PROLOGUE — Symbols and Models


Why would the discovery of a project such as HAARP stimulate some into a dialogue with the subconscious at all? Why would otherwise reasonably good narrative writers engage the symbols of fear and hysteria, and not seek liberating emergence into the surface world? Such discussions have thematic content which addresses the problem of perception and interpretation, the differences between symbols and models of reality. The choice between these two opposites will determine our ability to make accurate and informed judgements of the mings which perplex us. In light of such a premise, we find ourselves walking the narrow way between symbol and model. These are two very opposed systems of interpretation, the difference between which readers do not always comprehend. Symbols do not represent the conscious world, they represent the manner in which the subconscious interprets the world, making expressive commentary on what it perceives from its lowly and undeveloped perspective. But models are the conscious means which we use to comprehend what we consciously perceive the conscious world of actions.

The topics which we will discuss throughout this book are the result of a model-making process. Indeed, the themes which form the thesis are the result of several overlaying models which seem to fit together too neatly for coinci-

dence. Why are models necessary? Why are we unable to make experiential judgements of our direct perceptions concerning issues germane to military topics? Because of secrecy. Secrecy blocks us from making those direct perceptions which we so desire to secure. The need to know experiences restriction, prevented from reaching its fulfillments. Ruling social structures in which we have little or no direct perception, actually provoke the necessary construction of models which we make to explain whal we cannot directly perceive and know. These notions are especially true when considering the social structure in which we are constrained to live. In the absence of extensive perception concerning the entirety of structures which rule our lives, we discover the absolute need for devising very accurate models. This model making process is predicated on the need to know, the need to extend beyond our perimeters, the need to know why we experience the things we experience.

These are matters central to the “philosophis thematon”, the philosophic theme, ft is that theme which questions the more immediate and obvious presentations made by the world upon our lives. Why are certain social classes constrained to live under the rulership which both governs and restricts their lives? To whom do these frames and structures belong? Who truly rules the strut tures themselves? Why are bureaucratic demands directed toward lower social levels, and never up toward the rulers? How democratic are democratic republics? All these questions preface any discussion of technology and military projects. They form the broad tapestry within which technology and invention arrive, fresh from an incorruptible source of dreams and visions. The necessary imperative to know the answers to such questions marks the scholarly quest. Were this a mere discussion of technology in its own right, we would not necessitate such a digression. While engineering aspects of technology do and can be treated within the scholarly vacuum of analysis, we have decided to reveal the world scope into which technology is launched.

In truth, technology cannot be discussed without taking account of much larger considerations. The Geopolitical considerations. Technology does not exist in its own vacuum. Jt is an expression as structured and powerful as those social structures which rule. Because of this, technology represents an element of challenge, a conundrum whose every revolutionary manifestation comes as a repetitive and unexpected reminder that a far superior command exists in the world ruling structure. Technology enters the real world, where actions and reactions cannot always be scientifically and stringently assessed. Indeed one finds the absolute need to predicate the entire discussion with a necessary model which makes the treatments of technology, within the social setting, more nearly comprehensible. Technology modifies the world into which it comes. It generates an unexpected power. This power appears to emerge horn the lowest level of the superstructure. The world of rulership moves around and over technologies, engaging it in a dynamic manner. The relationship between the ruling structure and technology is not a simple and scientific issue, it is an issue of power and of authority.

This is precisely why we must be prepared toward these comprehensions with some familiarity of the difference between symbols and models. To know each their significance and differences is to begin a liberating process of understanding. Models and model making are the necessary craft of those who, n sted by the very secretive and privatized nature of ruling structures, are compelled in the pursuit of specific knowledge. We seek knowledge of why the world structure behaves toward technology in each of the ways in which history has declared it to behave. Why do ruling structures quake when technologies emerge? In the absence of direct answers, those seemingly elusive gems which structures never supply in explanation for their overt actions, we are literally compelled to the model making process.


Models are not the world realities themselves, they are substitutions for realities which remain for us inaccessible, restricted, and unknown. Much of the social structure which rules us is thus best described. It is in the absence of direct perception and knowledge that we devise our models. Why this has been a perpetual theme of those who study rulership and the structure of world rule is the very obvious result of secretization and privatization. Ruling structures, whose mandates affect our lives in sometimes repressive and demanding ways, remain for us an impervious megalith. We find ourselves observing bureaucratic machinations and receiving the consequential processes whose impersonal demands do not match the reality of the observed machinations. A few strokes of the pen in a distant, unseen office, and we find ourselves overlaboring in order to pay the increased taxes which have thus been decreed. And so we and our families will labor, never having seen the person who wrote the decree, or the reason given for the increase. We, the recipients of such actions, are yet denied direct viewing access as well as direct participation in that higher process.