sheehan Biography, http://danielpsheehan.com/about/biography
Videos by Daniel Sheehan
On the New Paradigm Institute
DANNY SHEEHAN - Kosta Makreas - Disclosure, ET & UFO Contact - New Paradigm
Institute, Dec 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwJF7oVfT5o
DANNY SHEEHAN - COSMIC HUMANITY - NEW PARADIGM INSTITUTE, Oct. 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_nIgWT8VIA
Daniel Sheehan: Understanding Worldview Paradigms, May 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkNuyHCbuA
On Extraterrestrial Issues
Daniel Sheehan on his UFO Thesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjyRvuJGqVo
Daniel Sheehan at the Citizens’ Hearings on Disclosure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk4JbKpD5v4
Robert Perala interviews Daniel Sheehan for Contact in the Desert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH6jA3E1uKM
Daniel Sheehan on RT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDcppBr4rg
Daniel Sheehan’s Youtube Channel
Daniel Sheehan’s youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnrShHXCboC6fNzFFTOCCog/playlists

5
Full Text of the Entire Website - New Paradigm Institute
1. Thesis
It is the belief of the New Paradigm Institute that the Pathway to World Peace is the transition
of adherents to the eight specific Worldviews from their present, often unconscious,
adherence to the Ten Key Component Beliefs of the “Lower” Manifestation of a given
worldview to their voluntary ascendance to an adherence to the Ten Key Component Beliefs
of the “Higher” Manifestation of the same worldview – NOT along the coercive path of
attempting to convert adherents to one of the eight worldviews to a different worldview… let
alone to ONE single unitary “Worldview.”
Along this path, peaceful cooperation between and among adherents to the “Higher”
Manifestation of each of the Eight Alternative Worldviews can be effectuated, generating
institutions of cooperation and constructive living among communities and civilizations based
upon all eight different Worldviews.
It is the present belief of The New Paradigm Institute that this “pathway” exists through the
“gateway” of The Divine Feminine within the Mode of Spiritual Expression which is generic
to each of the eight individual Worldviews.
We find our planet confronted with the imminent consequences of massive Global Warming,
threatening, within our lifetimes, to inundate literally hundreds of millions of square miles of
our global coastlands with salt water, thereby destroying literally hundreds of trillions of
dollars of business and personal property and the homes of hundreds of millions of people,
thereby generating millions of human refugees. This phenomenon will also result in the
contamination of one-quarter of our planet’s available, potable drinking water that is
contained in coastal, underground fresh water aquifers. It will also melt (and thereby cast into
the sea) a second one-quarter of our planet’s presently-available, potable drinking water that
is presently contained in the one-mile-deep polar glacial ice-fields that extend one thousand
miles from the North and South Poles of our planet toward our Equator, thereby not only
eliminating a full one-third of the then-still-remaining potable drinking water available to our
human family but also dramatically altering the salination-level of our oceans, thereby,
altering the under-sea currents which directly effect our global climate-patterns as well as
destroying the plankton in the sea which constitute the very base of the sensitive “food-chain”
in our seas. On top of all this, there are dozens if not hundreds of nuclear power plants along
coastlines throughout the world that will be compromised as the sea level rises and storms
become more severe.
We also presently find our nation more deeply in debt to other nations – and to the
international banking industry – than at any time in our nation’s history …while, at the same
time, spending the largest annual military budgets in our nation’s history, with the lowest
percentage levels of income taxes being paid by the wealthiest 5% of our population and our

6
corporations since the point in time immediately preceding the 1929 collapse of our entire
global economy.
And, as a direct result of the foreign policies and military policies embraced and pursued by
the American Administrations of George H.W Bush and George W. Bush at the very end of
The Cold War, we find ourselves, as Americans, confronted by the most deeply-felt and
aggressively-demonstrated degree of “Anti-Americanism” on the part of members of the
radical Islamic Fundamentalist religious community in our entire history, manifesting itself in
the form of the generation of multiple Islamic “terrorist” cells presently organizing and
arming themselves to launch paramilitary attacks against our nation here at home and against
our nation’s citizens and “interests” not only throughout the entire Middle East but, indeed,
everywhere across on the entire planet. These “terrorist” threats, in turn, threaten the stability
and reliability of our supply of petroleum….which, amazingly perhaps, remains, even today,
our almost exclusive source of domestic energy.
So, one should be VERY interested in precisely what criteria we, as members of the American
Electorate, are going to employ in making our “choices” from among the various Official
Candidates for the House and Senate who will present themselves to us for each of the seats in
our Congress- and then precisely what criteria we will employ in choosing between the two
Final Candidates offered to us by the two Major Political parties to serve as our
representative?
However, the vast majority of the members of our American Electorate do not, to any
meaningful degree, understand the differences between the “Principles, Policies and
Programs” that are likely to be espoused by a Candidate whom one might accurately identify
as “Liberal” and the “Principles, Policies and Programs” that are likely to be espoused by a
Candidate whom one could accurately identify as “Conservative.” Nor do we really
understand the “differences” between the “Principles, Policies and Programs” that are likely
to be espoused by either of two such “Liberal” or “Conservative” Candidates and the
Principles, Policies and Programs that are likely to be espoused by a Candidate who adheres
to the more-recently-encountered “Neo-Conservative” Worldview …or of the “Progressive”
Worldview. Indeed, we aware totally unaware of the fact that there exist EIGHT entirely
distinct human “Worldviews” from amongst which one can logically choose in determining
what the “Principles, Policies and Programs” will be that one wishes to adopt, here in the 21st
Century, by means of which to address – and, hopefully, to remedy – these, and the other,
“national” … and “global”… public policy problems that will confront us over the next ten-
year period…and on through our 21st Century.
Very few Americans can tell which of these alternative “Worldviews” any particular
Candidate for public office actually espouses…IF ANY…in attempting to make our “choice”
between them – because virtually EVERY Official Candidate does the very best that he or she
can to convince the members of whichever audience he or she is speaking to at any given
moment that that Candidate adheres to that “Worldview”- that is the “Worldview” that is
shared by the majority of the members of THAT particular audience to which he or she is
speaking at the time. In short, virtually ALL Candidates for modern American political office

7
attempt to conceal his or her true “Worldview” from potential voters…or, even worse, he or
she insists that he or she does NOT even HAVE ANY specific “Worldview” at all….so as to
avoid being characterized as being “Ideological.” He or she always insists, instead, that he or
she will simply always simply “strive to do what is the ‘right’ thing to do in every situation.”
So, just “TRUST Me!” So, just decide whether you LIKE me…and whether you think that I
am LIKE you. Don’t worry about the fact that you often can’t tell WHAT my ‘position’ is ON
ANYTHING.”
Such a “reality” hardly recommends such a person to hold the most important political
positions in our community, a position in which he or she will be presented with repeated
situations in which he or she will have to make almost immediate – and potentially world-
altering – decisions. For, without such a “Worldview”, what criteria might such a person
resort to in making such important – and potentially world-altering – decisions?
To remedy this serious “public policy problem”: that so few of the members of our American
Electorate are adequately well-informed as to the precise nature – and “range” – of the
“Principles, Policies and Programs” from amongst which we must choose in order to
effectively address – and hopefully to solve – the many complex and serious problems that
confront us, as American voters, here at the beginning of our 21st Century.
Attorney Daniel Sheehan, a Harvard College-trained Political Scientist; a Harvard Law
School-trained Constitutional Legal Scholar and a Harvard Divinity School-trained
Comparative Social Ethicist, in the pages of the New Paradigm Institute, will set forth the
TEN “Key Categorical Beliefs” that go into making up each of the EIGHT Classic
“Worldviews” that compete daily, in our everyday world, for our conscious (but more-often
un-conscious) “loyalty.”
These are:
“Cosmology” (or theory as to the origins of and the presently-functioning operative physical
principles of our physical universe);
“Teleology” (or theory as to the “direction” [if any] in which our physical universe is
“unfolding” …and what its ultimate “destination” is);
“Ontology” (or theory as to the source and nature of “Consciousness” …and how it “evolved”
out of apparently “inert and impersonal matter”);
“Epistemology” (or theory as to what the “means” are which we have at our disposal, as
human beings, by means of which we can possibly come to “know” the “answer” to such
“cosmic” questions as these);
“Mode of Ethical Reasoning” (or methodology be means of which we determine what is
“Right” and what is “Wrong”, what is “Good” and what is “Bad” – or even what is “Better”
and what is “Best” from among apparent “options” presented to us by our universe);

8
“Philosophy” (which is generated by the composite of specific “Answers” that one determines
for oneself to these previous half-dozen “Cosmic Questions”);
“Political Philosophy” (or theory as to how we, as human beings, “ought” to go about
collectively deciding how to decide what the Principles, Policies and Programs are pursuant to
which we should make our collective “community” decisions governing how we live
together…and what the comparative degree of importance is that we should attribute to “The
Collective” or “The Individual”);
“Theory of Human Psychology” (or theory as to how our individual human Mind “works” in
conjunction with “The outside world.”);
“Mode of Spiritual Expression” (or “Theological” and/or “Meta-Physical” theory pursuant to
which we as human beings might comport ourselves “in the face of The Mystery” which is
The Universe and/or its “Source”); and
Its ultimate “Social Form” (or particular “form and structure” that Adherents to each such
“Worldview” believe ought to be put into place, through the “authority” of The Collective
Community, in which we, as human beings, should live together in our human communities.)
Urged by a growing number of the participants in President Gorbachev’s State of The World
Forum to set forth his personal insights gained from his almost four-decades of direct personal
experience and public service as the person who initiated and supervised more than one dozen
of the most famous private public interest investigations of his Era into matters which are of
central importance to most members of his Generation, Daniel Sheehan was given a private
grant in the Spring of 2006 by a generous benefactress which allowed him to take time
necessary from his busy schedule of public trials, public speaking engagements and radio and
television interviews to set down the details of the most important insights of his past forty
years of legal and public policy experience and to make these details available to the other
members of his Post World War II Generation, and to the members of his sons’ “Millennial
Generation” who need to know these facts, now more than ever – because their Generation
must now become the new Full-Partners of The Baby Boom Generation in taking up the
challenge of fulfilling the too-long-delayed promises of Western Civilization made to the
people of the world.
The Post World War II “Idealist” Generation – must take immediate concrete steps that will
enable us to succeed, within our lifetimes, to return the leaders of our Western Civilization to
the utilization of an up-dated, or “modernized”, Natural Law Mode of Ethical Reasoning to
arrive at our collective global public policy-making decisions… before the now-immediately-
looming global thermonuclear war “simply occurs” between China and The United States –
leaving us all wondering, in those last dark, final moments of human life on our planet,
whether there was ever a way…for even for one bright and shining moment…when this
ultimate tragic end to our entire human experiment might possibly have been avoided.

9
The successful discernment, identification and public articulation of such an up-dated and
“modernized” Natural Law Worldview is, then, the ultimate strategic objective of this work.
However, in the spirit of full disclosure… and to encourage an equally complete and open
communication on the part of others in their response to the important subjects addressed in
this work, let it be said, at the outset, that Daniel Sheehan believes that there exist eight
entirely separate and distinct “Human Worldviews” from the perspective of any one of which
the present national and international crisis that presently confronts our world, here in the post
Cold War era, might be perceived and evaluated – with complete integrity.
It is our belief that:
1.) The largest and best-educated Generation in the history of our human family (the so-
called “Baby Boom Generation born during the 21-year period between November of 1942
and November of 1963) IS INDEED a classical “IDEALIST” GENERATION as such a
Generation is identified and described by Strauss and Howe in their 1991 work;
2.) The second largest – and hopefully the newly-best-educated – Generation in the entire
history of our human family (the so-called “Millennial” Generation) born in the final 25-year
period of The 20th Century between 1975 and the Year 2000, will be a classical “CIVIC
GENERATION as is identified and described by Strauss and Howe in their work;
3.) The essential “issues” around which The IDEALIST Generation and The CIVIC
Generation of the 21st Century (“Cycle”) will coalesce will, indeed, be essentially
“SPIRITUAL”. This means: Cosmology; Teleology; Ontology; Epistemology; Mode of
Ethical Analysis and Mode of Spiritual Expression;
4.) The 10-year period between 1965 and 1975 in the United States constituted a classical
“Spiritual Awakening” as identified and described by Strauss and Howe;
5.) It is extremely likely that there is going to occur within the United States (and within
Western Civilization in general) a “SECULAR CRISIS” of absolutely “strategic proportions”
in the next few decades – which will result from the failure on the part of the “Civic
Generation” of the 20th Century “Cycle” to adequately “reconstruct” the social, political and
economic institutional structures of the United States and Western Civilization (following the
“Secular Crisis” of the 20th Century “Cycle” which occurred between 1929 and 1942) to
adequately inculcate within them the essential “Spiritual” Principles enunciated by the
“IDEALIST” Generation of the 20th Century “Cycle” (i.e. THE PROGRESSIVE
GENERATION of The Chautauqua Movement) and as a result of the resistance on the part of
this same “Civic Generation” to agree to “amend” these post World War II institutions to
attempt to inculcate within these reconstructed institutions these same “Spiritual” Principles
when called upon to have done so by the “Idealist Generation” of the 21st Century “Cycle”
between 1965 and 1975 during the “Social Movement” identified as “The Sixties”;
6.) That this “21st century Secular Crisis” is going to take the form of either:

10
a.) A resurgence of a radical nativist movement in the United States (such as we experienced
between 1890 and 1929 during “The Gilded Era” led ideologically by neo- Hegelianists and
Neo-Darwinists) which will evolve into a Fascist State such as that experienced in Germany
in the post 1929 events IF the “Neo-Cons” of the nature of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and
others remain in political power in the United States… which will result in another worldwide
collapse in upon itself of the global Capitalist economic structure and another “World War”
against the global imperialist Fascist State (this time it being the United States instead of
Germany).
OR
b.) The establishment of a new “Northern Industrial Alliance” between “The G-8” Nations of
NAFTA and the GATT Nations of Europe with RUSSIA against CHINA…which will result
in a major thermonuclear “showdown” between China and “The West (and Russia) before
2050;
7.) That both of these foreseeable alternative “crisis” scenarios can be effectively addressed
by:
(a) Establishing the “alliance” between the Baby Boom Generation 21st Century Cycle
“Idealists” Generation activists and the Millennialist Generation 21st Century Cycle “Civic
Generation” activists (which Strauss and Howe have identified as having been successfully
established in each of the preceding five 100-year historical “cycles” studied in Western
Civilization);
(b) Identifying a common set of Spiritual Beliefs (i.e. pertaining to: Cosmology; Teleology;
Ontology; Epistemology; Mode of Ethical Reasoning and Mode of Spiritual Expression)
which can be commonly adopted with complete integrity by at least a plurality of the 82
million members of the American Baby Boom Generation and by at least a plurality of the 75
million members of the American Millennial Generation;
(c) Devising and putting into concrete operation a massive grassroots public education and
grassroots Congressional District-by-District public organizing and mobilization project
which can effectively “tender” these specific beliefs to this plurality of American citizens and
“mobilize” this plurality of American citizens to freely choose and adopt these specific
beliefs; and
(d) Providing to the American People a Political Party Apparatus that will “translate” this
specific set of “spiritual” beliefs into concrete Principles, Public Policy Proposals and Public
and Private Programs which will effectively translate these “spiritual values” into the public
policy of first the United States, then of Western Civilization as a whole.
It is our further belief that:
The “deductive” structural conclusions of the sociological studies undertaken by Harvard
University’s long-time Chairman of its Department of Sociology, Dr. Talcott Parsons, and his
student Dr. Ralph Potter, the long-time Chairman of The Department of Comparative Ethics
at Harvard University – as these conclusions have been explained and supplemented by

11
Daniel Peter Sheehan in his 2005 work entitled: PARADIGM POLITICS: The Clash of
Worldviews and The Remaking of The American Political Order at The End of The Cold War
– are in fact correct.
SPECIFICALLY, this means that:
8.) There exist EIGHT distinct human “Worldviews” pursuant to which adherents to each of
these distinct Worldviews hold a distinctly integrated set of beliefs pertaining to: Cosmology;
Teleology; Ontology; Epistemology and a resultant Philosophy: which, in turn, generate a
specific: Political Philosophy; Theory of Human Psychology; Mode of Ethical Reasoning;
Mode of Spiritual Expression and Social Form;
9.) These eight distinct human Worldviews derive directly from the fact that members of
our human species possess, as an integral function of our human anatomy (within the specific
“octave” range of vibrational frequency within which our solar system/galaxy arises) eight
distinct biological “energy centers” within and immediately above our human body…that, in
turn, generate eight distinct “energy fields” which surround our physical bodies, each of a
different vibrational frequency (each “energy field” of which vibrates in sympathetic
resonance with the specific vibrational frequency of the corresponding “energy center” from
which this “energy field” originates) and
10.) Each individual human being directly experiences “Reality” prism-ed through the
distinct complex of the eight contiguous differing energy fields which surround his or her
body;
The subjective structural conclusions of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the 20th Century Jesuit
Paleontologist are also factually correct. SPECIFICALLY, this means that:
11.) There exists objectively a biologically pre-determined “ideal”:
a.) frequency at which each of the eight human biological “energy centers” in the human body
should vibrate;
b.) rate of “rotation” at which each of these eight distinct “energy centers” within each human
body should rotate; and
c.) angle to the ecliptic at which each of these eight distinct “energy centers” within each
human body should incline
Which, we believe, would result in each such human being, within whom each of these three
ideal conditions obtained, being an “ideal” human being who would be able to experience
“Reality” in an entirely “objective” manner.

12
However:
We believe further that:
12.) Our human species is presently at a point at which virtually every human being presently
dwelling on our Earth is in a state of only partial evolution toward an ideal “OMEGA
POINT” of human evolution at which each of we human beings will have fully evolved eight
distinct physical senses (one correlating to each of our eight distinct human “energy centers”)
by means of which eight distinct human physical senses each of us will be able to fully
experience Reality as it “objectively” is;
13.) That there exists CO-TERMINUS WITH the physical confines of our Universe a
functioning HOLOGRAPHIC PHENOMENON which is naturally drawing up into
Holographic Harmony with The Master Hologram of The Universe each and every sub-
structure of this Hologram (of which we, as human beings, are one such sub-structure.)
We, therefore, believe, further, that:
14.) There is a natural evolutionary teleology functioning entirely physically within our
physical Universe pursuant to which we, as a physical species, will inevitably and
progressively evolve toward that “Omega Point” at which each and every individual human
being will be perfected … So long as we do not physically destroy ourselves…and our planet
…before we naturally reach this “Perusia.”
However:
15.) There are a number of specific physical exercises and physical practices which can be
consciously undertaken by individual human beings during their natural lifetimes which, if
assiduously practiced can – and will – accelerate that individual’s otherwise entirely natural
biophysical state…so that one
(a) increases one’s Sixth Sense of “Intuition” (“Pure Reason”),
(b) gives one access de novo to one’s SEVENTH FACILITY of direct experiential access to
THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS
from which our physical Universe emanated … and
(c) gains one direct access to one’s EIGHT FACULTY … by means of which one begins to
experience life as HOMO DIVINIS.
We believe, further, that:
16.) We, as human beings, are distinguished from previous stages of biological evolution on
our planet, by our evolution of a sixth physical sense (over and above all of our five
traditional physical senses of: touch, taste, smell, hearing and seeing), this being:

13
INTELLECTUS (or self-conscious linear thought.) But we believe that there have existed, in
the past – and presently exist among us – individual human beings who are biological
harbingers of a NEW SEVENTH PHYSICAL SENSE – which is a biological physical sense
by means of which these extra-ordinary individual human beings are able to directly
physically experience the holographic BONDING PHENOMENON which constitutes the
MATRIX of the physical Universe…thus providing these individuals direct access to “NON-
local” knowledge (both spacial and temporal) of the full contours of REALITY.
These beings we call “PROPHETS” and their insights and pronouncements (and their
extraordinary physical deeds) are the basis of the Seven Major Human Modes of Spiritual
Expression.
We believe that:
17.) The bio-physically-based Worldview that entails the knowledge of this REALITY is
THE SIXTH PARADIGM WORLDVIEW, which is the Worldview of INTUITION.
We believe that:
Which “miracles” are also the “product” of the fact that all eight of their “energy centers” are
functioning at their “perfect-ed” vibrational frequency, rate of physical rotation and angle of
inclination.
18.) There exist TWO ADDITIONAL potential human “senses” or “faculties”…these being:
A new biological “faculty” by means of which each individual human being can potentially
directly experientially access union with THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL SEA OF
UNDIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS out of which our physical Universe emanated,
and
One other new biological faculty – the nature of which we do yet know… because this
experience is the experience of a new faculty that is the first “faculty” of the next species into
which we are evolving after we reach “perfection” as members of the species homo sapien
sapien… a species which we identify as HOMO DIVINIS which exists in another “octave” of
harmonic vibrational frequency ONE FULL OCTAVE HIGHER than the “octave” within
which our REALITY physically “manifests”.
2. Crain Brinton & Humanity’s most Important Insight
In April of 1968, when I was a First-Year law student at Harvard Law School, after
graduating from Harvard College the year before, at the very height of the Vietnam War
protests on college campuses across our nation, Professor Crain Brinton, the forty-year
Chairman of Harvard University’s Department of Intellectual History, publicly announced his

14
intention to retire at the end of that academic year. He concurrently announced that he was
going to reveal to the “Ten Thousand Men of Harvard”, in his final public lecture that year,
“the most important single human idea which he had ever encountered” in his over fifty years
of research in the field of Intellectual History while at at Harvard University.
On the assigned day of his final lecture, several hundred undergraduates, graduate school
students from across the campus and alumni from around the world (who traveled from the far
corners of the world to attend this much-hailed event) crowded into Lowell Hall to which
Professor Brinton’s Final Lecture had been moved in order to accommodate the expected
overflow crowd of attendees.
Taking the lectern, he looked out across the prestigious crowd which had gathered to hear his
message. He began by reminiscing about the many hundreds of Harvard College graduates
who, long after having graduated from Harvard College and departing from Cambridge for
the far corners of the world, had taken the time to write to him to thank him for having
exposed them, during their undergraduate years at Harvard College, to “The Great Ideas of
Man.”
He then turned to the task which brought him before that esteemed crowd on that sunlit
springtime morning in 1968:
“You have come from far away, and near, to hear my account of what I have concluded to be
“The Most Important Single Human Idea” that I have ever encountered in my over fifty years
of research in the field of Human Intellectual History here at Harvard. Surprisingly, it has not
been difficult for me to make this determination.
While many thought that the answer would be “Human Freedom”, or “Democracy” or even
“Human Equality” or some such other well-deserving human idea, the answer is, in fact, as
follows:
A hush fell across the waiting crowd. Five hundred faces looked up in anticipation, most of
which he had seen before, across the many years, when they were much younger, but no less
eager to learn.
“It is my belief, after all these years, that the greatest and most important single idea which
has occurred to the human mind in the entire recorded history of our species and which
stands, therefore, above all others, as the most cherished and the most esteemed idea of
humankind is this:
He turned solemn and looked up from his notes out into the faces arrayed below and said:
“The greatest minds among our human family, from the earliest recoded history, down to this
very day, have recognized the fact that we, today, stand on the very brink of a new step in the

15
biological evolution of our human species… a step which will differentiate us, as a species,
from homo sapiens as much as homo sapiens were distinguished from homo erectus – and
“That this step in our biological evolution will take the form of the evolution of a new and
additional biological faculty… a biological ‘faculty’ – just like ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’ … but
this new faculty will enable us to directly, physiologically experience – just as we experience
the physical phenomena of light and sound – the physical phenomenon which bonds together
every single ultimately non-divisible unit of matter in the entire physical universe into one,
single, harmonious WHOLE.
“And, that, by means of this unique, new physical experience, we – each one of us, as
individual human beings… no matter what our race, no matter what our gender, no matter
what our place of national origin or our individual religious belief – will be able to directly
and experientially know what particular human conduct – both individual and collective – is
either in direct physical ‘harmony with’ or is in direct physical ‘dis-harmony to’ the
NATURAL ORDER OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
“And I am personally convinced that this historical event in all of the history of humankind is
coming to fruition within this very Generation.”
He paused. And he looked down upon the young men of The Post World War II “Baby
Boom” Generation who were gathered before him as his undergraduate class and he said:
“And THIS is why I believe that so many of you, in your Generation, have refused to go fight
in this unjust and illegal war.”
With this, the entire crowd of Harvard men rose to their feet as one and broke into
spontaneous applause and cheering. Crain Brinton smiled and bowed to his students. He then
closed his notes, turned and silently left the lectern. He died within one month of his
retirement, never having written a word of what he had concluded, never having made another
public statement about this.
But his words live on, in the minds of those hundreds of Harvard College graduates who were
privileged, on that Spring day in 1968, to have been present for that famous lecture…and in
the writings and speeches of “the greatest minds among our species” down through the years.
There has been no more paradigmatic a statement of “The Progressive Worldview” that I have
ever read or heard.
The unique time, the unique place, the unique audience, the unique speaker and the unique
historical setting in which this statement was made all contribute to making this statement a
very significant piece of evidence in the growing body of evidence which is gradually
establishing the fact that the Moment has arrived, within our very lifetimes, when this Next
Step in the political evolution of our Western Culture is immediately at hand.

16
It is truly an Idea Whose Time Has Come, now… after all of these long…long years of
waiting in our civilization.
Crain Brinton’s talk helped inspire and shape the work contained in this website, read on to
learn more.

17
3. Worldviews
This page looks at broad-brush characteristics of the seven major worldviews currently embraced by humanity. The upper half of the chart
represents the “higher” manifestations of the worldviews, the bottom half represents the “lower” manifestation. The people and ideas referenced
here represent the logical conclusions you would naturally come to as a subscriber to a particular worldview, not necessarily meaning that they
represent that worldview as a whole.
7th Paradigm
Left
Systematists
6th Paradigm
Left Marginalists
5th Paradigm
Left Middle
Marginalists
4th Paradigm
Middle
Marginalists
3rd Paradigm
Right Middle
Marginalists
2nd Paradigm
Right
Marginalists
1st Paradigm
Right
Systematists
World
Religion
Mysticism
Bhuddism, Intuitive
Monism Islam Christianity Judaism Taoism Animism
Religious
Manifestation
Mystical Deism
Theosophy,
Anthroposophy,
Great White
Brotherhood
Pythagorian,
Platonism, Sufism
Trinitarian,
Christianity Kabalism Shaolian, Taoism
Animist
Shamanism, Pan
Psychism
Modern
Exponent
Nelson Mandela,
Desmond Tutu,
Dom Holder
Vaclav Havel,
Gorbachov Jimmy Carter
Social Order
Utopian
Progressive
Idealistic Moderationism Conservationism Reactive Authoritative

18
Intuitonism
Political Style
Political
Theory
Gaiaism
Philosophy
Rudolph Steiner Karl Popper Bertran Russel
Mode of
Ethical
Reasoning
Teleology
Deepak Chopra,
Charan Kalsa,
Conscious
Evolutionism
Psychology
Stan Grof
Epistemology
Teresa di Avila Evelyn Underhill
Ontology
Ken Wilber
Physics
E. Shroediger
Cosmology
David Bohm

19
Faculty
Soul ESP Know Hear Smell Taste Touch
Musical Key
B A G F E D C
Verb
Am Will Communicate Love Think Feel Act
Chakras
Crown Chakra Brow Chakra Throat Chakra Heart Chakra
Solar Plexus
Chakra Sacral Chakra Root Chakra
Function
Being Intuition Communication Love Power Assertion Procreation Survival
Form of
Matter
Spirit Quantum Subatomic Atomic Gaseous Liquid Solid
Body
Divine Monadic Atomic Buddhic Mental Astral Physical
Scope
Galactic Interplanetary Planetary Continentalist Nationalistic Racial Tribal
Cosmology
William Stroeger Keppler Pythagoras Steven Hawking
Galileo,
Copernicus
Eternal
Oscillation Entropy
Physics
Einstein Newton

20
Ontology
John Paul II Mme. Blavatsky Plato Aristotle Descartes Johann Fichte Daniel Dennett
Epistemology
Theology Philo Thomas Aquinas Emanuel Kant David Hume
Lucretius
Epicurius
Psychology
Jung Freud
Teleology
Teilhard de
Chardin,
Escatology Max Plank John Locke
Scientific Logical
Perfectionism Kierkegard Hegel
Charles Darwin,
Daniel Dennett
Mode of
Ethical
Reasoning
Hans Kueng Stoicism John Rawles
John Stuart Mill,
Jeremy Bentham Jean Paul Sartre Nietzsche Self-Interest
Philosophy
Deism Monism Platonism Aristotelianism Existentialism
Dialectical
Materialism Materialism
Political
Theory
Theocracy Stoic Natural Law Social Democrats Democrats Republicans
Adam Smith, Karl
Marx Thomas Hobbes
Political Style
Theocratic Progressive Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary Totalitarian
Social Order
Medieval
Royalism
Senatorial City-
Stateism,
Alexandrian
Philosopher King
Representative
Bicameral
Parliamentarian
Democracy
Secular
Monarchism
State Capitalism,
Communism Facism

21
Modern
Exponent
Bryan Hehr Vaclav Havel Z. Brzezinsky Mario Cuomo
Samuel
Huntington Henry Kissinger Richard Perl
Religious
Manifestation
Medieval
Catholicism Occult Theosophy
Pythagorian
Platonism
Medieval
Scholastic
Catholicism,
Scientific
Positivism
British
Angelicanism State Calvinism Tribal Voodoism

22
3.1. What makes a worldview?
It is commonly understood that there exist questions in philosophy and physics that are
beyond the scope of our limited human senses and intellect. However, we all come to our own
conclusions to create a self-consistent and complete view of the universe and our place in it.
The way that we answer these “unanswerable” questions (i.e. How did the universe come into
being? How did life evolve and our consciousness develop?) has a large effect on how we live
our lives and make every day decisions. Recognizing and categorizing these answers allows
us to see the thought processes that resulted in an action or decision. Being aware of other
people’s sometimes vastly different worldviews then allows us to communicate more
effectively and hopefully will lead to more effective decision making as a society.
Pillar Beliefs
The pillar beliefs, or “ultimate facts” are answers to questions we cannot objectively answer
given our five senses and the faculty of reason and logic. All reasonable people will come to
conclusions on questions such as “how did the universe begin?” and “how did human
consciousness arise?” However, as a whole, humanity comes up with a wide and colorful
spectrum of answers to these questions that then inform our everyday decisions and actions.
Defining and categorizing these questions and the spectrum of answers they produce can then
give us great insight into the decisions of others and help communication between people with
vastly different ways of looking at the world. We analyze the pillar beliefs by looking at the
answers to four sets of existential questions:
The Cosmological Question:
How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that
govern its past, present, and future functioning?
The Teleological Question:
Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is,
what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?
The Ontological Question:
How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?
The Epistemological Question:
What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the “facts”
that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?
Mode of Ethical Reasoning
The methodology be means of which we determine what is “Right” and what is “Wrong”,
what is “Good” and what is “Bad” – or even what is “Better” and what is “Best” from among
apparent “options” presented to us by our universe.

23
Philosophy
Generated by the composite of specific “Answers” that one determines for oneself to these
previous “Cosmic Questions.”
Political Philosophy: Theory as to how we, as human beings, “ought” to go about
collectively deciding how to decide what the Principles, Policies and Programs are pursuant to
which we should make our collective “community” decisions governing how we live
together…and what the comparative degree of importance is hat we should attribute to “The
Collective” or “The Individual.”
Social Order: The particular “form and structure” that Adherents to each such “Worldview”
believe ought to be put into place, through the “authority” of The Collective Community, in
which we, as human beings, should live together in our human communities.
Theory of Human Psychology: Theory as to how our individual human Mind “works” in
conjunction with “The outside world.”
Mode of Spiritual Expression: “Theological” and/or “Meta-Physical” theory pursuant to
which we as human beings might comport ourselves “in the face of The Mystery” which is
The Universe and/or its “Source.”
The vast majority of the members of our American Electorate do not, to any meaningful
degree, understand the “differences” between the “Principles, Policies and Programs” that are
likely to be espoused by someone identified as “Liberal” and the “Principles, Policies and
Programs” that are likely to be espoused by someone we identify as “Conservative.”
Beyond the political left and right, there exist seven entirely distinct “Worldviews” from
amongst which we can possibly choose in determining what the “Principles, Policies and
Programs” will be that we wish to adopt, here in the 21st
Century, by means of which to
address – and, hopefully, to remedy – national and global public policy problems that will
confront us in the 21st
Century.
Finally – and perhaps most-importantly – very few Americans can tell which of these
alternative “Worldviews” any particular person – for example the Candidate for The Office of
President –actually adheres to…IF ANY…in attempting to make our “choice” among and
then between them – because virtually EVERY Official Candidate does the very best that he
or she can to convince the members of whichever audience he or she is speaking to at any
given moment that that Candidate adheres to that “Worldview” that is the “Worldview” that is
shared by the members of THAT particular audience to which he or she is speaking at the
time. In short, virtually ALL Candidates for the modern American Presidency attempt to
conceal his or her true “Worldview” fro potential voters…or, even worse, he or she insists
that he or she does NOT even HAVE anyspecific “Worldview.”

24
Such a “reality” hardly recommends such a person to hold the most powerful political
position in human history, a position in which he or she will be presented with repeated
situations in which he or she will have to make almost immediate – and potentially world-
altering – decisions.
For, without such a “Worldview”, what criteria will such a person employ in making such
important – and potentially world-altering – decisions?
3.2. Modes of Ethical Reasoning
We define a mode of ethical reasoning as the resultant strategy one adopts as a result of their
understanding of the universe and their place in it. This strategy, or methodology is the
means by which we determine what is “Right” and what is “Wrong”, what is “Good” and
what is “Bad” – or even what is “Better” and what is “Best” from among apparent options
presented to us by our universe.
1st paradigm
Since each individual has nothing more than his or her own five physical senses by means of
which to physically perceive “Reality” and only his or her own personal degree of Intellectual
Acuity by means of which to organize into some strictly relative pattern of meaning these
otherwise disparate pieces of purely physical data, each individual will perceive Reality itself
in accordance with his or her our best… selfish… interests.
Ultimately, the only “meaningful” comparable ethical referent is THE DEGREE TO WHICH
EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON IS ABLE TO MAXIMIZE HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL
PLEASURE AND TO MINIMIZE HIS OR HER OWN PHYSICAL PAIN.
There is no absolute or objective “TRUTH.” There is no “RIGHT.” There is no “WRONG”.
There is simply the exercise of RAW POWER the power to declare what ought to be
CONSIDERED to be “the facts” in any given situation. And it is perfectly understandable –
indeed RIGHT – that each individual person attempt to physically or intellectually compel
every other individual to recognize his or her Reality, the “Reality” that identifies his or her
Maximum Physical Pleasure and his or her Minimum Physical Pain, as THE Paramount
VALUE in the entire Universe.
THEREFORE:
When faced with a given PUBLIC POLICY or COMMUNITY problem, it is perfectly
predictable – and, indeed, “RIGHT” – that each individual person would – and should –
attempt to “exploit” that particular public problem to MAXIMIZE HIS OR HER OWN
PERSONAL PHYSICAL PLEASURE and to MINIMIZE HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL
PHYSICAL PAIN.

25
Therefore, when confronted with a range of alternative “choices” that might be made as to
WHAT one ought do to in response to a given “Public Policy Problem,” one merely selects
that specific choice that one believes (based upon one’s own best physical data processed
through one’s own intelligence) generates the greatest degree of short-term physical pleasure
to ONE’S OWN SELF and that generates the least degree of short-term physical pain to
ONE’S OWN SELF (or, by simple physical extension, the choice that generates the greatest
degree of physical pleasure and the least possible degree of physical pain to ONE’S OWN
immediate biological family members.)
The adoption of this specific Mode of Ethical Reasoning is the straight-forward rational
product of there being no other referent for “Right” or “Wrong” that we, as rational human
beings, are capable of physically EXPERIENCING through our only five physical senses.
And, of course, one’s experience is expressly limited to one’s biological or physical
experiences that place an absolute limit on the efficacy of attempting to rally individual
human beings to some more abstract, NON physical ethical referent. There simply is no other
such referent. There is certainly no “Cosmic” referent by means of which any individual
human being is personally capable of directly physically experiencing The Cosmos itself.
Since nothing holds REALITY together in any predictable, reliable system in accordance with
which one can reliably say that any act is either “Right” or “Wrong”, I will get “MINE” and I
will seek to generate an immediate sense of physical security around ME and around MY
IMMEDIATE BIOLOGICAL EXTENSIONS. This is the ONLY true referent for “Right”
and “Wrong” that I can directly experience through my five senses.
Thus only Might makes “Right.” Indeed, Might makes REALITY itself. For there IS no other
REALITY on which we can depend.
2nd paradigm
As a result of this specific Epistemological Belief on the part of Adherents to The Second
Paradigm Worldview, Adherents to this Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, while
every person is capable of articulating his or her own thesis as to what is “Real” and what is
“True” and is, therefore, capable of asserting his or her thesis as to what “The Facts” are
pertaining to any given matter, this thesis will then take its place “in the market place of
ideas” – AND, since this thesis is only relative, other persons (having a different
“perspective” based upon their different life experiences and different location in relationship
to the facts) will generate an ANTI-thesis (asserting that “The Facts” are different than those
asserted by the proponent of the thesis).
As a result of the “dynamic” generated by the bi-polar expanding and contracting of the
physical Universe, this thesis and this ANTI-thesis will struggle in contention with one
another “in the market place of ideas” – and, consisting only of relative truth, each will burn

26
away that portion of the other’s thesis which is NOT “true,” generating a “SYN-thesis” made
up of the more truthful portion of each thesis. This synthesis will then become the new
operative THESIS which will take the field in the market place of ideas asserting its
contention as to what “The Facts” are pertaining to the matter at hand.
It must be understood that “TRUTH” will NEVER be known to any degree of absolute
certainty by simple human beings. However, through this dialectical process of struggle
between sequential thesis and anti-thesis and then into synthesis and a new “Thesis” and new
Anti-thesis, our human family will struggle TOWARD the “truth” concerning “The Facts”.
The above-described dialectical process characterized by struggle between a relative thesis
and an opposing relative Anti-thesis is The Mode of Ethical Reasoning through which human
beings will progress toward the “Right.” “Right” is NOT to be obtained through the mere
imposition of an arbitrary assertion of “Fact” by the most powerful (as occurs pursuant to the
First Paradigm Worldview) but, rather, through legitimate struggle, pursuant to which the
strictly relatively superior thesis will prevail, leading our human family toward relative truth.
This Mode of Ethical Reasoning is the utilization of “The Dialectical Method.”
Thus, given the perpetual Oscillating Cosmology of the physical Universe and the strictly
Pre-Determined Teleology of the physical Universe, the only realistic Mode of Ethical
Reasoning that could logically be adopted by an Adherent to The Second Paradigm
“Dialectical” Worldview would be to yield to the physical tropism of “jumping on board” one
“SIDE” or the other “SIDE” of whatever dialectic one is physically cast into by the physical
Universe or which is physically presented to one by the physical Universe.
Thus Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview are intensely Fatalistic. That is, they
accept, indeed actively and enthusiastically embrace, whatever the local dialectic happens to
be into which he or she is born. Indeed, they utterly internalize the bona fides of their local
community’s dialectic and become champions of the specific “SIDE”on to which they were
born.
This is, indeed, the very mechanism of their “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.” Thus, any and all
choices are governed by the simple principle of “Which action best ‘serves’ MYside in the
dialectical struggle in which my family, my community or my tribe is engaged with ‘The
Ultimate OTHER” ?
3rd paradigm
Because of this unique Epistemological Belief on the part of Adherents to The Third
Paradigm Worldview, Adherents to this Worldview employ an equally unique “Mode of
Ethical Reasoning.” The Mode of Ethical Reasoning employed by Adherents to The Second
Paradigm Worldview is a rigidly dialectical Mode of Ethical Reasoning and from the Mode
of Ethical Reasoning of Adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview who employ a consistent
Mode of Ethical Reasoning which, when faced with a number of alternative action choices by
means of which to respond to a given problem, will always choose that action which merely

27
maximizes that person’s personal degree of short-term physical pleasure and/or minimizes
that person’s personal degree of immediate physical pain.
This unique “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” employed by the Adherents to The Third Paradigm
“Right Middle-Marginalist” Worldview is this:
Adherents to The Third Paradigm “Right Middle-Marginalist” Worldview, when confronted
with a number of optional actions from amongst which to choose by means of which to
respond to a given problem will first: Choose which “REALITY” they can rationally project
out into the future to be probable and potentially true and they then choose to engage in, or
choose to endorse as “better,” that particular action which will maximize that REALITY
(which he or she has chosen to make “REAL”) as though THAT “Reality” were REAL.
This is an “Existential” Mode of Ethical Reasoning…or a Mode of Ethical Reasoning which
is directed toward making The World into The World which the Adherent to The Third
Paradigm Worldview can rationally “project” as being potentially EXISTENT.
4th paradigm
When faced with a number of alternative “choices” from amongst which to select, an
Adherent to the Middle-Marginalist position will always select that choice which generates
“the greatest good for the greatest number”, the classical “Utilitarian” choice. They are thus
not ideological. They are pragmatic …almost mathematic in their ethical decision-making.
They do not attach metaphysical values to data. They are strictly “rational.” They are the
“Mentants” of Frank Herbert’s DUNE. They are the “Dr. Spocks” of Gene Rodenberry’s
STAR TREK.
5th paradigm
Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview exercise all of the purely scientific criteria of
Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview in gathering their data, but, since they hold the
Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, have direct experiential access to the very
real “Realm of The Ideal Forms,” Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview supplement
their data derived from their exercise of Scientific Logical Positivism with an exercise of
Intuition … causing them to modify their otherwise purely Majoritarian Utilitarian Mode of
Ethical Reasoning with an Intuitive supplement. This “Intuitive supplement” causes
Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview to select options which, while these choices do
generate “the greatest good for the greatest number” these choices also at the same time
generate “at least something for the very least well off. This Fifth Paradigm “Liberal” Mode
of Ethical Reasoning is discussed, in detail, by Professor John Rawls in his famous work
entitled A Theory of Justice published, in 1972, by Harvard University Press.

28
Professor Rawls attributes the adoption of this specific “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” by
Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm “Liberal” Worldview to the influence upon otherwise rigid
Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview of The Sixth Paradigm “Intuitionist”
Worldview.
However, the adoption of the Fifth Paradigm Mode of Ethical Reasoning which attributes
merely a supplemental importance to the data obtained via the human Intuitive faculty is the
product of an entirely distinct “Cosmology”, “Teleology”, “Ontology” and “Epistemology”
on the part of Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview. They attribute a merely
supplemental role to this data NOT as a merely Utilitarian judgment, but, instead, experience
the human “Faculty of Intuition” as merely supplemental to their otherwise strictly
Intellectual Faculty.
This is because their ONTOLOGICAL Belief informs Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm
Worldview that we, as human beings, are capable ONLY of imitating the “Ideal”
Consciousness of The Cosmos, NOT of Being AT ONE WITH the Consciousness of The
Cosmos. For this reason, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm are willing to place ONLY a
supplemental degree of reliance upon the data obtained via this imitation of “Ideal”
Consciousness.
One will recall that Plato, the ultimate Philosopher of The Fifth Paradigm, places the “Ideal”
human observer in the position, in his “Allegory of The Cave” (in his Republic), ONLY in-
between the Fire and the REAL “Players”, thereby being uniquely capable of recognizing that
the “Shadows” cast by the Fire upon the wall of the cave are only shadows. But even this
“Ideal” observer is not the real Player. Therefore, pursuant to the Ontology of The Fifth
Paradigm, even the “Ideal” human observer is ONLY capable of “imitating” the conduct of
the REAL Player. So, such an “Ideal” participant in Reality is ONLY an imitator (an “Actor”)
and is NOT entitled to have the ABSOLUTE confidence in his judgments which a “REAL
PLAYER” would have. He is only somewhere in-between a shadow and a “Real Player.” So,
he should act “in moderation” on the basis of his perception of “The Ideal.”
Thus, for the Adherent to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, the Intuitional experience
functions, properly, solely as a supplement to his otherwise entirely reason-based scientific
judgments… NOT because an Adherent to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview is nothing more
than a more practical utilitarian (as Professor Parsons’ asserts) but because he holds a
profound Ontological Belief that his Faculty of Reason holds him forever separate and apart
from the fully-engulfing Intuitive Experience which would allow (or compel) him to give to
this Intuitive Experience the truly Central role in his or her decision-making process.
Functioning as true Utilitarians, Professor Rawls argues, in “A Theory of Justice,” that some
Adherents to the Fourth Paradigm Scientific Logical Positivist Worldview take into full
account the potential bone fides of the Sixth Paradigm Intuitionists assertions that they, as
human beings, are capable of directly experiencing an other dimension of Reality which
generate bona fide data and, therefore, according to Professor Rawls, some Adherents to The
Fourth Paradigm Worldview simply add in the data obtained by the Adherents to The Sixth

29
Paradigm Worldview to the data obtained from their strictly “Scientific Logical Positivist”
sources as Fourth Paradigm Adherents generating a “Hybrid” (as distinct from a genuinely
generic) Fifth, “Liberal” Worldview. However, according to Professor Rawls, Adherents to
The Fifth Paradigm Worlsview do NOT attribute central importance to this Sixth Paradigm
Intuitive data. They treat this Sixth Paradigm data as simply supplemental to the data they
have garnered via their Scientific Logical Positivist Epistemology.
6th paradigm
The distinctive aspect of the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of the Sixth Paradigm “Radical
Monist” Worldview is that they believe that this FACULTY OF INTUITION (experienced
through the Seventh Chakra) should play a CENTRAL ROLE in each individual human
being’s “Normative decision-making” or as their “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.”
Substantively, Adherents to the Left-Marginalist Worldview believe that, when faced with a
range of choices to address a given public policy problem, one should choose the form of
human conduct which is most harmonious with the NATURAL LAWS of the physical
Universe. The method(s) which one goes about determining what form of human conduct is,
or is NOT “harmonious with” NATURAL LAW (and what forms of conduct are expressly
“dis-harmonious” to NATURAL LAW) are determined by the utilization of the various
Methods of Determining “The Facts.”
However, the central means which should be employed in making this specific decision is to
resort to one’s own personal Intuition.
HOWEVER, Once this factual determination has been made by each individual who is a
member of the community which will be directly effected by the public policy choice chosen,
Adherents to the Left-Marginalist Worldview insist that a specific procedural process must
then be employed by means of which “The Community” ought to determine which choice
among the several available will be chosen. And the utilization of this specific procedure by
means of which to make such an inherently community choice is INTEGRAL to the “MODE
of Ethical Reasoning” which is advocated by Left- Marginalists.
The proceedure is this:
Every person who is going to be directly or indirectly effected by the public policy choice
which is being made on behalf of the Community must be informed concerning all of the
component elements pertaining to the decision, then be afforded an adequate time period prior
to his or her having to render this decision to educate himself or herself as to what he or she
will need to know to make a fully-prepared choice concerning the matter. Thirdly, every such
person must be given a fair opportunity to express his or her views on the matter and to
attempt to persuade others that his or her view should be adopted by the Community. And
then, finally, every such person who is going to be directly effected by the decision made
must be given the opportunity to VOTE on which specific public policy choice is going to be
chosen by the community.

30
This is referred to as a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC decision-making process. (This process does
NOT require that all such votes be unanimous. Such votes may fairly be determined by a
specific, previously-agreed-upon percentage of the total votes cast or of the total eligible
voting members of the community. This may be a simple majority of one-half plus one; a
plurality; a two-thirds majority, a three-fourths majority – or whatever percentage is deemed
fair by a prior agreement reached by the community prior to the undertaking of this vote).
The need to undertake this process for every major public policy choice effecting each
member of the community is the product of a substantive NATURAL LAW PRINCIPLE. So,
to Adherents of the Left-Marginalist Worldview, the utilization of this process is a Natural
Law substantive value in and of itself. In effect, this value dictates that there are instances in
which it is ethically preferable to have NO decision made to address a given public policy
problem which will be enforced upon the individuals in the community (if no single
alternative choice available generates the support of a specific percentage of the community
members) rather than to have a clear choice made which might well solve that specific public
policy problem at issue, but which is actively opposed by (or is not affirmatively accepted by)
a high percentage of the members of the community effected.
Thus, there are two equally-important aspects of the distinctive Mode of Ethical Reasoning
which is believed in by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview. The first, which is
substantive, is that a “Natural Law Ethic” be employed (and that each individual utilize, as the
central means by which he or she determines whether a given option is harmonious or dis-
harmonious with Natural Law, the Faculty of INTUITION.) The second, which is procedural,
is that the procedure employed by the community to make its collective decision be Social
Democratic (as defined above).
7th paradigm
Every decision made by a systematic Adherent to the Left- Systematist Worldview is made
pursuant to an adherent’s effort to discern THE WILL OF GOD pertaining to that
decision - that is: to determine (through an exercise of ALL of the “methods of determining
the facts” [including one of, or both of, the modalities of “prayer’ identified therein]) what
particular choice, from among those which are available to the adherent, is most consistent
with the “WILL” of The Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness which
enfolded into being the entire physical Universe, which entirely pervades every
micro-milli-meter of this material Universe at every moment, and to which each such
adherent owes his or her very continuing life at that very moment - so as to comport his
“perfecting” of the Human Family…and which It has intended since the micro-milli-second at
which It “enfolded into being” this physical Universe.

31
8th paradigm
Adherents to The Eight Paradigm Worldview believe that, once one has “perfected” the
vibrational frequency of each of ALL EIGHT of the human Chakras which are located within
one’s own physical body, one should direct one’s physical body (and all of one’s material and
NON-“material” vibrational fields) to the task of “maintaining”…or to “re-integrating” into
“symphonic harmony” with one another all of the “disparate” (but would be “integrated”)
“multiples” of CONSCIOUSNESS which one finds occurring within the specific time period
of the physically – incarnated life into which one finds oneself “born” into this physical
Universe. These “multiples” of CONSCIOUSNESS are supposed to be vibrating “in
symphonic harmony” with one another as “stepped” whole-number multiples within ONE
OCTAVE of the ONE fundamental “wave length” of THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR
COSMOS which is occurring within our physical Universe.
Therefore, Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that the ONLY truly ethical
human conduct is conduct which is directed to the task of either bringing into perfect
“symphonic harmony” ALL Eight of the Chakras within one’s own human body or (that
having been already achieved) directing all of one’s conscious attention to the task of
“maintaining” …or “re-integrating” into “symphonic harmony” with one another all of the
disparate “multiples” of Consciousness which one finds occurring in one’s world during one’s
lifetime.
The Eighth Paradigm Cosmology necessarily implies that our physical Universe is filled with
Intelligent, Sentient Life. The Latin root of the word “Intelligence” is “intellectus,” the ability
to distinguish the difference between. Intrinsic to The Eighth Paradigm Cosmology,
“Intelligent” Life exists within each different (i.e. “differentiated”) band of vibrational
frequencies, indeed, such “Intelligent Life” is the Conscious “organizer” of “experience”
within each such “band” of vibrational frequencies. Thus, there being other Sentient,
Intelligent Life Forms within our galaxy which have developed technological means of
entering the “band” of vibrational frequencies in which WE abide is entirely foreseeable,
indeed likely.
Therefore, the fact that we, as human beings, have been encountering “other” mysterious Life
Forms… which seem to come into our World from somewhere else is entirely compatible
with the Cosmological assumptions of The Eighth Paradigm. And it is also entirely
compatible with the Cosmological assumptions of The Eighth Paradigm that these other
Beings would display abilities significantly different from the physical abilities which we
human beings are physically capable of performing, trapped as we are within the simple three
(or four) dimensions of our limited physical experience.

32
3.3. The First Paradigm Worldview
Adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe began, in a
single moment, with a single Big Bang, that all physical matter was created during this Big
Bang and that the sum total of the matter that was then created is spreading out in an
expanding spatial framework.
Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this Big Bang occurred
approximately 14 billion years ago, and that our physical universe is made up of a fixed and
finite number of ultimately-irreducible integers of matter, each one of which was created at
the moment of the Big Bang event.
Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that every single complex combination of
matter is disintegrating into its smaller constituent, ultimately-indivisible, units of matter.
Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe, further, that each and every ultimately-
irreducible integer of matter in our entire physical universe is, at the same time, repelling
itself out and away from every other such ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our entire
physical universe.
Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this contemporaneously-occurring
expansion and disintegration of all matter within our physical universe has been going on
since the very earliest stage of our physical universe, and that this contemporaneously-
occurring expansion and disintegration will continue to go on up to the point in time at which
every single ultimately-irreducible integer of such matter that exists in the entire physical
universe will stand separate and apart from each and every other such ultimately-irreducible
integer of matter in the entire physical universe.
Crucially, adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that our entire physical universe
will ultimately disintegrate into nothingness, and that our physical universe will continue to
expand out and away for all of eternity thereafter.
Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this continued expansion will occur
because there is not enough physical matter in the physical universe to cause the eventual
collapse of the universe into a singularity—a reverse Big Bang. The direct physical attraction
that every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter has for each and every other ultimately-
irreducible integer of is not strong enough to overcome the expansion of the universe. Current
data and analysis tells us the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Because of the belief that there does not exist enough physical matter in our universe to
generate an adequate amount of physical internal attraction to overcome the force that has
been placed upon each integer of matter by the 14 billion years of expansion and
disintegration that each such unit of matter will have undergone, adherents to the First
Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe is absolutely irretrievably destined to
its ultimate physical disintegration into absolute nothingness.

33
Adherents to this First Paradigm Worldview adhere to an ontological belief that human
consciousness is nothing more than a randomly-occurring, accidental physical
epiphenomenon of the interplay of physical matter and energy.
This ontological belief of adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview is articulated most
eloquently and most persuasively by Daniel Dennett in his popular work
entitledConsciousness Explained and again in his work entitled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.
The epistemology and theory of human psychology that adherents of the First Paradigm
Worldview believe in is strictly sensory and materialist. That is, adherents to the First
Paradigm Worldview hold the epistemological belief that we, as human beings, have access to
no greater truth than that which we can experientially see, touch, taste, hear, or smell through
our five physical senses, which together, communicate the total composite of raw materialist
data that we can directly personally physically experience.
Adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that our human mind functions as nothing
more than the mechanical, random interplay of physical material interacting within our human
brain, generating physical forces that are totally determined by the random interaction of
physical atoms. This specific theory of epistemology and human psychology has been
thoroughly and thoughtfully articulated by Thomas Hobbes.
In its lower manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical
reasoning of simple “dog-eat-dog” individualistic self-striving and domination that was
championed by Machiavelli’s The Prince in 1513.
In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview generates the mode of ethical
reasoning of Epicurus from 310 B.C., being the mode of ethical reasoning pursuant to
advocating for one to engage in moderation (insonomia), through the voluntary suppression of
the desire for excess pleasure by observing the traditional virtues of justice, temperance,
courage, beauty, friendship, knowledge, etc., each of which was to be undertaken in
moderation for the purpose of assuring to oneself the “good life.” Whereas, the “good life” is
one’s personal life experience that is “sure and secure in a world of uncertainty,” thus being
the only rational course of life.
Because of these combined cosmological, teleological, ontological, and epistemological
beliefs on the part of adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview, adherents, in its lower
manifestation, espouse an essentially pessimistic philosophy, exemplified by Thomas Hobbes.
In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in Epicureanism.
The mode of spiritual expression for adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview is strictly
materialist. It only allows for the physical manipulation of the raw physical forces of our
world and universe as a direct function of the chaotic universe by certain shamanically-skilled
and trained individuals.

34
In its lower manifestation, this First Paradigm mode of spiritual expression manifests itself in
the form of shamanism and magic (sometimes in a bad way, for example, as Voodoo, and
sometimes in a good way, for example, in the form of the white magic” performed by
animists and practitioners of Wicca). In its higher manifestation, the First Paradigm mode of
spiritual expression manifests itself in the form of panpsychism, espoused by many of the
most preeminent thinkers in western civilization, including Giordano Bruno, G.W. Liebniz,
Arthur Schopenhauer, W.K. Clifford, F.C.S. Schiller, and Alfred North Whitehead. The
higher manifestation of this First Paradigm Worldview is sometimes expressed in the form of
a belief in Gaia, the panpsychic conscious being that is our planet Earth.
In its political philosophy, the First Paradigm Worldview manifests itself in its lower
manifestation in the form of authoritarian autocracy, such as that practiced by barbarian
autocrats, such as Attila The Hun and Genghis Khan in Ancient Asia. In its higher
manifestation, the First Paradigm Worldview expresses itself in the political philosophy of
authoritative monarchy or benevolent despotism, such as the mythical medieval Saxon
kingdom of Camelot by King Arthur and the Knights of his famous Roundtable, in the
indigenous regimes of the Iroquois Confederacy, of King Quetzalcoatl of the Incas in
Teotihuacan, and by King Huitzilopochtli of the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan.
The Paradigmatic Exemplification of The Lower Manifestation of The First Paradigm
Worldview
Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan
The Paradigmatic Exemplification of The Higher Manifestation of The First Paradigm
Worldview
The Great White Roots of Peace (The Iriquois Confederacy), Camelot of King Arthur
[1] For a full explication of this purely materialist explanation of consciousness, see
Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. See also Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel
Dennett.
PILLARS OF BELIEF:
3.3.1 The Cosmological Question
How did our physical universe first come into being, and what are the physical laws that
govern its past, present, and future functioning?
The physical universe came into being in one blinding flash that we refer to as the Big Bang.
There is no way for us, as human beings, to tell how or why the physical universe came into
being by means of this Big Bang, or what was going on before the physical universe came
into its physical being, since all we have at our disposal to determine these things are personal
experiences of our five physical senses and our common sense, which only experience things
that have a physical manifestation.

35
The physical universe in which we find ourselves embedded appears, to our five senses and
common sense, to be nothing more than a chaotic collection of a finite number of ultimately
irreducible integers of physical matter. Each such ultimately irreducible integer of physical
matter within this random collection of irreducible units of matter is moving out and away
from every other unit of matter.
Thus, each and every one of these single units of matter that is bonded together with one or
more units of matter to form a combination of matter that is larger than a single quantum field
(units such as a muon, neutron, proton, atom, rock, tree, animal, human being, planet, star,
galaxy, galaxy cluster, or any other combination of matter) is in the active process of
disintegrating into a finite number of ultimately irreducible, individuated quantum fields of
physical matter.
The Big Bang was not a simple explosion that erupted from a physical point at the center of a
physical sphere that was later to constitute our physical universe. Rather, this Big Bang was
the instantaneous manifestation of a physical force that caused every single ultimately
irreducible integer of physical matter in the entire physical universe (i.e., every single such
quantum field) to emit an instantaneous force of repulsion out and away from every other
such quantum field at the exact same instant, thus constituting a universal and center-less
explosion.
The momentum or impetus imparted upon every single ultimately irreducible integer of
matter in the physical universe by this initial Big Bang continues to manifest itself at this very
instant in the expansion of every single quantum field within our physical universe moving
out and away from every other quantum field.
A second force continues to manifest itself at this very instant in the constant atomic
breakdown of each and every element of physical matter in our physical universe into its
ultimately irreducible sub-particles of matter (i.e., into its sub-component constituent quantum
fields) to exponentially multiply the rate of expansion of our universe. When the impetus or
momentum that was imparted upon each of these ultimately irreducible integers of matter at
the moment the Big Bang occurred is spent, every single ultimately irreducible integer of
matter in the entire physical universe will stand separate and apart from every other one.
There will become a point at which each ultimately-irreducible integer of a physical matter’s
quantum field is far enough away from each other quantum field in the universe that they no
longer affect each other in any meaningful way. These ultimately-irreducible integers will
then continue to move out and away from each other so much so that the universe returns to
being empty, void, and in a state of complete nothingness.
That is, there will be nothing in the entire physical universe except each separate, individual,
and ultimately-irreducible quantum field of physical matter standing apart from each other
and continuing to move out and away from each other into infinity.

36
Therefore, the only reality that exists is material reality, and all reality exists only within the
confines of our physical universe. Outside of our physical universe can only be
conceptualized as an infinite and eternal abyss with nothing in it, not even a single quantum
field of physical matter. Such nothingness spreads out and away from the physical confines of
our universe infinitely and eternally.
3.3.2. The Teleological Question
Is there a specific direction in which our physical universe is unfolding, and if there is,
what is the role of our human species, if any, in this unfolding?
Our physical universe is heading inevitably and inextricably toward a state of nothingness.
There is, therefore, no point, no objective, and no ultimate referent for meaning in our
physical universe—there is no meaning, in any ultimate sense, to the physical existence of our
universe.
The universe simply is and, one day, it simply will not be, at least in the form of anything
other than an infinitely-expanding number of effectively unconnected individuated quantum
fields of physical matter, each one having no being other than an entirely unconscious, rock-
like, physical being.
We human beings are merely one of the many, completely arbitrary and random physical
confluences of mass and energy. In turn, mass and energy are nothing more than two differing
compositions and densities of randomly-occurring quantum fields that we arbitrarily and
artificially distinguish along a straight-line continuum, ranging from one single quantum field
to the total collective that we call the physical universe.
Like all inanimate and animate material things that occur in our universe completely
randomly, our creation was nothing more than a purely random event (as has been described
accurately by Charles Darwin and Daniel Dennett in On the Origin of Species and
Consciousness Explained respectively).
There is no internally-driven or externally-driven phenomenon within our material universe
that constitutes a rational referent in relationship to the progression of the human species in
any specific teleological direction (e.g., from good to better). Any such postulate is nothing
more than wishful thinking, a mere projection of our own myopic self-centered wish for self-
importance among the billions of non-life forms and other life forms that exist randomly
within our physical universe.
Human beings, like all other life forms observed on our planet, have always been and always
will be self-centered, self-seeking, self-interested, untrustworthy, and entitled to no special
consideration by the universe. Since our coming down out of the trees in our earlier form, we,
as a species, have been and will inevitably remain territorial, predatory, carnivorous,
murderous, and selfish. As a result, life, including human life, is meaningless, barbarous,
cruel, and short.

37
3.3.3. The Ontological Question
How did sentient consciousness come into being (especially human consciousness)?
Consciousness is nothing more than an arbitrary and meaningless physical epiphenomenon or
function of the specific random interplay of mass and energy of which we and other life forms
are made up. It is merely a kind of physical energy field that just happens to be self-
referential. This specific physical phenomenon is no more unique or important than
phototropism, gravity, light, or the development of chlorophyll—to which we, as human
beings, attach no great cosmic import. We attach special importance to this phenomenon of
consciousness merely because we believe that we have more of it than other sentient beings,
thus making us as a species unique in the universe. This, however, is nothing more than self-
centered solipsism—starting out by positing the ultimate premise of the superiority of
consciousness in us, and then, purportedly discovering its uniqueness and importance within
nature.
3.3.4. The Epistemological Question
What are the means by which we as human beings are capable of discerning the facts
that constitute the answer to ultimate cosmic questions such as these?
As human beings, we have nothing more than our five physical senses, to perceive reality, and
our physical intellect, to physically organize this sensorial data intake into physical patterns.
This epistemological conclusion is reality. All else is, once again, wishful thinking on our part
as human beings.
Therefore, reality looks or feels different to each one of us, depending entirely upon what
individuals physically perceive through their five physical senses. Some people have superior
physical senses, superior physical strength, or a superior intellectual faculty.
The best manner one can use to determine the facts (or “reality”) is recognizing the physical
and mental superiority of those that are most fit and placing that individual person who
possesses the most superior physical strength and the highest degree of intellectual acuity in a
position of authority. One then only needs adopt whatever that superior individual says as
one’s own reality.
In a more modern setting, in order to determine what the facts are or what ultimate reality is,
one need only to go to the authority in the field and adopt what they assert to be fact. This
authority is the leader, the chief, or the head of state.
Pursuant to this mode of ethical reasoning, there is a hierarchy of authority, from the lowest to
the highest, ideally with one supreme individual at the apex of authority capable of resolving
all confusion. Those individuals who demonstrate the power to impose their will over all
others will conquer, govern others, and become the leaders, who, in turn, will exercise the
authority to declare what is fact.

38
3.3.5. Mode of Ethical Reasoning
Since each individual has nothing more than his or her own five physical senses to physically
perceive reality and only his or her own personal degree of intellectual acuity to organize
these otherwise disparate pieces of physical data into some strictly relative pattern of
meaning, each individual will perceive reality in accordance with his or her best, selfish
interests.
Ultimately, the only meaningful, comparable ethical referent is the degree to which each
individual person is able to maximize his or her own personal pleasure and minimize his or
her own physical pain.
There is no absolute or objective truth. There is no right. There is no wrong. There is simply
the exercise of raw power to declare what ought to be considered to be the facts in any given
situation. And, it is perfectly understandable—indeed right—that each individual attempt to
physically or intellectually compel every other individual to recognize his or her reality, the
reality that identifies his or her maximum physical pleasure and his or her minimum physical
pain, as the paramount value in the entire universe.
Therefore, when faced with a given public policy or community problem, it is predictable—
and, indeed, right—that each individual would and should attempt to exploit that particular
public problem to maximize his or her own physical pleasure and minimize his or her own
physical pain.
Therefore, when confronted with a range of alternative choices that might be made as to what
one ought do to respond to a given public policy problem, one merely selects that specific
choice (based upon one’s best physical data processed through one’s intelligence) that one
believes generates the greatest degree of short-term physical pleasure to one’s self and that
generates the least degree of short-term physical pain to one’s self or, by simple physical
extension, the choice that generates the greatest degree of physical pleasure and the least
possible degree of physical pain to one’s immediate biological family members.
The adoption of this specific mode of ethical reasoning is the straightforward, rational
product, which lacks another referent for right or wrong that we, as rational human beings, are
capable of physically experiencing through our five physical senses.
And, of course, one’s experience is expressly limited to one’s physical experiences that places
an absolute limit on the efficacy of the attempts to rally individual human beings to some
more abstract, nonphysical ethical referent. There simply is no other such physically-
experiencable referent. There is certainly no cosmic referent by means of which any
individual human being is capable of directly physically experiencing the cosmos.
Since nothing holds reality together in any predictable, reliable system in accordance with
which one can reliably say that any act is either right or wrong, I will get mine and I will seek
to generate an immediate sense of physical security around me and around my immediate

39
biological extensions. This is the only true referent for right and wrong that I can directly
experience through my five senses.
Thus, only “might makes right.” Indeed, might makes reality itself, for there is no other reality
upon which we can depend.
3.4. The Second Paradigm Worldview
Located one full step to the left of the right-systemist position along Professor Parsons’
Sociological Bar Graph, one encounters the right-marginalist position. Persons who occupy
the right-marginalist position on Professor Parsons’ Sociological Bar Graph uniformly
espouse right-marginalist positions on all public policy issues.
Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the cosmological belief that our universe
has always existed, but that it undertakes a new cycle of its perpetually-oscillating existence
as the result of the manifestation, within a previously homogeneous void of two singularities
(i.e., two distinctive points of voltage differential), one positive and the other negative.
Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, immediately following the
manifestation of these two distinct points of voltage differential within the otherwise
homogeneous void, a wave function of energy, in the amount of one electron volt unit, flows
between these two distinct points.
Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this wave function of energy
generates a field of discontinuity surrounding its linear pathway through the void. This field
then collapses into the first particle of mass. This first mass generates an even greater field of
discontinuity that surrounds it within the otherwise perfectly homogeneous void. This greater
field of discontinuity then collapses into a second particle of mass. Adherents to the Second
Paradigm Worldview believe that this event replicates itself in an exponentially accelerating
fashion. These first electrons then interact with the first protons to generate a field of
discontinuity around the two particles. These two particles then bond together to form the first
atom, an atom of hydrogen, with one proton and one electron. This process repeats itself until
there are a large number of hydrogen atoms in the void. A smaller amount of helium and trace
amounts of lithium are also created in the initial cosmic furnace.
Adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews believe that every single more
complex combination of matter (more complex than the smallest, ultimately-indivisible unit
of matter), are ultimately disintegrating into their smaller constituent, ultimately-indivisible
units of matter.
Further, adherents to the First and Second Paradigm Worldviews believe that each and every
ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical universe is, at the same time, repelling
itself out and away from every other ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our physical
universe.

40
While adherents to the First Paradigm Worldview believe that this expansion and
disintegration of all matter in the physical universe will continue to go on forever, causing it
to ultimately disintegrate into nothingness. Crucially, adherents to the Second Paradigm
Worldview believe that the expansion of the physical universe will come to a stop. It will
cease to expand, stopping our physical universe from ultimately disintegrating into
nothingness for the rest of eternity. Instead, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview
believe that, after it stops expanding, the physical universe will stand in a state of equipoise
for one brief moment before it begins to collapse upon itself, reintegrating itself back into
particles of mass (electrons, protons, neutrons, compounds, mixtures, all the way back into
planets, stars, solar systems, star clusters, galaxies, nebulae, etc.).
Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that the physical universe’s stopping
and collapsing back into physical matter will occur because they believe that there exists
enough physical matter so that the phenomenon of the direct physical attraction of every
single ultimately-irreducible integer of matter in our universe to every other such integer of
matter will be strong enough to hold our physical universe together. Because of this specific
belief, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that our physical universe is
irretrievably destined to go through a perpetual physical expansion and contraction.
Importantly, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview believe that this inevitable
contraction of our physical universe will again, inevitably, result in a unique moment in the
timeline of our physical universe at which every ultimately-irreducible integer of matter will
be in direct physical contact with each and every other ultimately-irreducible integer of
matter, thus constituting a single, super-dense singularity in the otherwise entirely
homogeneous void. At this precise point in time, adherents to the Second Paradigm
Worldview believe that this entire process will begin again, starting with a singularity and
carrying itself on through another cycle of expansion and collapse.
Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview hold the cosmological belief that the expansion
and contraction of the physical universe has been going on eternally and will continue to go
on eternally. Adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview have the ontological belief that
human consciousness is an absolutely inevitable, natural, and essential function of the
dialectical interplay between the expansive and contractive forces in our physical universe—
between mass and energy. Pursuant to this ontological belief, adherents to the Second
Paradigm Worldview hold the belief that consciousness and human life manifest within each
cycle of the physical universe.
The epistemology and theory of human psychology generated by the Second Paradigm
Worldview is sensory and instinctive. That is, adherents to the Second Paradigm Worldview
hold the belief that we, as human beings, have access to a greater truth than that which we can
experientially obtain from the total composite of data that we physically experience through
our five senses because we have the added ability, through an exercise of our instinct, to
discern the existence of a basic dialectical pattern within the data and we can project this
dialectical pattern beyond the confines of our five physical senses to ascertain the fact that a
basic dialectical dynamic underlies all physical reality.

Daniel Sheehan - Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact - New Paradigm Institute

Daniel Sheehan - Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact - New Paradigm Institute

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Daniel Sheehan - Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact - New Paradigm Institute

Similar to Daniel Sheehan - Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact - New Paradigm Institute (20)

More from Exopolitics Hungary

More from Exopolitics Hungary (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Daniel Sheehan - Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact - New Paradigm Institute