From: Eileen Xxxxxxxxxx []
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:33 PM

Dear Gene,8/8/07

If I were a Wordsworth, I would like very much to rephrase a part of his verses by changing the verb tense and a few words in it, i.e., "My heart [leapt] [up] when I [read in your email the passage of your BRILLIANT idea on the parameterization of the same set of principles]." (This is the revision of Wordsworth's verse beginning with "My heart leaps up when I behold a rainbow in the sky. So was it when my life began...").

It took modern cognitive science well over 50 years until it came up with the theory of the "parameterization" of the universal linguistic knowledge due to Noam Chomsky, and I am amazed to realize that, for you, it seems, it took you (just) a meditation on the reading of Marie Valtorta to arrive at the conclusion (I don't want to say, "just a meditation...," but I bet it didn't take you very long).

I agree with you (if I understood you correctly), considering the huge amount of evidence demonstrating that we are preprogrammed to be able to perceive, but that the ability emerges in different people at different times with varying degrees of maturity. And, given these empirical findings, if it had to take us, the humans, to be able to perceive the "link' of the two worlds in any sense of its system and function (involving your notion of 'parameterization'), we would be expected to come to the realization at different times (at NO time, for at least some of us) with varying degrees of competence.

If the LINK is God (or a god) and if the virtue is for us to try to resemble him/Him, it (and ultimately, we, too) would be working at different stages of development in light of Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of development. (e.g., For Kohlberg, we would need to arrive at Stage 5 and 6, in which we should be able to exercise the Golden Rule and to conduct moral reasoning using ethical universal principles.) It seemed that you were already very close to the final step to Kohlberg's ladder!!!

I found the Korean translation of your book "The Rosary Heals" on my book shelf yesterday and I will give Mom one of them when I see her today. Thank you, Gene, for your message that helped me to travel to the wonder of thinking, the trip that I have not been able to take for many weeks recently.

Sook Whan
Dear Sook Whan,8/11/07

Thank you for your kind answer, and for taking "The Rosary Heals" to your mother. I thoroughly enjoyed your write-up. Your background and understanding are admirable. If you will allow me to proceed just a bit further...

It seems that we were born as sophisticated storage devices and thinkers, through which we record and process our life experiences. We have a brain and sensors and thus are able to perceive, receive and process empirical data. Processing data employs spiritual objects and processes. We extrapolate and calculate and form high level thoughts. It is my belief that this process begins at conception.

Using this information we draw conclusions that are only as valid as our premises and their constructs. Using this we do the best we can to help us understand who and what and where we are. It seems that we are guided in making our thoughts by principles that can best be understood in terms of philosophy. This is not a unique thought to me since my professor at the University of Minnesota told us that in trying to disprove the theory of relativity, he proved it valid, the first to do so. He went on to say that future theories, even greater than that, would be achievable only through Philosophy for several reasons, not through the physical sciences.

A few of our guiding principles and empirical observations are listed here. There can be only three things, a maker, the "made", and the unmade (an infinite set of everything that is in a state of potency). Of these three, the maker is superior to the other two. We "see" ourselves and the things around us, and we cannot easily determine where it all came from. It couldn't have come from itself, it has to have originated from a superior source. We see that which exists as "positive", and that which could but doesn't exist as positive also, albeit in a different sense. Without the "positive" there would not be existence.

Since we "see" the universe, both physical and spiritual, as infinite in size and form and function, it must have required a superior source that couldn't be physical because it must be superior to that which was made. So we term it "spiritual". Let's call the spirit "maker" God. To fit the profile, He must be unique, superior to everything, and infinite in all of his properties. God's essence must necessarily be existence, else He wouldn't be. He must love Himself and everything that is like Him. He is self-sufficient, but everything else is dependent upon Him. He is not of gender.

To be infinite, God must be perfect. If this is accepted, then it follows that He must be able to communicate perfectly. To do so requires that He logically be the speaker, the "spoken to", and the observer. Let's call the speaker the "Father"; the spoken to, elaborator, the Son; and the illuminator the Holy Spirit. Yet He, God, must be one, else we have double or triple infinites, and this is impossible. In addition, these three logical entities of necessity must be equal and substantially one, else among other things they couldn't all exist simultaneously and, of course, they couldn't communicate perfectly.

Sook Whan, I'd like to think about the construct of the all-encompassing universe, which we perceive as two domains (the spiritual and the physical), sometime in the future when I have a little time. Sorry for the holes in this write-up and for any inconsistencies or other problems that may be imbedded somewhere. But my time is pretty limited. I basically have to just type out what's on my mind and let it go as that.

Take care, and please say hi to your family for us.