Transcribed by Randy Koppang
The Bob Dobbs dialogue with Randy Koppang, Part 1
The following transcript of illumination was initiated during a Bob Dobbs 21st Century Mystery School seminar for DeMytholoatriarchy and Metaspheric Affaires. Held on 29 July, 1996, Venice, California. Hosted by Gerry Fialka and his Contemporary Communications Conference.
For this workshop, our theme was: Creative Evolution and the Peer Reviewing of Obsolete Reality Tunneling.
Randy Koppang -- Contemporary Communications Conference proudly presents Media Ecologist Bob Dobbs! At this juncture of his perpetual conversation with the global group mind -- we are about to engage Bob's Mystery School For Perceptual Training. A course in understanding without boundaries; technologically, culturally, genetically and epigenetically.
For the sake of simple beginnings, the footnote where we agreed to start is in reference to a letter: The "Prince Barnard of The Netherlands Letter", by Marshall McLuhan, 14 May, 1969; sent to their Royal Highness, Prince Barnard, in appreciation for McLuhan's invitation to address the Bilderberg Conference…
How did you characterize this letter?
Bob Dobbs: Well, it's the 'Ur' letter; for exposing people to thoughts of McLuhan that are not popularized through Wired Magazine, or any other media coverage that ever was done of McLuhan. This shows you a level of thinking that Marshall worked from, that's just not known. So, it always initiates people into a basic point of McLuhan; giving you a jumping off point for understanding why he said what he said.
RK: What's the definition of 'Ur'?
Bob: Oh -- 'Ur' is a Mesopotamian city --2000 B.C. trade center; Nexus -- Abraham and those people. It's a beginning point, it's the "Ur" metaphor. This -is the first of a whole spew of information that Will come from me and my colleagues which will initiate a new level -- as you implied in your introduction. So, this (letter) is the 'Ur' of that process. This is the first degree of the 33 degrees, or black belt process -- you know?
RK: Very good point. And in fact, given the ever greater contextual density of our increasingly eschatological Satcom -Fiberop - TV/Webnet - created sensibility for interconnectedness --
Let me seize your mention of "The 33 Degrees" as an opportunity.
And, let's skip ahead now like time machines extrapolating way into the future. Up from your archaeo-literary Ur-beginning, I'll show you my exhibit one; i.e. (as Dave Emory would say), "Food for thought and grounds for further research." Check this out, from an aerospace newspaper titled "Aerotech News". Here are 2 feature photos, one from 7/5/96 and one from 6/21/96 (an auspicious astrological date). These are new spacecraft proposals I'm sure you're familiar with. But, the insight suggested by my friend, regarding these 2 spacecraft, is perhaps encrypted in what they are both named, i.e. "X-33": the single-stage-to-orbit realization of the old sci-fi literature and movies from the '50's. Where men take off in their rocket, go to Planet-X, turn around and land; then, return. These new "X-33's" are precisely the technoevolved realization of old science-fiction fantasies, way into a future having become our present -- however obsolete they may be.
There is one version of this single-stage-to-earth orbit craft by McDonnell Douglas called X-33, and there's a competing model called X-33, by Lockheed-Martin. The insight I was given is, if one were to de-code the craft from a viewpoint of who knows what, and why -- it's possible that the corporate authors of X-33, apparently are trying to, in some science fictionesque ritualization, realize freemasonic rituals; i.e., ritual, through space exploration, for their understanding our hidden ancient past, and ancient artifacts (actually, "ooparts": out-of-place artifacts) and the true history of mankind in a genetic sense. But, also epigenetically as "technical destiny" has evolved alongside a heritage of ritualizing utility, which techni can be imbued with -- done, apparently by someone who uses symbols like X33, with a freemasonic or illuminated type of... uh...
Bob: Motive!
RK: Yeah, okay. Fill in my blanks. So, is this an exaggeration, or is such an analysis possible? What do ya think?
Bob: Oh no -- that's true. And to understand that, is an old pattern. Because, first of all, July 5th is ~Ex-Day'. In 2 years it will be EX-Day; you know, in the Church of the Subgenius mythology -- you know about that?
RK: No.
Bob: The EXs (i.e. Extraterrestrials) will come on July 5, 1998. That's the prophesy in Stang's book.
So, you've got July 5th, that's interesting. The other point is that Marshall, in his satirical rehearsal and replay of the history of technology, in "Understanding Media" --Why does it have 33 chapters? That's the point. Marshall was imitating the freemasonic agenda of the technological cycle. He was mirroring back, and he knew! So there ya have it right in Understanding Media.
And July 5th is the predicted date of the EXs coming to wipe out the pinks on the planet, and saving the Subgenius Church, due to negotiations by me with the EXs. It's the "Independence Day" scenario. They're gonna come and wipe out everybody. But there's a small group that negotiates and saves some people.
RK: The raptured chosen...
Bob: Yeah -- that's the subgeniuses. And Bob, myself, will be the one to do that. And that date, prophesied since 1979, is 7/5/98.
It's interesting -- the EX-Day, 33, July 5th...
RK: I was totally unfamiliar with EX-Day. I mean, re-learning with Bob's material and Marshall's and James Joyce is enough for anyone's lifetime; much less Nelson Stahl's parody of same, and your de facto publicity accruing therefrom.
However, regarding my own re-connectedness, it may be worth mentioning. It was through Rev. J.R. Bob Dobbs and Pastor Bucknaked that I got into this whole situation. Now -- today having arrived here with my invitation for initiation into the anti-cult of No Boundaries.
I think I found a flyer with the Xeroxed cliche-o-type Boblogo of Ward Cleaver (Beaver's father) and a pipe in his mouth.
Then, a friend and I carried on this weird inside-joking between the 2 of us (outsiders of the joke not aware of what the weirdness was) -- about Bob, and who's Bob and Bob the subgenius and Bob this that and the other thing... Then, long after this Introlude, I came to the retrievalization that actually this was --you know, a diversion; the understanding of our now of past and future was through you!
Bob: Now I like to know dates. When did you have that experience; how many years ago when you saw the logohead of Bob?
RK: Oh -- it was about 10 years ago.
Bob: Were you in the L.A. area?
RK: Yeah.
Bob: Because that Subgenius campaign was on the cover of 'L.A. Weekly' in 1986. So, we're talking 10 years. And when did you realize that the 'Church' was a distraction? You hadn't heard of me yet.
RK: No, no! Perhaps 7-8 years. I first ran into Bob through the power and revelation of synchronicity -- like everything comes to us!
Bob: And the new percept is xenochrony; as my new chart develops.
RK: Yes! I want to pursue that!
In preparation for today, my homework was to imprint myself with some literature sent me by Gerry; bringing xenochrony to my attention for the first time.
But, harmoniously enough, shortly thereafter having read your new chart -- I began to perceive that how you were applying it was literally occurring to me. And as I watched others try and introduce your particulars to the uninitiated -- then you see how the technological resonances factor into the syncretism of daily phenomenology.
In fact, it happened last night -- maybe I. should describe that. It was truly revelatory. I walked out to the beachfront walk in Manhattan Beach; my girlfriend and I. The full moon was just rising, and had this etheric cloud formation passing by transparently. So you could see the moon and Venus behind the wispy clouds. I stood there watching the moon in one direction, then I turned my head and looked instantly through a big picture window, directly into the beach facing front room of this beachfront pad; directly into the living room, where the owner had their color TV on, perfectly framed facing right at me -- and the broadcast image on the TV at that very instant, as I turned by head from seeing the transparent clouds passing by the full moon, was the very same image of the earth, viewed from space with a veil of clouds whispily passing by in front of it!
So, I thought this may be xenochrony right there --absolutely, you know, realizing some odd variation or technologically enhanced, or... how do you define that?
Bob: Hahahaha -- yes, well it's a fusion; it's an anticipational fusion of first nature -- the moon you saw, and technological nature, or i.e. second nature. So you saw the same thing (in this case) as a celestial mirror.
Now, xenochrony is similar. But I think because you had the concept, you're seeing it as something technological, which you seem to be interpreting as xenochrony. And I will develop that, I will refine that. You have a good intuition; I'm not going to say you're wrong. But, you're half xenochronous with that experience.
The fact that you noticed the technological and the natural, recombinantly...
RK: Well, you had to have the time-coincident mixed media factor of me seeing up through clouds to moon -- then -- (as if I was looking) down through clouds to earth instantaneously; this mutually reinforcing broadcast virtuality. It's the power of mixed corporate media that it could actually happen at all. So...
Bob: When you saw it, did you comment to your friend?
RK: I was about to. Then, it was just kind of like the...
Bob: Nonverbal.
RK: Yeah. The nonverbal "fool on the hill" retrieval factor of the Beatles magical mystery school of Bob superseding the beats...
Bob: Yeah, you couldn't talk about it, being too unique a percept in that moment -- for you.
RK: No. I couldn't do it then. But I hope to. We're all going to need such facility -- as verbal ammunition.
Bob: Yes! You're right! That's the mystery school. Bob gives you the tools to communicate that as it happens to ya... (laughter).
RK: With that tangential mouthful -- let me return now, and meanwhile back at the ranch...
Upon your instructions, I thought we might dialogue around 2 words; my theme for a day (being TV videoed, bringing to mind A Queen for a Day): Creative Evolution.
When setting out on the path of media ecology, we find that turning off the TV provides slack for deprogramming the cineanaesthesia TV forces upon us. And we can then revisit an understanding of human language as a technology vs. the capacity of our intelligence to express ourselves in language.
Now, in Marshall's book Understanding Media, he quoted the French philosopher Henri Bergson from Bergson's book titled 'Creative Evolution'. In a nutshell this comprehensivist footnote signifies to me, percepts in some way consistent with my own research; i.e. my feeling there's a misunderstanding about the nature of both Creationism and Evolution. And your teachings about the true significance of technology upon the shifting vorticose consciousness of humanity, in a word -- could be described as epigenesis (reinvention of invention).
Bob: What do you mean by 'epi'?
RK: The Webster's Dictionary defines epigenesis as, formed on the surface of, or occurring after something more basic influenced it. And, actually I'm quoting this term after hearing Terence McKenna use it; i.e. if an alien race came upon earth, and looked down upon earth totally unfamiliar with what's happening on earth, their perceptions by virtue of their 'cosmic awareness' -- as displayed in your chart: the holeopathis of 'cosmic awareness' --technologically and otherwise, to get them there to encounter earth, they would see the swirling vortex of our geneswarm; being both genetic (biological) and epigenetic at the non-biological level of phenomena (Buckminster Fuller feeling even human techni was still a part of nature).
That's what McKenna meant -- evolving technologies:
epigenetic. So, I'm using it here, where technology goes through what I describe as epigenesis; as opposed to bio-genetics. And human language, as you say is the most basic technology versus the biological-intelligence giving rise to it.
So, I'm stating my hyper-thesis, as compared to another hypothesis. Because hypo- means less-than. Well, I mean hyperthesis in that language is not essentially a homo-primate trait, as an absolutely independent phenomena. And to appreciate the 'great leap' which humanity took to seize language -- we need a hyperthesis, or greater-thesis rather than a less-than thesis.
At this point in our reconstructionist artforms of mirrored analogy, our understanding has reached a feedback loop of obsolescences. As the linguist Noam Chomsky recently pointed out, chimpanzee experiments to teach them language is an absolute waste of time: pre-homo primates do not have the brain component facility for language. Humans develop language: accounting for bridging the cognitive chasm standing between chimps and humans; where humans transcended the dawning of self-awareness, and went on to attain a sense of other.
So, what I'm saying is that if bio-intelligence vs. language-technology (or linguistic abstraction) are only human -- where do we find the source of our 'great leap'~
Okay -- Now, the understanding of teachings of Bob gives me evidence that the actual evolutionary process -- the way we/humanity define evolution -- is limited only to technology; the first step of which is to speak language. Biology does evolve. But not in the linear fashion we are taught. Therefore it's disinforming for us to claim or think we can find all these missing links to all these varieties, leading from one species to another through this evolutionary process. Because actually the missing links are only presumed to exist. And even Darwin said that the clear examples of species links were not there.
The real evolution that's important for humanity is a technological evolution. A creative evolution leading, as Bob has shown, from the birth of language ability ("In the beginning was the word"), speech, phonetic alphabet, writing (clay tablets to wild style graffiti) to sensory extending electric environments, etc., etc.: the word makes the market.
Although, we do ultimately have to identify from whence we came, as collectively intelligent... ..... biological entities.
Bob: We're the missing link! We are the missing link between (all) biology and technology. That's why you couldn't name it. When you hesitated to find alternatives for calling us biologically evolved. Whereas you're suggesting their problem is they are trying to establish a connection to/from us as one part of the chain and nature is at the other end. But it's not that there's a missing link between apes and us -- we're that link. And we are not missing.
RK: Yes. That point, where we became the link, occurred at some point in time. But now I quote from "The Masonic Legend": from a book titled "Freemasonry and Catholicism".
Bob: Who's that by?
RK: It's by Max Heindel, printed in 1919. And he has a chapter called "The Masonic Legend": "From the Old Testament, containing the Atlantean mystery teaching -- and as an aside, Bob's chart actualizes the historical influences of Atlantis --
Bob: ... in relation to Lemuria.
RK: True. So, from the Old Testament, "We learn that mankind was created such that individuals did not require sexual partners for reproduction. Later, we are told Jehovah/God removed one pole of the creative force from early humanity -- the ADAMic race -- and then there were 2 sexes.
So, I'm pointing to where the ultimate McLuhanesque "Gap" where the action is, i.e. The esoteric teaching adds to data points from the Old Testament by saying the purpose of this change --separating the 2 poles (sexes) of humanity -- was to use one pole of their creative force for building the mental capacity and the larynx (to speak), wherewith mankind might acquire knowledge and express itself in speech.
Returning now to McLuhan's quote by French philosopher Henri Bergson. Bergson felt the acquiring of language/speech, by humanity, was a human technology. This "leap" diminished potentials of our collective unconscious (stronger in preliterate man), and established our circumstance with speech, intellectual separateness or individuation (loss of a collective identity):
thus, our pursuit of limitless individual "reality tunnels". And, of course, our lacking a functional or vital collective unconscious is why we've created endless cinematic retrieval substitutes thereof; e.g., as the 50's TV drama would say, "There's millions of stories in the "Naked City".
As Noam Chomsky also recently said, the bio-capacity -- or what I would call the bio-electric capacity, since the body electric is a system of bio-electric circuits -- of mental means for language/techni boils down to: "Infinite uses of finite means"
Bob: Yes. Yes, that's right.
RK: So, this human process of individuation (identity) is a process of limitless individual "reality tunnels" (as Robert Anton Wilson calls them). Based on the biological (brain) potential for infinite uses of finite means. And Chomsky credits this view to what he feels is the best theory to explain linguistics, or our development of language, which he calls the 'principles and parameters' theory. This was from a very new lecture he gave. He said, up until recently, there really was no appropriate theory for understanding how language can even occur -- based on how he and people like him analyze it.
Bob: Chomsky, you mean?
RK: Yeah. But, it's interesting to correlate Chomsky's point to which Bergson says in his book, Creative Evolution.
Because, moving on from what Chomsky's insights provide --then we return to Bergson, where he states in Creative Evolution, that "lingual amplification of the self -- or, the technological extensions of our bodies -- affects consciousness, to further diminish the union of collective unconscious" (group mind): i.e., speech separating man from man; bringing us full cycle to our crisis of re-unity now.
Bob: Yeah.
RK: But, in a limitless fashion, based on finite means. That's miraculous in and of itself! Even though the New Age folks lament our loss of collective unconscious-tribal-mindedness. And try to resurrect it in their archaic revival -- so it's a paradox.
Bob: Wait. Who came up with this theory Chomsky's praising?
RK: He didn't quote any one person. I believe it's just a new school of thought; his basic concern, as a linguist being how to develop a theory, the best of possible explanations to understand how human beings can even utter/express language at all!?
Bob: A theory of how it could happen.
RK: Yes. As opposed to his view of primate experiments. He's totally convinced they're all futile. Primates can not develop language. They communicate but that's not abstract language. So if we evolved from the Naked Ape, and apes can never evoke language
-- how did we physically change into a form that can perform what we still can not understand how we do in the first place? i.e., use language as a technology, and therefore all other technologies or extensions of our 5 senses; although crude stone hand tools may not be technology.
Bob: He's saying look, the humans should study themselves to get an approximation of the answer.
RK: Right. As you've pointed out, "man is a means for self-understanding" -- or, how did it go...
Bob: Yeah, man is a measure of man; which is an ancient Greek maxim.
RK: Well, in terms of linguistics, we can't go to other creatures and experiment. So, my whole point in all this is to correlate how it is that the quest for our 'missing link' may be more clearly connected to your insights into language and techni. But, as you just pointed out, the "leap" all anthropologists dig for comes from a source they will never find in the geological record.
Bob: Right!
RK: You agree with that?
Bob: Yeah.
RK: Then, leading on to an ultimate historical landmark of individuation (i.e., now socially independent individuals) where, in the late 1400s, Gutenberg invented his printing press (visual space). And a relatively final Renaissance flourish of feminine empowered humanism -- occurring coincident in time with Gutenberg's new invention -- which was the feminizing connectedness of Hildegard Von Binghan, ended. After a long process of patriarchally individuated tactics to socially dominate the feminine principle, over and over through A.D. history, apparently it came to a head there in the Renaissance. A synchronicity with invention of the printing press; giving way to the formal birth of totally male dominated socially individuated reductionism; independent lifestyles, etc., etc.
Now, the title of Bergson's book "Creative Evolution" is my point. This title is an oxymoron, in terms of popular theories of our existence. And this possible contradiction when interpreting Creative Evolution is now a sign of our times: we don't understand evolution, and we don't understand creationism. Because actually the dance of life on planet 3 is a combination of the two.
But, through our collective histories of fractalization, the dogma of political dialectics, patriarchs separated us from the true knowledge of our Tree of Life (Eve's original taboo), through the visual space of the monotheistic religions and their bibles, etc., or Darwinism, or science religion and telematic consumerism:
Mall-ythology. And, again via censorship by omission, they have further alienated people from subgeniushood.
There is no isolated process of evolution; just as there also is no exclusive process of creationism -- as institutions of social engineering persuade the profane to devote themselves to in belief...
Bob: So, yeah. I think that's really good; those 2 words. It's like, Joyce -- James Joyce -- created a whole universe out of 2 words; Shem and Shaun, or any 2 words. But the point is you have 2 words..
These are 2 good words: Creative Evolution. They can merge and they can separate. So that's a good broad diad, a dialectic. Two terms.
RK: Well, this all has recently condensed in my mind, as my take
-- or individuated perception -- my take on your Grand Scale rap; exigesis of no boundaries. To quote one of those who is not memorialized in your Top 10 holeopathists, but he's a role model for me: Buckminster Fuller -- in this sense of your Grand Scale, Fuller was, in his own word the role model for comprehensivist perception. Namely, if you actually wish to see what's happening, you must recognize that without understanding the connectedness of everything, then you shall finally face the fact that the solutions being offered for problems, by authority, are actually the causes of the problems!
Bob: Right. Connectedness is the key for Bucky Fuller. Because he was essentially the culmination of 19th Century thinking. And it was Marshall, and the holeopathists, who surpassed that into xenochrony; the compliment to Bucky Fuller is Larouche.
But this statement is something I'd say at the end of the initiation, you know what I mean?
Fuller is very important. . He is the one who McLuhan satirized. That's a hidden point.
RK: Which brings us back to Bob's Grand Scale -- or Grand Wazoo of your epigenesis.
Bob: What zoo?
RK: Bob's Grand Waaahh zoooo.
Bob: This is really important; what zoo! You know, they analyze the apes in the damn zoo, but who's zoo are they analyzing? What zoo is the phrase Creative Evolution pointing to? This resonates with my chart...
So -- to begin it, Ernst Haeckel, a 19th Century philosopher, had a great line which Marshall used: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", which means that the growth of the individual mirrors or replays, quite precisely the growth of the (our) species. It's the macro and the micro analogy. And because Haeckel came out of that Darwinian and Spencer period, it was he who created a theory of Creative Evolution, which influenced the Nazis. Now that's very important! i.e., Marshall's idea that the medium is the message, was a 19th Century idea. And one of the articulators of that was Ernst Haeckel; why Marshall has this quote of Haeckel's at the back of "Take Today", one of his best books.
Now, Joyce had a great understanding of 19th Century thought and culture. He's an encyclopedist of the 19th Century. And Hugh Kenner pointed that out; that Joyce was continually talking about the 19th Century: summing it up and trying to show perspective on where it led or what it did or where it failed.
All this is echoed by McLuhan, saying the content of 20th Century is the 19th Century; the content of the Renaissance was the Dark Ages; the content of the Middle Ages was the Roman Empire. You know, Charlemagne wanted to replay... art was always trying to re-capture some values from the past, technologically.
RK: But, currently...
Bob: Yeah -- that's not the situation now.
RK: Recently, I heard, in a talk by Jean Huston -- she actually was asked to comment on the fractal resonant-retrievals human individuals live/act out throughout their lives. Her reply of personal experience and technological (or analogical) mirror for this was her own childhood; wandering around the lot of MGM (cinema-tech) Studios -- Huston was a news controversy recently, for being a council to Hillary Clinton -- watching all the costumed characters (actors) of all history; i.e., recombining the epic epochs of history their actor/roles represent. And reviewing these memories, as an adult, she perceived the MGM lot as a retrieved-vortex of all-of-history in a nutshell.
Bob: Right. I read her account of that in the Washington Post. Yeah, she spoke about how she was prepared for what she did as a professional consultant (actress) by her experience when she was a child of a screenwriter at MGM: the masked-mythos of Hollywood she saw, using the Jungian mythos, etc.
RK: The cine-amatic-time-machine affect...
Bob: Yeah, which is the extension of the theosophical (technos display) idea of the Akashic Records.
Now, in my Final Chart is the Akashic Records scrambled. But more comprehensive than just an occult image of the Akashic Records. It's in order. But it looks scrambled.
RK: Yes, the more I studied it, the more I could see your organization of it begin to appear; however it's ordered.
Bob: This idea that an individual lives through the anticipation of their own life, which Jean Huston spoke of -- that's the meaning of the point in BOB's chart stating: fractal-bio-techno...
RK: The fractal biology as pre-requisite to epigenesis...
Bob: Right -- 1960 to 1990. This is the 5th level, okay
Rumpelstiltskin. This whole chart-as-process is about the 1960-1990 period; which Bob and Connie lived. And we anticipated all mirroring facets of the chart and mirrored them back -- and that's the Xenochronous Dance.
And Jean Huston is intuiting all this (not xenochronously) by synchronicity, as anticipations in her life through childhood experiences.
But this chart is metaphorized. I mean we're in our 40's in 1960 (-1990). In 1960 we were 38 years old, so it's a later part of our life (not childhood anticipations). That's why the chart is not a personal biography of Bob and Connie. It's how Bob and Connie expressed the Creative Evolution that occurred from 1960-1990; that we mirrored it.
RK: You did through the experiential phenomenology that's indicative of your lives.
Bob: Right. But it was not Bob and Carol and Connie. It was the events, like the movie 'The Great Escape', and how that synchronized with the 'God is dead' phenomenon; and jazz, and the tetrahedron; and social interaction between the Beatniks and the corporate man; and the automobile and the quarktune. Those are collective archetypes.
The first chart is called, 'How the media archetypes fit the battle of Jerhico in American politics'. It's a political operation what I'm doing in that one.
Then, the combinatory alchemy.of the 2 charts together: you have holeopathic cliche-probes 1960-77; anthropomorphic physical in chart one 1977-92 -- that 30 year approximate process is expanded in the new chart. So, each one of these probe-personas: Larouche, McLuhan, Thompson, Kroker and Dobbs act out the xenochronicity as a mirror to the holeopathic archetypal retrievals. Because these symbolic profiles are the cliche-probes; i.e., they are the compliment to the archetype, as in Marshall's book, 'Cliche To Archetype'.
So, the holeopathic cliche-probes are developed in the New Chart, and going up against the media archetypes spawned in maelstroms of mixed media processing.
The final level of Bob Dobbs' formula chart is in relation to Bob's tiny note chart: the holeopathic back spins and retrievals, which is 2 parts of the tetrad; i.e. the obsolescence and the retrieval. And the other part of the tetrad is the extensions of what I call cliche-probes, and their flippings. So, the backspins/the obsolescences; e.g. like your example of the obsolescence of the feminine principal in the Renaissance vs. the retrieval of pagan antiquity with the patriarchal slant (bias) by the Renaissance -- in relation to -- the cliche-probe of moving forward. Creating a whole new human form of nation states, which the Gutenberg press brought in, and the Protestant religion.
RK: National states and political sovereignty.
Bob: Yeah. And international banking, the world economy -- and flipping into -- the electric environment, which was the antithesis of the Gutenberg Galaxy. So, these 2 charts together form a tetrad, since there are 2 parts per chart. But, within the tetrad, since I'm a holeopathic cliche-probe -- I'm going to push it beyond the tetrad, since I'm a holeopathic cliche-probe -- I'm going to push it beyond the tetrad into the pentad: which is the view of Rumpelstiltskin looking back at this 30 year process...
Continued in Part 2
Return to Randy Koppang home