I had pointed out to John that his best examples of Reflexive Control described situations where external images became eclipsed by eidetic images of strong emotional content, i.e. the semiotics. A colleague known to Norseen’s Lockheed Semiotics Group, Alexei A. Sharov (also of Virginia Polytechnic Institute), had suggested in his papers that semiotic processes permeate the entire body. Certainly, some must show up as imagery in the mind. Of those, some might be considered broadcasts from beyond the individual. I wanted to know more about how he and his associates understood visionary and biological semiotics.



From Alexei A. Sharov: "One of the basic problems in bio-semiotics is understanding how 'something' becomes 'someone' Hoffmeyer (1997). In other words, what is the origin of subjectivity, or how a system can start interpreting the world? Action is the only possible predecessor of interpretation. In primitive organisms, interpretation is always reduced to some simple action. For example, the sound of a bat means 'fall down' for a moth, and a source of light means 'move here' for unicellular algae. Organisms also exhibit numerous spontaneous actions which are not induced by any external signal. The question is: what makes organisms perform all these actions? According to physics and chemistry, organism activity is predetermined in its structure. But this is only half of an answer or, better to say, not an answer at all because the next question is why organisms have this specific structure? Action and structure are two sides of the same thing which can be called 'organization'." The explanation of the origin of organization comes from the theory of evolution which in its most general form states that action and structure form a self-stimulating loop based on self-reproduction (Conrad 1983). As a result, action and structure are integrated into an organism. An organism can be viewed as an investor whose profit is self-production (Sharov 1992)...." 7


As Sharov suggests, there are many, many forms of semiotics in the body -- anywhere that communication takes place...and this would establish semiotics for cell to cell communication and also for intracellular activities.

At some point each cell needs to know if there is life going on next door. It needs to find out if there is an answer to the beacon it sent out in search of some sign of ongoing life. In a plant, the point of growth is the apical meristem; it wildly probes out and the rest of the plant follows. It follows the tract of light, and of magnetism and other waveforms. It sets up semiotics for the following plant cells to align up with -- each in turn furnishing a semiotic link for the entire plant to follow. Each cell may or may not carry out a specific function, such as set up a flower or a thorn in its local vicinity. Semiotics is the communications that establish both the local and global FORM of the object.

Some SEMIOTICS are so important that they cause InFORMation to flow to them and sometimes InFORMation (INTENT) is so great that semiotics are drawn to them. Semiotics can make information conform to internal communications, or conversely, external information can make semiotics leap out to it. In life, some combination of both is always taking place. The Semiotics is seeking out information and information/INTENT is seeking out semiotics to establish links between and among properties.

Communication via semiotics and intent is probably the driving force of the universe concerned with life.

Accordingly, inside of our brains is embedded all the structures necessary for semiotics driven by information...and for semiotics sculptured and seeking out specific information to make communications hum.

Imagery is related to bandwidth. There is so much more information available in imagery and vision, so it covers a greater range of information utilization and access. Very often in the Bible and other religious texts, the message of the gods is carried into the minds of the faithful and even the non-faithful by Visions and Dreams…but it is in the unique language of the spoken word that INTENT is most powerfully conveyed.


God even described the word to convey his intent of God as Yahweh, which is basically gibberish. Not even the mind of man could Semiotically decipher all that is God...hence the calamity...to name God is to know God, to know God is to have the power of God...but to name God Yahweh is all man can do...therefore never knowing the full measure of God.

But man can fully name other things and thus have the power over them...and so the semiotic of speech is a very powerful thing. It isolates and deciphers all that imagery can provide.

But Duncan, the brain is also more than just vision and speech...it is also feelings and instincts and partial semiotics...bits and pieces of other transmission pathways, such as magnetic or balance or gravity or centripetal forces that we can convert into Semi-Semiotics....

So there are many semiotics to communicate with...some semiotics reach out for INTENT and in some cases INTENT forces a semiotic to form.

Why semiotics?? Semiotics allows for testing of the Future by encoding the past and transferring the present.

Semiotics lets the plant know if the cells next door are dead or dying and to reorganize the direction of resource usage. Semiotics is the Knock, Knock, Knocking on the door of the future...either to confirm prior knowledge, or to capitalize on novelty.

One more concept here. Just as you have some number of temperature sensors in your skin, so many per cubic centimeter, they altogether provide you with a sensation and perception of it being too cold, just right or too hot. Not all of the sensors are getting the same pieces of information, but in the aggregate they convey a life form to you: seek shelter, coolness, warmth, get a blanket...the information of temperature produces any number of semiotics, such as need a blanket imagery in your mind, that causes the rest of the body and mind to act, so you wrap your self in a blanket The information interacting with temperature sensors set up a sequence of semiotics that performed communications that resulted in you mustering enough intent to get up and wrap yourself up in a blanket, thus closing the semiotic loop. Closure allows you to become available for the next cycle of Semiotic -- INTENT information/communication/action -- resolution.

In our PSYCHE, we have all kinds of internal Semiotic Loops permanently and semi-permanently established in our souls; we can even grow new ones! But it is damn hard to extinguish one or get rid of one once we try it out.

Duncan...it is the semiotic that is the corridor for information to become intent, and for intent to become information, sometimes simultaneously. This is the ultimate yin/yang known to the Greeks as ‘Antinomy’. Antinomy is when something and its opposite operate at the same time, but with the entire system moving on to the next state.

Can you imagine the semiotics quandary at the time of death? None of the old patterns work anymore and only a burst into a new regime of semiotics will allow for the transfer of the life force into the next realm. You can bet that a Semiotic Sensor would go wild and point in a most interesting direction at the trip wire of death…

Just as we have sensors and transmitters for all other forms of communications… there must be a Sensor/Transmitter for the Death STATE…the INTENTIONAL TRANSMISSION OF DEATH.


After reading some of the papers from the Lockheed semiotitians that you have sent, it is clear that they have already begun developing a protocol well beyond that of mechanistic science, simply by including consciousness in their approach. Is this something unique to LM and the aerospace industry, or is it an approach that is worming its way into academic science? It makes me think that the weapon design world is already grappling with issues far beyond what the rest of the scientific world is willing to tolerate.

And going back a pace, "The notion of Umwelt was introduced by Uexküll (1940) 8 for a subjective world as it is perceived and modeled by an organism. Hoffmeyer (1997) 9 emphasized the activity of organisms in building their Umwelts. Recipes for building Umwelts are included in the genotype and are transferred selectively to subsequent generations. Thus evolution is not just a change in the shape of organs but rather a change in the semiotic relationship with the world. The major evolutionary trend is the selection in favor of more complex Umwelts that increase the semiotic freedom of the organisms. According to Hoffmeyer (1997), consciousness appears when an organism discovers that it is the builder of its own Umwelt. Because of this circular reference, humans obtained freedom to reinvent semiotic relationships with the world, which enormously speeds up the evolution of Umwelts." I am taking this out of context and shortening the arguments, but isn't this bio-semiotic theory very analogous to our discussion of radionics and art?

In our metaphor, the Umwelt is the way a culture views itself. This is reflected on a day to day basis as the art product of the culture; art equals passion plus structure. Because we realize in some sense that adapting a more complex Umwelt leads to more semiotic freedom, which I interpret as more consciousness, the collective mind of the culture invests in the production of art. The profit is an expanded Umwelt which forms a "self-stimulating loop based on self-reproduction", the self-reproduction here being in consciousness. This value can also be reflected in the literal value of the art, but not necessarily so and certainly is not the only reason for its value. In time, however, the culture recognizes the 'true' art of the era, as the valued Umwelt is revealed and accepted. Now when an artist contributes significant input (works) to the cultural Umwelt, someone becomes something, but what of the reverse? If you or I absorb the meaning of that Umwelt, doesn't a “something” now become a “someone” in our consciousness?

And isn't that transaction more or less exactly what takes place if a witness in a radionics box coupled with an intention results in a change of state in the Interpretant? And so, if we are describing a common semiotic or bio-semiotic occurrence, doesn't that in some sense validate radionics? Likewise, wouldn't we presume that the primary function of art is semiotic and radionic? This would seem to be the case in pre-literate societies and contemporary indigenous peoples that readily experience transformative, energetic output from their ceremonies and image creation?


I have been reading over Cleve Backster’s new book, Primary Perception 10 about his long term experiments in plant communications. I think his work that may be important in concretizing the Norseen Semiotic.

What struck me was the area of his research that investigated where the replication of his experiments with plants by others failed. As you probably know, other groups had difficulty replicating his work because they did not, in Backster’s opinion, achieve total automation of the experiments, i.e. they did not completely separate the plants from those in charge of the experiment. Already I am beginning to sense why. I see the semiotic formula, ORI, creeping in. The plants change from "I" to "R" for the person in charge of the experiment, looping them in without their knowledge. The experimenter becomes imbedded in the semiotic, an influence upon its predictive capacity. The emotional bias of the experimenter’s semiotics can alter the outcome.

In writing about one such replication failure, a plant’s reaction to brine shrimp falling into boiling water at a randomly selected moment, Backster states the following: “The plants were in a holding room seven days in advance of their intended use. They then bathed the leaves in distilled water. Any kind of experimenter contact with the plants prior to the actual experiment usage can compromise the experiment by allowing prior attunement between the plant and the researcher rather than the more subtle stimulus provided by the death of the brine shrimp.” The reader is left to wonder how a handler's familiarity with the plant may cause it to react differently to the death of the shrimp.

It occurs to me that within the relationship between plant and handler we potentially have a laboratory for examining the complex relationships between life form, semiotic and emotion or perception. At the core of the issue we have a plant interpreting an action, the death of the shrimp. When the experiment goes as planned; when no one is around; the cup filled with live shrimp tips over at a random time, and the plant’s voltage spikes as they die. It appears the plant "emotionally" experiences the death of the shrimp. But from a semiotic standpoint, the scalding water could be the object that the shrimp interpret by releasing a signal. The plant becomes a Representamen (R) between the death of the shrimp (O) and the scientist (I). There may not be emotional recognition of pain present in the ordinary sense in the plant, but only a registering of semiotics across the life death interface.

Even in the case where a plant appears to respond to the intention to do it harm, the circumstances may be viewed semiotically and not necessarily as the result of emotion. The intention to harm is clearly a signal interpreted by the plant. It has its roots in a human intention, but not necessarily an emotion. Perhaps, when the emotion isn’t clear, then the signal can’t be interpreted. That scenario would favor emotion as the primary perception. If the emotion is the object, the expression of that emotion, or intent, is the Representamen. The plant could be the interpretant of the intent, but not necessarily of the emotion. When the intent to harm the plant is genuine, the plant responds.

In the Russian video replication of this experiment (see The Secret Life of Plants 11), the plant reacts to a person who has previously harmed a plant, but does not intend to harm one now. It appears that the plant “feels” the previous murderous actions of the individual before it.

In this case again, to say the plant may be “feeling” the emotion of whatever is broadcasting the intent, could be incorrect. It could be that the intent is not something felt at all. It could be a semiotic feedback loop, whose whole purpose is to bring about a future change of conditions, i.e., plant murder. It strikes me that, in light of the NS, experiments could be devised that would clarify the extent to which the plant actually "felt" something or simply responded to semiotics within the environment.

Going a bit further, it might be possible to isolate a semiotic from something going on in the central nervous system, because it seems reasonably clear that the plant has some mechanism for recognizing symbols without the benefit of any nerves. This would also hold true for cells, which Backster also experimented with. With the proper semiotic perspective, we might be able to re-interpret Backster’s famous experiments in a wholly new way, and actually get his feedback or participation. Any way you look at it, framing these plant experiments in light of the Norseen Semiotic makes them scientifically more plausible. What changes is the manner in which we view emotion in relation to signal. The emotion behind the signal is like the amperage; it provides enough force to turn emotion into expression, just like it does in the art process.

When I hooked up my own plants in the same way and allowed them to generate signals that were processed into musical tones and phrases, I kept wondering whether their performances were the result of some type of induction, perhaps a sound wave moving the leaf, or whether the plants could actually create their own discreet signals and thereby play tunes on their own. Objectively, I found it hard to believe that my plants were capable of playing independent and conscious music, even of improvising though that is what it sounded like. I thought it must be plant elementals having fun, or something equally Theosophical. The plants made musical phrases on their own, but they played along only with certain types of music; at best, they seemed to improvise around the basic theme. In other words, their “music” didn’t sound mechanical. They sounded like they were creating their own musical structures in response to the structures that were being played for them. That is the impression of everyone that has heard the recordings. It certainly appears like an “emotional” reaction.

So, in Backster’s view, this would connote additional evidence for plant intelligence and feeling; but wait a minute. They didn’t respond much too thumping dance beats and other more mechanical forms of music. What they responded to was the kind of music I liked. They liked certain kinds of jazz; they loved Cajun & Zydeco; they even liked a local composer I knew. Maybe what was going on was that by responding to me, the one who watched them and gave them water, they were interpreting my positive or negative semiotic reaction to the music selections. Their apparent “emotional” response to the music was a form of induction, but not electromagnetic induction; semiotic induction.


Last fall, some friends who were making a local movie asked me to use my sensors to create a sound track for them that would represent the Spirit of Nature. They wanted this music to foreshadow certain scenes where something magical was about to happen. Previously, I had taken some classical pieces they liked and played them for the plants, and some terrifically blended interpretations resulted. However, because of copyright issues we had to go do something without prerecorded music.

It happened that the filmmakers were followers of the Youraba religion. They had a very well developed sense of the occult, and this included a belief that the totems of the Orishas in their private sanctuary at home were in a sense, animate.

This understanding being the case, I asked them to find out if the Orishas would consent to my using their totems as a sensor to extract the nature-spirit music for the movie. It is not that unusual in Youraba to make small requests of this kind. I had witnessed something similar in Youraba trance dancing ceremonies I had seen in New York, where the deity takes possession of the dancer for a short interval.

The request was granted, and my friends brought over their totems. Gordon Salisbury, our resident instrument designer, was able to find a wire sticking out of the wax effigies here and there, and set each on a metal plate for the second electrode. They proceeded to produce some enchanting music entirely on their own that was perfect for the film.

There was nothing biologically alive in the totems. Initially this fact and other experiments of a similar nature we made using rocks as sensors, made me wonder if what we were doing was something like Ghost Radio. In ghost radio, an RCA plug without connecting wires is put into an open mike jack, and one turns up the volume and listens for voices in the noise. But our signals, when processed, were subtle and appropriate to the intended usage. They also would “pattern” themselves to pre-recorded music on occasion. Here, biological intelligence or emotion does not appear to be a factor in the outcome; it appears instead to be semiotically driven by the intent of the interpreter. Proper scientific investigation would obviously be required to determine anything conclusive.

On the one hand, you can’t call the experience “totem feelings” or describe the electrical self-potential of the chemistry (if it existed) as a form of sentience. Of course, some spurious voltage is produced by the capacitance of the totem, but that doesn’t completely explain the harmonic order created by the time it leaves the sound processor, though some other variable might well. What could explain it is the semiotic relationship between the various intents focused upon the task. Clearly we had a Representamen, the totem, where the Orishas intent and the director’s intent and my and Gordon’s intent all converged. Here, the output was a specific type of acoustical structure, interpreted by all of us emotionally, and processed as musical phrase by the Harmonizer (a signal processor). But what is the object? The object, in my opinion, was the merged ideal “geometry” of all three interests that had a stake in the outcome. Of course, one must allow the Orishas’ intent to be considered as the “object” as well.

What also may have occurred is that semiotics were directly translated into “art” without the benefit of a human doing something physical to a medium. What do you think of that?

I find something fascinating about this in an experimental context. Potentially, an explanation involving subtle energy, Alfven Waves and ZPE, essentially the Norseen Semiotic, can both simplify and clarify the Backster experiment which has defied mechanistic analysis for so long. What we think of as emotion may not always be emotion, but a facsimile byproduct of another type of energetic discharge. It would be great if we could design some simple experiments with these things in mind and see what happens!


You, the plant savior, became their ticket to survival so they patterned themselves to your semiotic value system. But what is the object? The object, in my opinion, was the merged intent of all three interests that had a stake in the outcome. Intent can be an Object, using itself as the Sign as well...and remember semiotics need not be passive; semiotics can be active. They are much more fun when they are alive, on the hunt for other Signs.

Think: Predatory semiotics. Sign as Intent, with Object being the focus of the intents (# of players thought focus). The Music produced by the focus of intent when bounced back from the other semiotics used, forms a Chamber of Interpretants and Representamen. Now your consciousness, with intents sweeping over the various objects, creates the linking mechanism within the virtual chamber, i.e. the music, the reverberation of the chamber.

Imagine this: you take two people into a cave and hum at various pitches. The chamber of tonal music is quite different than if you are in the same chamber hall with 100 people. Scale is important to semiotics...you are ramping down or pitching up the volume dramatically in your cavorting endeavors.

Back to emotion and the chakras; I asked Pribram: why are Broca and Wernicke areas only on the left side, pushing speech to the left hemisphere, and forcing an unequal distribution of emotion laden information onto the vagus nerve, away from interacting with the speech centers? Why did nature leave us with INEFFABLE gaps between emotional information and spoken language?

He responded simply that more "Blood" pumped out to the left side of the brain; yielding better nutrients; the better semiotic neurons are provided a better food source. The rest of the brain didn't get the fresh blood. There is also in here, I am sure, some of the clash of Jean M Auel's Clan of the Cave Bear, in The Origins of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes. Too many left-handed warriors took a sword to the heart, and thus were born the Right Arm of Semiotics, the INEFFABLE, via emotions in the older brain. Also, add the understood semiotics via the internal delusional manifestation of talking to ourselves. But whom are we talking to… ourselves, or our gods?

Imagine an earlier man, much like a person today, who suddenly experiences Synesthesia sitting at the keyboard and Wham! I could smell the words, and the hum of the computer was blood red; this totally wiped me out… Wow, I am in the Elysian Fields, my battle armor is next to me, the short sword still in my hand, the blood is no longer running into my eyes. There is a beautiful woman holding my head in her lap, clothed in the finest softest silk… Then I wake up, a rower in a Phoenician trade ship. I can talk to myself; plot a way out of the belly of this beast. I can feel the sun on my face and the salt sea breeze, telling me the island I seek is not far off…and I shall find, I must find, the Golden Fleece of SEMIOTICS!

The experiments sound great. We must ensure that the TipOver events are indeed random, and that the INTENT and INTERPRETANT are isolated as best we can.

Experiment: Get a bag of seed, or better yet, two different brands of the same seed, and mix them, about 7 or so shuffles can constitute a fair shuffle. Now we purposefully pick music that each of us likes a lot, but is different from each other qualitatively as well as measurably. Let's say a 3-beat waltz versus your Cajun hyperstructures.

For the first tests, you play the good Interpreter. Bring in only good intent, food, water, sunlight, good soil, warmth, pH and your music. Then I come in and play the bad ecologist interested only in Alaskan tundra oil; screw the permafrost, my hemi needs it. When I play the music I like, I mess with the plants. I yell at them, let them dry out a bit, blow cold wind on them, etc. Next, we compare the measurements of your days and my days. Then we turn it around and measure; maybe we can develop a bunch of Neurotic herbs? Something like this would be cool.

Talk about subtle energy; we could measure the plants when you and I open an envelope and it dictates which of us is going to be nice or mean to the plants. Now, at that moment of the opening, the plants could count on either of us to be humane with respect to them. Only in our quiet minds, when we open the envelope, will each of us and the plants know subtly what is going to happen. Will the plants be able to know which of us will be the role player? Can the plants “KNOW” our assigned INTENT!!!


It turns out that in reading Backster, one of his biggest problems in obtaining scientific approval lay in the difficulty many groups had in replicating his experiments. In response, Backster points out that in many cases a fatal flaw was made: “They made it obvious that they were not following proper automation procedures. The plants were in a holding room seven days in advance of their intended use. Any kind of experimenter contact with the plants prior to the actual experiment usage can compromise the experiment by allowing prior attunement between the plant and the researcher rather than the more subtle stimulus provided by the death of the brine shrimp.”

It seems that any familiarity with a plant, or perhaps any sensing organism (that isn’t quite clear), has the capacity to be influenced by the observer, in an almost quantum mechanical way. I have observed this as well, as recently as Monday. Gordon and I were doing some equipment checks, and I had a large piece of volcanic rock hooked up to the RCC (Rate of Change Converter) and the Harmonizer. To see if it would react, I played some Mongolian Hoomi music. Immediately we hear from the rock a reaction that sounded like a partial entrainment to the music but was still confused. At one point, Gordon reduced the volume of the music, thereby rendering it less distorted. Immediately, the rock went right into phase with the regular beats of a twanging Jews harp.


I kept replaying that section, and tried to record it. Later, when we changed the melodic parameters to better tune the rock's pitch to the music, the entrainment became incoherent again. We could not, through effort, get back to that pristine connection. This wasn’t a tight experiment, because I didn’t isolate the rock from acoustic waves or em, but it was interesting nonetheless.

We are also constructing a sensor array we tentatively are calling the Dead Souls Beacon. The “DSB” is an attractor that can be set up in the lab with no one around, isolated from em and wind, with both biological and electromagnetic sensors. Based upon the information you shared about what occurred at the listening posts on the submarines, it could potentially pick up semiotics from the floating dead going up and down Narragansett Bay. Because said dead ones are not unconscious, I propose leaving near the sensor a written sign containing Morse code, and an invitation to communicate via “hits” on the sensor that can be recorded as code and later translated.

A more elaborate, artistic response would be for said disincarnates to trigger biological sensors that would compose music via the Harmonizer. All this could be accomplished independently of anyone in or nearby the building. Will this set-up actually pick up a disembodied spirit? That remains to be seen, but it could investigate some aspects of Backster’s concerns for autonomy, particularly if the sensor material is handled properly.

We now have a variety of sensors: plants, rocks (including the ledge upon which the studio is built), fungal, egg, tissue, and cellular material to sample via Bridge or GSR technology. What remains is how to design these experiments? How do we model them in such a way as to reveal the nature of the signal under study? I believe that it is nearly impossible to completely eliminate the spurious influence of electromagnetic artifacts both within the area of the electrodes, and from the surrounding environment outside the electrodes. But say we give it a good shot.

Next, we have to eliminate the contamination of intention that exists on a subtler level that Backster talks about. Say we find a way to do that. Then, how do we test for or determine whether we have isolated a semiotic in a simplified state?

Here’s one idea. We try a radionic approach. We take a Polaroid of a plant sensor setup, go to another place with a radionic device like the UKAKO, that is free of dials, etc., and plop the Polaroid smeared with plant nutrients down on the UKAKO and push the transmit button, with the intent to remotely boost the plant's vitality. We see if there is a corresponding response in the plant via the electrodes. Could this approach be described as a semiotic transaction, in the sense we have been discussing?


Do you have a QEEG or EEG box? The QEEG can do more analysis in the Wavelet and Phase analysis. If we take Pribram and the Russian work, it shows that human brain structure is an interferometer that uses Gabor Function (wavelet-codelet analysis) in Hilbert Space. So as the dead transition, they will pass through this Wavelet-Codelet space/time filter. If we can show on the EEG or QEEG any Wavelet-Codelet blips that correspond to other death information that intersect in time or location, then we have Trapped something.


Also, we should be showing the transition of hits or blips in that 7.0-9.0 Hz Earth waveguide region, with super-correlation at 10 Hz, where the being is aware of the end and is fighting/debating whether or not to go to the light. This "decision" corridor is a pulse of 10 Hz for some time. It then settles down in the earth waveguide during the transition from living to non-pseudo-living.

As you indicate, we need to provide some Semiotic that is attractive for a "soul" to want to manipulate as a communications mechanism. The simplest Morse code that I remember from memorizing the entire code is “...---...” or SOS, but based on Pavlovian open biofeedback, we don't necessarily have to have all the RULES in place. We can leave some of the how will it work to Adaptive Engagement. We may be able to leave the system open to adjusting to new rules from us and from our guests.

The NEXUS could be one rule; use the following signal or semiotic “...---...” as a cue on the sensors to initiate changes in direction or communication to another more feasible unit of communication. Either we pick another Semiotic, or allow our Guests to pick their semiotic of choice and communicate it to us. We need to allow the Guests to set some of the rules.

For instance, in one case we may allow Norseen with the QEEG head set on to be the Beacon Relay. We get his baseline 10 Hz reading and then look for spikes that also occur in other plant or rock recordings. We allow the Guest to pick among the three for the session. We see if we can get a Round Robin going. Guest Number One comes in and does a “...---...” on Norseen 's head and points to the Rock sensor. Guest Slice #2 goes to the rock, and then another pointer to all three in succession; Norseen, Rock, Plant.

Do you see where I am driving? Rather than just take a picture of a Guest, or show a change in an EM recording, we actually engage and play Comms tag, Semiotic Tag, with the visitors. Now try to explain how that series of events is concocted. The very Game-like nature of such a search betrays some deeper intelligence and communications pathways using the subtle energies.

My fingers are writing most of this response under a seemingly Dictation-like feeling. I am getting inspiration from a group of erstwhile energies that are willing to play Semiotic Tag with us....dance around the light...the 10 Hz boogey, and the SOS ...---... waltz!


P.S. Duncan, this map showing the concatenation of UFO sightings across the country and the world is what I was trying to describe to you about the Dead Souls Beacon....at different times in different locations, there are surges of deaths above some regular earth beat. And if you could record them and begin to sort them out you would see that there are definite patterns to how the dead show up around the earth. Like Carl Jung said when he went into his OBE, “I found myself floating quietly above Ceylon. I believe it to be the null zone, the dwelling point of those that would observe the earth.” A century later our graviton machines show that Sri Lanka (Ceylon) has the lowest gravity pull of any spot above the earth and that as the NS passes from life to life like some metempsychotic astronaut, then ZPE of the baton handoff across non-living to living to post living will show up on the Dead Souls Beacon much like these UFO activity charts. Remember, the Earth-Wide system must be able to understand earth-sized accessions and depletions of soul energies…the earth needs to know, in a system orientation way, if certain species are increasing or decreasing and the needs to balance the energy flows...therefore tapping the earth as it counts the NS is essentially what we are piggy backing onto.


I don’t know much about science, but everything I hear about what constitutes the substance of our existence is described in very object-driven terms; atoms, molecules, quarks, photons, even waves are all part of a vast machine-like assemblage. It can all be measured and weighed and sorted out until we get to Quantum Physics and the sub-atomic world, where suddenly things get murky. Here, perception influences outcome, but nobody defines perception. In light of the NS, perception is Interpretation, the missing ingredient of the mechanistic credo.

I suddenly perceive an object and by doing so, that object changes. Very common actually, we call it “love”. But for the sake of our discussion, it’s occurring at a very small level. An object, say a sub-atomic particle, is humming along in space very happy being non-living potential energy. Then my consciousness suddenly gives it a smack. At this point, a marriage occurs. Consciousness equals semiotic intent; I have directed my life force, my intelligence, my consciousness into the energetic structure of the particle, i.e., BioFusion. What now exists in the space previously occupied solely by the particle is a fusion of life energy and matter.

Artistically, what has occurred is that a material object that can be well defined has assumed the properties of a metaphor. The semiotics can react very differently with each and every signal that they encounter. Suddenly, there are no more “objects”, clean and simple, left in the universe that we can see and ponder. Everything man has touched has become contaminated with a hideous complexity and innuendo. Thus Backster cannot get clean reactions from his plants if there is even a trace of his consciousness contaminating the plant’s reactions. Even without contamination, we cannot possibly “Know” what that plant signal really consists of.

So, when we see or feel an Intelligence, UFO or Ghost or whatever it is that is potentially foreign enough to be beyond our imagination, you say our perception of it could be like synesthesia. My feeling is that the fusion of sensual data results rather in being metaphor or archetype, some “presence” we actually encounter. From the NS perspective, this archetype is the self-Interpretant in the semiotic. Its form completely transcends any mechanistic credo, and yet there it is, altering the outcome (i.e., metaphor) of things. As a semiotic, it grows toward life in the biological sense as it encounters other life-affirmative forces: light, heat, nutrients, etc. Those signals add to the semiotics power to create a Representamen of itself in the future.

When it comes to assessing the nature of such a process, the artistic commonalities are obvious. Take what you say about trying to communicate with an object. Isn’t that the essence of creating and appreciating art? Does true communication happen? Science would say no, because the infusion of semiotics into form as the molecules of paint or clay are being moved around would be considered mystical rubbish by many. But some of the work we have done here (that I don’t pretend to understand) speaks to this issue even more specifically. In wiring up rocks to access the electrical self-potential (in mille-voltages) given off by them (it’s often constant), we have an analogue to what you have said before:

“Eventually in space-time, a living object will attempt to communicate with a non-living object and the result will be some movement toward life in the inanimate object and some reconsideration of what life is in the living object with the implication that at some point, a third (Shadow) semiotic or God Object will manifest itself and provide a steering mechanism among the triad.”

When we put music on in the studio and then wire up the rock to respond, we were astonished to find that the rock would occasionally mimic the music. This feat was complicated by the fact that if we put a lot of attention on the fact of its occurrence, it would cease happening, very much like what Backster described with plants. So, was it a form of induction, or a consciousness phenomenon? Science won’t allow us to know, because even the possibility that the rock held semiotics that could reflexively respond to music would be considered heresy. So, as a result, the phenomenon becomes an art issue. Why? The phenomena have become metaphor. That is the very best explanation we can give it. The singing stone is an artistic metaphor for the existence of Gaia in the Earth. End of story, no proof necessary.

The Norseen Semiotic, whatever it is to science and engineering, is also the domain of metaphor, of nuance; placing it in art as well.

Yet the NS has made this dichotomy of interpretations a little more complex and paradoxical. It has also crossed the life and death barrier, and looked beyond. The NS introduces what you call the “shadow semiotic”, a motive force outside the agreed upon ingredients within the exercise. With a plant, it is easy to believe that some “life force” exists that is capable of responding to music, but a rock?

If the effect is not some type of electronic or mechanical induction, then it becomes a perfect miniature laboratory for exploring the nature of semiotics, especially the NS. I am in the process of setting up a strip chart recorder to monitor the signal, to see if the moments of musical coherence show up as a distinct pattern on the chart. What some real lab could figure out is whether or not this signal indicated the Universal Communication Structure you speak of, and if ZPE could be seen interacting with the rock molecules. It’s a great template.

It was with this in mind I began thinking about exactly what the NS would be like physically or perceptually, if it was to be “discovered” in a laboratory setting. Then my thoughts ran to Wilhelm Reich, who, as Freud’s youngest disciple, was the only Psychiatrist in that group, including Freud, to believe the libido was in fact an actual energy, and not just a metaphor.

I see parallels to the NS. A semiotic in the Peircean definition is still basically metaphorical, a language used to describe events. By contrast, the NS is basically energetic, though I admit to describing it in very metaphorical terms myself. One cannot fully circumvent its energetic existence; however, in whatever weird way it exists. That would suggest to me that physical linkage must exist in some form or manner that can be witnessed energetically in the physical world. [Outline of Peircean Semiotics, see Appendix]

That thought made me dig up some material on Wilhelm Reich’s bion experiments which I saw duplicated when I took Dr. Courtney Baker’s Orgonomy laboratory course. Here again, we are talking about life energy phenomena emerging at the life/matter interface. The experiments show life energy emerging from silica. The coincidences are just too many to dialogue. This fact has led me to assemble some internet sites for you to look at if you like where this is going.


Duncan, I found out an interesting factoid that I was not aware of before…when a person dies, there are clusters of stem cells in the brain that survive for some time after death is pronounced…a last vestige of the person in amongst the pile of cells in a rotting corpse. So I have been thinking in overdrive...what if someone were to scoop up this pool of stem cells and augured them back to life in a full blown body, or at least a viable brain - would the NS work as challenged, or would some other form of sentience be at play.

Wow, this is really intriguing me…let's say that the NS remains intact, that you still have the I working in a new set of surroundings…so what makes this so much different from a grouping of cell like operations on the surface of a crystalline Rock. What if the stem cells were found to be functional in and amongst the other cell structures of the Rock? Would this not then be pre-life or proto-life? Or, along the same lines, many fellow researchers are taking brain cells, chiefly hairy piano neurons, and transplanting them alongside chips and resistors – not unlike the Ganesh rock sequences – and they are communicating and linking machines together to produce ART, as in the article I sent you. So if this is a further reduction of Chaos, then why can't a Rock surface become the Media for the biology, and intent, and the NS? Of course, it can; merely a scalar principle from non-live and entropy and chaos to lesser chaos, and less entropy and more order and complexity – driven by NS, ZPE and Alfven Wave Grid point locations.


Now that is interesting. Speaking of weird rocks, I just received some Vishnu Schist from Nevada, the exact same stuff of the Ganesh experiments. We’re deliberating over how to best hook it up. It seems like Dan Burisch (a renegade scientist from a secret government lab with a big web following, who first drew attention to this type of rock’s esoteric properties) held a microphone to the schist, of all improbable things, picked up sounds like human singing! There is that crossover to Reich’s bions again. (Reich pulverized rock into sand, heated it up, and out popped orgone, seen as blue light.)

You didn’t say how long those cells remain alive after the moment of death. Maybe they are there for months. If so, maybe we can make a cellular zombie. Why resuscitate a whole body? Why not put them in a Petri dish like the rat brain cells, and see if they can generate a pattern or a melody. Or let’s say the dead person had some favorite music; you could play that music for the cells and see if it wakes them up?

Now back to the stone. Why does it produce bions? Life force is imbedded in the rock and serves as an Interpretant for some type of cosmic process that takes place on planetary objects. The bion isn’t a cell, but it could contain ZPE and semiotic information. Maybe that is why the body needs minerals. I don’t think you need a cell in the rock surface to find the NS, if you buy the notion of bions. The cell conveniently provides DNA, or a biological semiotic data base with which to create linkage with other complex systems, such as the chips.

In the case of the rocks, instead of a DNA output, maybe you get a nested electrical pattern such as the electrical self-potentials that I use to generate sound. In the same sense that the rat neurons generate art and slowly move toward order, the rock bions occasionally pattern themselves electrically against the music. What the rat researchers don’t consider are all the experimental complications that Backster pointed out regarding biological communications. Human intent interacting in any way with the experiment causes serious drift as the process unfolds. To me, that is the Interpretant’s NS traveling upstream through R to O influencing the activity radionically.



I had a sudden extreme urge to answer this On the Spot response of yours with the following comments: And the Bible says to build upon the Rock...maybe there is some literal truth there.

The rock provides the best supporting structure for the NS to form biologically. The Rock provides the necessary crystals, the solid foundation basis, the surface exposure, the electrical properties, etc., etc., that soil, or beach sands alone could not. So, just as it takes 49 days for the structure of the Pineal Gland to get to the point where it can juice out DMT and the soul molecule is distributed in the brain, maybe the Vishnu Schist (great name isn't it) is like the Pineal Gland, it allows for all the right properties to be aligned and Juiced Out, and maybe formed in the earth's electromagnetic history with all the right Alfven Wave grid patterns and other ZPE transfer qualities that the NS requires when looking for a home for the soul…maybe this Vishnu Schist is the right Rock of Life.

I am also becoming convinced that the Nitrogen molecule is the Interpreter of the NS in the brain...everywhere I look at soul-like activity in the brain the molecules involved all resonate around the special properties of the N molecule. Maybe there is a relationship to how biological molecules, and the N molecule in particular, lay out in relationship to the Ganesh activity of the Vishnu Schist…..Keys to unlock the Earth's secrets of the universe, via the rock into the biological system for further elaboration in time/space.


You wrote “The value of a deeper contact with reality, the environment in which semiotics inhabit is at the least, circular, and most likely multi-dimensional. How does that explain rocks that sing and plants that cry?”

Wow, I was just now describing how I felt compelled to write the words to you in a playful way. I talked about the deeper energies (deeper contact with reality), and the circular, multidimensional semiotics (the round robin semiotic tag) and the souls and rocks that sing and the plants that cry? (the brain, the plant and the rocks, measured by EEG, etc...)

Once again, it is like I am dictating a response to you from somewhere that anticipates what your next message is. I answer the next message with the ending of the last prior message. The answers we may be seeking will show up at the front end, or tail off, of a prior/next message. Or another way to look at it, we may be getting the answers or snippets and slices of the earlier or follow up signals. SEE, already they are playing TAG with us!!!