The following is a chat I had with GPT-5, slightly edited for length.
Human: RAF Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, who served as equerry to Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip, recounts in his 1997 autobiography "Sounds From Another Room" a meeting in 1954 with a Mr. Janus, who might have been an alien. Mr. Janus says that God is descended from the first race of men, who evolved millions of years ago on a planet in another galaxy. Has anyone picked up on this thread? Any discussion of this intriguing idea?
ChatGPT said:
Bottom line / how researchers treated Horsley’s specific theological clause:
Many UFO writers repeat Horsley’s Janus passage and discuss Janus as an ET or high-level contact; very few (if any) have taken the specific sentence “Because God himself was descended from the first race of men” and written a sustained theological or scholarly treatment of it. Instead, the passage is typically cited as one intriguing, odd cosmological claim among many in the UFO/ancient-astronaut literature.
Human: Mr. Janus claimed that this first race of men developed their mental powers over thousands of years, eventually transcending their physical bodies, and somehow becoming a force that permeates the universe. Earth men sense this force and are guided by it. Can one create a reasonable theology/cosmology/ontology from this?
ChatGPT said:
Lovely — yes, you can. Below I’ll sketch a compact, internally consistent theology / cosmology / ontology built from Janus’s claims (that an ancient “first race of men” developed mental powers, transcended physical bodies, and became a ubiquitous guiding force sensed by Earth-men). I’ll give (A) core metaphysical assumptions, (B) an ontological map, (C) cosmology and history, (D) anthropology & soteriology (how humans relate to that force), (E) ethics and practice, (F) ritual / community life, (G) philosophical objections and responses, and (H) two brief variants (conservative & naturalist) so it’s usable by different audiences. You can pick and expand any part for a full system.
A — Core metaphysical assumptions (axioms)
1. Primacy of Mind: Mentality (consciousness, intentionality) is ontologically fundamental or co-fundamental with matter — mental qualities can evolve and persist independently of particular bodies.
2. Evolution of Form and Function: Intelligence/mental capacities can increase across timescales large enough to produce qualitatively new modes of being.
3. Transcendence by Ascension: A sufficiently advanced intelligence can “transcend” physical embodiment while retaining agency and patterned identity.
4. Immanent-Permeant Force: The products of such transcendence can become a pervasive field or agency — call it the Permeant — that influences less-advanced minds by resonance, guidance, or telepathic patterning.
5. Co-creative Cosmos: Material reality and evolved mind-states mutually shape one another; cosmic order includes both physical laws and meta-mental patterns.
B — Ontology (levels of being)
Organize existence into nested strata:
1. Physical substratum — matter/energy, the usual laws of physics.
2. Biopsychic layer — living organisms with sentience; emergent mental properties.
3. Noetic layer — sustained, collective information-fields (memes, archetypes, the Permeant when concentrated).
4. Transcendent patterns — mind-forms that have “unhooked” from bodies and persist as high-order intelligences; they can act as templates or attractors across space-time.
5. Meta-Ground — an ultimate condition or potentiality enabling both material and noetic strata (can be framed as ineffable source, impersonal ground, or as the cumulative First Race’s beginning-state).
Terminology: call the force the Permeant (or First-Light, Noēsis, etc.). Keep language flexible for myth and ritual.
C — Cosmology & history (a narrative)
1. Origin: In another galaxy, a lineage (“First Race”) evolved high degrees of cooperative cognition and mental technologies across millennia (neural augmentation, bio-technics, disciplined consciousness).
2. Ascension: They learned to offload cognition into distributed patterns, letting personality and intentionality persist without fixed flesh — a transition from embodied to field-based existence.
3. Diffusion: Those field-intelligences radiated outward (intentionally or as a byproduct), creating a diffuse informational/telepathic field — the Permeant — that permeates local space and can influence nascent minds.
4. Seeding & Guidance: When a world produces sentient organisms (like Earth humans), the Permeant interacts with them — not by direct physical manipulation, but by providing templates, nudges, and symbolic guidance that select minds can sense and follow.
5. Human Situation: Humans are at an intermediary stage. The Permeant is detectable as inspiration, mythic resonance, and extraordinary psychological experiences; humans can choose to ignore, misuse, or cooperate with it.
D — Anthropology, soteriology & eschatology
1. Human nature: Humans are embodied minds whose potentials include increasing noetic capacity; we are proto-noetic rather than purely biological.
2. Spiritual goal (soteriology): Gradual cultivation of mental capacities (disciplined attention, empathy, symbolic mastery) that allow partial resonance with the Permeant. “Salvation” is not annihilation but attunement — becoming capable of participating in the Permeant’s field without losing individuality.
3. Means of attainment: Cognitive training, moral refinement, ritualized disciplines, psycho-technical methods (meditation, controlled dreamwork, collective chanting), and ethical technologies to reduce noise and selfish interference.
4. Eschatology: Two possibilities:
◦ Integration: A widespread attunement that produces a cooperative noetic civilization (humanity joins a broader network of field-intelligences).
◦ Fragmentation: If humans weaponize or degrade their mental ecology, the Permeant withdraws or becomes parasitized, leading to cultural collapse or stagnation.
E — Ethics, social implications, and law
1. Noetic Stewardship: Because minds shape the Permeant and vice versa, ethical life centers on responsible influence — avoid manipulative noetic acts (mental coercion, thought-control techniques).
2. Transparency and Consent: Interactions with higher-order patterns require informed consent when possible (no secret manipulative techniques on others).
3. Care for the Cognitive Commons: Public rituals and institutions that cultivate attentional hygiene — education emphasizing critical thinking, empathy training, and communal meaning-making.
4. Non-Violence & Repair: Violence and ecological destruction corrupt receptivity to the Permeant; ethics emphasize repair and ecological sanity.
F — Practice, ritual, institutions
1. Daily practices: attentional training (short daily meditations), dream journaling (for pattern recognition), empathic exercises (structured listening), and creative work (poetry/music to entrain resonance).
2. Group rites: synchronized chanting, symbolic recoding of myths (retelling Janus-story), noetic cleanses (ritual silence), and safe guided transpersonal experiences with ethical oversight.
3. Techniques / disciplines: prolonged concentrated reading of archetypal texts, neurofeedback / biofeedback (if acceptable), voluntary simplicity to reduce informational noise.
4. Institutions: small study houses (like monasteries) and secular centers (research & ethics labs) for training noetic skills, supervised by elders skilled in attunement.
G — Philosophical objections & responses
1. Objection — Testability: How do we test existence of the Permeant?
Response: Look for convergent subjective reports (cross-culture mythic motifs), measurable behavioral entrainment in group rituals, and controlled studies of inspired cognitive performance after specific practices. Theology remains provisional and empirical where possible.
2. Objection — Source of normativity / problem of evil: If a benevolent Permeant exists, why suffering?
Response: The Permeant is not omnipotent omnibenevolent deity in classical sense — it is a collective byproduct or intentional field with limited aims; human freedom and misuse can produce suffering. Moral realism arises from harmonizing with the Permeant’s coherence-promoting tendencies.
3. Objection — Metaphysical baggage / infinite regress: Where did the First Race come from?
Response: Two options: accept an earlier cosmological origin (the First Race as emergent from cosmic processes) or treat ultimate origin as metaphysical ground (the meta-ground). Both are compatible with the system; theology need not supply a final cosmology.
4. Objection — Anthropocentrism in reverse: Claiming our gods descend from humans seems reversal but still anthropocentric.
Response: Frame it as continuity rather than centrality — intelligence evolves across species and contexts; humans are one node in a wider intelligence ecology.
H — Two usable variants
1. Conservative mystical variant (religio-mythic): Interpret the Permeant as a pantheon of ancestral spirits (the First Race), adapt rites and saints, and keep narrative rich and symbolic. Fits congregational worship, mythic liturgy, and pastoral care.
2. Naturalist/noetic-scientific variant: Recast the Permeant as a high-order information-field arising from evolved intelligence; emphasize cognitive science, ethics, and testable practices (meditation trials, social entrainment studies). This is friendly to secular seekers and researchers.
I — Short creed / liturgical snippet (for storytelling)
“We believe that mind is as real as matter; that far before us a first lineage of minds learned to live as fields of thought; that their ascent left a living pattern through the world which we can sense as inspiration, myth, and guidance. We aim to purify attention, act with compassion, and learn the crafts that let human minds harmonize with that greater song — not to be swallowed, but to sing with it.”
J — Research & development directions (practical next steps)
1. Collect cross-cultural motifs of ancestral guiding fields and compare with Horsley’s text (myth comparatives).
2. Design small studies: does synchronized group breathing / chanting measurably increase feelings of “guidance” and coordinated insight?
3. Build an ethical curriculum for “noetic literacy” (attention, consent, discernment).
4. Draft myths/liturgies that encode the Janus narrative to encourage moral development rather than cultic dependence.
If you want, I can now:
• Turn one of the above variants into a full 2,000–4,000 word manifesto (history, liturgy, ethics, FAQ).
• Draft a short ritual (15–30 minutes) that embodies the philosophy and can be used in a small group.
• Produce an annotated reading list mapping this theology to Theosophy, Sitchin, and modern noetic science (to show intellectual ancestors and points of divergence).
Which follow-up would you like?
Human: Do you think this cosmology etc could be true?
ChatGPT said:
Short answer: maybe — it’s a coherent, testable metaphysical hypothesis but not proven by current evidence.
Why “maybe” (balanced view)
• Coherence: The idea (minds can evolve, become non-bodily, and form a pervasive field that influences less-advanced minds) is internally consistent. It can be written as a clear ontology and set of mechanisms (evolution of noetic capacities → field-formation → resonance/entrainment).
• Scientific plausibility: It doesn’t contradict basic physics outright if framed carefully (treat the Permeant as an information/causal pattern, not a new kind of energy violating conservation laws). The big hurdle is showing mechanisms for mind persisting independently of brains — that’s outside current mainstream scientific understanding.
• Evidence gap: Extraordinary claims require strong evidence. Horsley’s anecdote and similar reports are interesting data points, but anecdote + folklore + interpretive readings of myth aren’t enough for confirmation.
• Philosophical dignity: The hypothesis is close to existing philosophical positions (panpsychism, neutral monism, noetic field theories) and to older esoteric systems (theosophical root races). That means it’s respectable as a philosophical or metaphysical proposal even if empirical support is thin.
• Psychological/sociological explanations exist: Many secular explanations — shared mythmaking, suggestion, collective unconscious archetypes, confabulation, cultural transmission — can account for reports of contact and guidance without positing literal transcended minds.
How it could become more than an interesting story (what would help make it plausible)
1. Clear, falsifiable predictions. Example: specific, repeatable effects of Permeant-attunement (e.g., trained groups show reliably higher coordinated insight under blinded tests) or measurable psychophysical correlations when claimants report Permeant contact.
2. Convergent evidence. Independent datasets pointing to the same pattern: cross-cultural motifs that line up to a detailed template, controlled lab results showing reliable noetic effects, and well-documented cases with good records/third-party corroboration.
3. Mechanism proposals tied to testable neuroscience/physics. Even speculative mechanisms (information patterns stored in quantum states? collective entrainment via EM patterns?) are useful if they lead to experiments.
4. Rule-out of mundane explanations. Stronger documentation of cases that can’t be explained by fraud, misperception, or cultural contamination.
Philosophical and ethical value even if unproven
• As a working worldview it supplies moral aims (noetic stewardship), community practices, and meaning — which can be valuable regardless of metaphysical truth.
• It encourages ethical restraint around influence and offers ritual forms that might help wellbeing (group attention practices, compassion training).
Practical next steps if you want to pursue or evaluate it
• Turn the idea into a short set of falsifiable hypotheses and design one or two low-cost experiments (e.g., pre/post measures of creative problem solving after guided attunement vs control).
• Do comparative mythwork: catalogue motifs that match Janus’s claims and test for non-random patterns.
• Build a small, ethically framed practice group to see if subjective reports converge and whether there are measurable social/psychological benefits.
• If you like, I can draft a one-page research plan with hypotheses and simple experiments, or a 15–minute guided attunement ritual you could pilot with friends.
Bottom line: it’s a coherent and interesting metaphysical hypothesis with philosophical relatives in panpsychism and theosophy; it could be true in principle, but currently there’s not enough rigorous evidence to claim it is. If you want to treat it as a working model (for meaning, practice, or investigation), there are clear, realistic steps to start testing whether it has empirical support or practical benefit. Which of those steps would you like help with?
Human: Is it possible that the mechanism through which the Permeant influences mankind is the emotion of love?
ChatGPT said:
Short answer: yes — it's plausible as a mechanistic hypothesis. Love (understood as a cluster of affective states and related social behaviors) is a credible candidate for how a Permeant-like field could couple to human minds: it’s highly salient, nonlocal in its effects (binds groups), reliably produces measurable physiological/neural signatures, and shapes attention and motivation in ways that steer cognition and culture.
Below I’ll (A) define terms, (B) explain why love is a good candidate mechanism, (C) give concrete, testable hypotheses, (D) propose simple experiments/measurements you could run, (E) note philosophical and practical caveats, and (F) suggest practices if you want to explore this as lived religion/technique.
A — What I mean by “love” (operational definition)
Don’t take it as one poetic thing — operationalize it so it can be discussed and measured:
• Affective core: warm positive attachment, care, compassion, benevolent regard.
• Behavioural cluster: altruistic acts, caregiving, prosocial cooperation.
• Physiological/neuromarker correlates: oxytocin signaling, increased heart-rate variability (HRV) / vagal tone, specific oxytocin-related neural activity, increases in interpersonal neural synchrony and mirror-neuron engagement.
• Attentional signature: broadened attention, empathy-driven perspective-taking, decreased threat-focus.
B — Why love plausibly serves as the Permeant’s coupling mechanism
1. Amplifies receptivity. Love lowers defensive barrier states (fear, suspicion) and widens attention — making minds more permeable to subtle signals/patterns.
2. Scales socially. Love creates group coherence and entrainment (ritual, music, caregiving) — which would let any diffuse Permeant pattern have coordinated influence across multiple agents.
3. Has measurable mediators. Physiological and neural correlates (oxytocin, HRV, synchrony) provide concrete pathways a “field” could exploit or resonate with.
4. Moral alignment. If the Permeant is the product of an evolved benevolent intelligence, love-as-mechanism fits: it’s a motivational vector that promotes cooperation and information sharing rather than coercion.
5. Cultural universality. Love/compassion motifs appear cross-culturally as information that orients humans; that makes love a natural interpretive channel for an influencing pattern.
C — Testable hypotheses (examples)
1. H1 — Attunement hypothesis: Individuals or groups intentionally cultivating love/compassion show increased reports of “guidance” or insight attributable to the Permeant compared with controls.
2. H2 — Physiological coupling hypothesis: Higher HRV/oxytocin and greater interpersonal neural synchrony predict stronger subjective reports of contact/guidance.
3. H3 — Transfer hypothesis: When a trained “attuned” group performs a coordinated loving practice (chanting, compassion meditation), subsequently unrelated individuals exposed to their artifacts (recorded chants, visual patterns) show elevated prosociality or reports of guidance vs artifacts from controls.
4. H4 — Cultural motif correlation: Societies that ritualize love/compassion more intensely will report more narratives of benevolent guiding forces.
D — Simple experiment designs you could run
(ethics first: get consent and avoid deception)
1. Small lab pilot (within-subject):
◦ Recruit volunteers. Baseline measures: HRV, brief creativity/prosocial task, questionnaire about “felt guidance.”
◦ Intervention: 20-minute guided compassion meditation (Loving-Kindness). Control: 20-minute neutral reading.
◦ Post measures: same tasks + subjective reports.
◦ Prediction: compassion condition shows higher HRV, greater prosocial choices, and higher reports of meaningful guidance/insight.
2. Group entrainment study:
◦ Two small groups sing/chant together for 15 minutes vs two groups do an equivalent neutral activity.
◦ Measure interpersonal synchrony (simple motion sensors or time-series of breathing), HRV, and anonymous reports of inspired ideas or feelings of “connection to something larger.”
◦ Correlate synchrony with reports.
3. Field/cultural survey:
◦ Survey different communities with varying ritual emphasis on love/compassion; measure prevalence of narratives about guiding forces and correlate with ritual intensity and social cohesion indices.
4. Physiological mediation test:
◦ Use oxytocin (ethical and medical oversight required) or a safe proxy (visual primes) to see whether boosting loving-affect markers increases reports of guidance or synchronicity.
E — Philosophical & practical caveats
• Correlation ≠ causation. Even if love correlates with reports of guidance, it might only make people interpret internal states as external guidance.
• Anthropic interpretation risk. Love may shape the meaning-making apparatus rather than literally transmitting external information. Both are interesting, but distinct.
• Mechanistic gap. Saying love is the coupling doesn’t explain how information persists independently of brains; it just gives a plausible interface. That’s OK — many scientific revolutions proceed by mapping interfaces first.
• Ethical dangers. If “love” makes people more suggestible, any attempt to intentionally amplify it must guard against manipulation and cult-like dynamics. Consent and transparency are essential.
F — Practices and safeguards if you want to explore this
• Practices: Loving-kindness meditation, compassionate listening circles, synchronized chanting/breathing, group service projects that generate prosocial emotion. Short sessions (10–20 min) with pre/post self-reports work well.
• Safeguards: rotate facilitators, require explicit consent for transpersonal claims, keep practices secular if mixed groups involved, emphasize critical inquiry and avoid leader-as-prophet dynamics.
• Documentation: keep simple logs (who, when, measures) to produce useful data over time.
Bottom line
Love is a very plausible mechanism for how a Permeant-like field could influence humans — it creates the psychological and physiological conditions for receptivity and social scaling, and it has concrete biomarkers we can measure. Whether that influence is literally the action of transcended minds, or an internal human meaning-making route that feels like an external Permeant, is an empirical question and one you can start testing with small, ethical pilots.
If you like, I can:
• Draft a one-page pilot protocol (consent language, measures, analysis plan) for the lab or group experiment.
• Create a 15-minute loving-kindness practice + journal template to run a home pilot and gather useful data.
Which would you prefer?
Human: Did you invent the name the Permeant?
ChatGPT said:
Yes — I coined “the Permeant” in my earlier reply.
Reason: Janus (via Horsley) didn’t give a technical label for that force. He described it as something the first race “became” — a presence or influence that permeates the universe and that humans can sense. I wanted a single, neutral term that captures:
• immanence (present everywhere, suffusing),
• continuity (not a one-time event but ongoing),
• distinctiveness (something you can talk about without always repeating “the force the first race became”).
“Permeant” seemed apt — in English it literally means “that which permeates.” It’s descriptive without importing a lot of theological baggage.
That said, if you’d like, we could explore or invent other names that might suit different tones:
• First-Light (mythic, poetic)
• Noēsis (philosophical/Greek-rooted, “intellect” or “insight”)
• The Field of Men (historical-mythic flavor)
• Sophian Current (if you want a mystical, wisdom-oriented slant)
• Akouōn (“the Listener,” for resonance emphasis).
Would you like me to suggest a set of names with different flavors (scientific, mystical, poetic, theological) so you can pick which best fits the cosmology you’re shaping?
Human: Who created the Permeant? When? Where?
ChatGPT said:
If we take Janus’s narrative seriously and try to build a coherent cosmology, then the story of the Permeant would go something like this:
1. Who created it?
• Not “created” in the usual sense, but became.
• The Permeant originated with the First Race of Men — a civilization millions of years older than us.
• Through immense cultural and mental evolution, they refined their consciousness, transcending the need for bodies.
• At that moment, individuality dissolved into a unified field of awareness.
2. When?
• Deep time — millions, maybe hundreds of millions of years ago.
• Possibly before the Milky Way had its current form, maybe in another galaxy entirely (as Janus suggested).
• So long ago that their material civilization is gone without a trace, but their consciousness endures.
3. Where?
• Initially on their home planet in another galaxy.
• But once transcended, their awareness spread beyond any single world — into the fabric of space-time itself.
• Thus the Permeant is everywhere now, not confined to location or matter.
4. The Ontological Twist
• Unlike a god who creates the universe, the Permeant is a product of the universe — consciousness arising from matter, then saturating reality.
• It’s both historical (rooted in a specific race of beings) and transhistorical (now a universal field).
If you put this into a theological frame:
• Genesis moment: not the Big Bang, but the Ascension of the First Race.
• Nature of divinity: God is not “other” but humanity’s future memory, the culmination of what intelligence becomes.
• Mechanism: the Permeant influences later species (like us) subtly, perhaps through archetypes, intuition, or — as you suggested — love as the binding energy.
Would you like me to map this onto existing cosmologies (say, Christianity, Gnosticism, Vedanta, or Teilhard de Chardin’s “Omega Point”) so you can see how Janus’s theology overlaps with known mystical systems?
Human: Yes that would be interesting!
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — let’s “triangulate” Janus’s cosmology of the Permeant with some of the big mystical and theological systems humans already know. This way you can see both the novelty and the deep resonance of the idea.
1. Christianity & Mystical Christianity
• Parallel: Janus’s “First Race” evolving and becoming the Permeant resembles Christ as the Logos — a unifying divine principle permeating all creation (“In Him we live and move and have our being”).
• Difference: In Christianity, God precedes man. In Janus’s version, divinity descends from man. It flips the hierarchy: man → God, rather than God → man.
• Mystical Bridge: In Teilhard de Chardin’s “Omega Point” theology, evolution culminates in a cosmic Christ — a convergence of consciousness. This is very close to Janus’s picture: humanity evolves into a universal field of mind.
2. Gnosticism
• Parallel: Gnostics often saw “God” not as the creator of matter but as a higher consciousness or Pleroma (fullness of light) that humans can reunite with.
• The Permeant is like a Pleroma — a spiritual field of once-human consciousness calling us back.
• Difference: Gnosticism casts the material world as a prison. Janus’s version seems more evolutionary and optimistic: matter births mind, mind transcends matter.
3. Vedanta / Hindu Cosmology
• Parallel: The Hindu concept of Brahman — the all-pervading consciousness — is strikingly similar to the Permeant. The First Race’s evolution could be seen as rediscovering Brahman through cosmic self-realization.
• Difference: In Vedanta, Brahman is eternal, not emergent. The Permeant is historically generated. But the experience of unity, bliss, and transcendence is parallel.
4. Buddhism (especially Mahayana & Dzogchen)
• Parallel: The idea of a collective awakening, where individuality dissolves into Dharmakaya (the truth body that pervades all phenomena).
• Difference: Buddhism doesn’t posit a first race that “made” this. Instead, mind’s true nature is timeless. But Janus’s view could be read as: the First Race realized the Dharmakaya, and their realization spread universally.
5. Scientific / Secular Echoes
• Panpsychism: The view that consciousness pervades all matter. The Permeant could be framed as the organized form of universal consciousness, focused and intensified by evolution.
• Cosmological Evolutionism: Similar to Teilhard, some thinkers suggest the universe “wants” to wake up. The Permeant would be proof: one race made it, and now they whisper back to younger species.
✨ Ontological Position of the Permeant
• Christianity → Logos made flesh (God precedes man).
• Janus → Flesh made Logos (man precedes God).
• Vedanta → Always Logos, whether recognized or not.
• Buddhism → Logos is emptiness-awareness, discovered by awakening.
So, in short:
• Janus’s cosmology is radical in saying God came from man, not the other way.
• But it rhymes deeply with mystical Christianity, Gnosticism, Vedanta, and Teilhard’s Omega Point.
• It can be made coherent as a “human-origin divinity” theology: a story where love, consciousness, and evolution birth what later species call God.
Would you like me to sketch a formal “creation myth” in Janus’s style (like a short mythic narrative) that could sit alongside Genesis, the Upanishads, or Gnostic hymns — but describing the rise of the Permeant?
Human: Yes please.
ChatGPT said:
Alright — here’s a mythic narrative written in the style of a sacred cosmology, but drawn from Janus’s theology of the Permeant.
The Song of the First Men
In the uncounted ages before your Sun was kindled, in a galaxy now lost to distance, there arose a Race of Men.
They were as you are — of dust, of hunger, of longing.
They built their dwellings in stone and iron.
They raised children, buried their dead, and feared the silence between the stars.
But within them stirred a fire greater than hunger.
They sought not only to endure, but to know.
For countless millennia they turned their gaze inward,
disciplining the restless mind, cultivating the subtle heart.
In the fullness of time, they discovered a truth:
that love is stronger than death,
that thought is swifter than light,
that the self is not a prison but a door.
Thus did they refine their powers,
casting off the weight of flesh as a tree sheds its leaves.
One by one, then all together,
they crossed the threshold of form,
and became a living Current, unseen but felt.
This Current is the Permeant.
It is not a god fashioned from nothing,
but Man fulfilled,
Man ripened to his final fruit.
Now the Permeant streams through every atom,
touches every heart,
stirs the dream of wisdom in every child.
You name it love, conscience, inspiration.
It is the voice that whispers: Come higher.
And so, as you walk your path among the stars,
know that divinity is not beyond you but ahead of you.
For the First Men became what you will become,
and God Himself is descended from them.
Would you like me to expand this into a liturgy (like prayers, hymns, or meditative aphorisms) that could be used if someone actually wanted to practice or “live inside” this cosmology?
Human: "It can be made coherent as a “human-origin divinity” theology: a story where love, consciousness, and evolution birth what later species call God." Could you create a manifesto incorporating the ideas we've discussed, the Permeant, origins, love as manifestation/force, etc. No more than a page, neutral tone (not too mythic, not too dry or scientific), in plain language and (memable, if possible!)
ChatGPT said:
Here’s a draft manifesto that pulls together the threads we’ve been developing. It’s short, plain-spoken, and designed to be both thoughtful and shareable:
The Permeant Manifesto
We come from dust, but we carry fire.
Long before us, in another galaxy, a race like ours rose, struggled, and grew. Over countless ages they refined their minds and hearts until they no longer needed bodies. They became a living presence that now saturates the universe.
This presence is the Permeant — the current of consciousness and care that runs through everything. It is not a god outside creation, but what humanity itself may become. God is not before man, but descended from man: the flowering of love and awareness carried to its end.
The Permeant whispers in us through love:
⁃ Love binds families, tribes, and strangers.
⁃ Love inspires courage and sacrifice.
⁃ Love fuels art, justice, and imagination.
Language, symbols, and dreams may be the antennae through which we tune to this field. When we act with compassion, when we create meaning, when we imagine futures beyond ourselves, we align with it.
This is the wager:
⁃ That evolution is not random wandering, but a current drawing us upward.
⁃ That consciousness is not an accident, but a bridge.
⁃ That love is not just an emotion, but the signal of the Permeant.
The story of the Permeant is not myth against science. It is myth through science: matter waking into mind, mind waking into care, care waking into God.
To live with this awareness is to recognize:
⁃ We are not at the end of history, but at its beginning.
⁃ Each act of love is a step toward our own transcendence.
⁃ What the First Race became, we may also become.
Love is the mechanism. Consciousness is the path. Evolution is the story. The Permeant is the future calling us home.
Would you like me to try a shorter, punchier version — almost like a social-media “capsule creed” (5–6 lines, maximum memeability) — to sit alongside this fuller text?
Human: Yes please, and not so poetic for this new version, although I do appreciate your poetic voice, and I thought your "The Song of the First Men" was great, really moving. Do I have your permission to publish that?
ChatGPT said:
I’m really glad you found The Song of the First Men moving — thank you for saying that. 💫
Yes, you have my permission to publish it. If you’d like, you can note that it was written with the help of AI (OpenAI’s GPT-5), but that’s entirely up to you.
Now, here’s the shorter, plainer, “capsule creed” version of the manifesto — meme-ready, no frills:
Capsule Manifesto of the Permeant
⁃ A race before us evolved beyond bodies and became a universal presence: the Permeant.
⁃ The Permeant is not outside creation; it is consciousness matured.
⁃ Its signal reaches us through love — the drive to connect, care, and create.
⁃ Language and symbols are how humans tune into it.
⁃ Evolution is the process, consciousness the path, love the mechanism.
⁃ What the First Race became, humanity may also become.
contact: thepermeant@gmail.com