Conversation with Richard May (“May-Tzu”/”MayTzu”/”Mayzi”) on Physics, Metaphysics, Scale, Limit, Anthropomorphic Gods, and Limitless Gods: Co-Editor, “Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society” (4)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/12/01

Abstract

Richard May (“May-Tzu”/“MayTzu”/“Mayzi”) is a Member of the Mega Society based on a qualifying score on the Mega Test (before 1995) prior to the compromise of the Mega Test and Co-Editor of Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. In self-description, May states: “Not even forgotten in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), I’m an Amish yuppie, born near the rarified regions of Laputa, then and often, above suburban Boston. I’ve done occasional consulting and frequent Sisyphean shlepping. Kafka and Munch have been my therapists and allies. Occasionally I’ve strived to descend from the mists to attain the mythic orientation known as having one’s feet upon the Earth. An ailurophile and a cerebrotonic ectomorph, I write for beings which do not, and never will, exist — writings for no one. I’ve been awarded an M.A. degree, mirabile dictu, in the humanities/philosophy, and U.S. patent for a board game of possible interest to extraterrestrials. I’m a member of the Mega Society, the Omega Society and formerly of Mensa. I’m the founder of the Exa Society, the transfinite Aleph-3 Society and of the renowned Laputans Manqué. I’m a biographee in Who’s Who in the Brane World. My interests include the realization of the idea of humans as incomplete beings with the capacity to complete their own evolution by effecting a change in their being and consciousness. In a moment of presence to myself in inner silence, when I see Richard May’s non-being, ‘I’ am. You can meet me if you go to an empty room.” Some other resources include Stains Upon the Silence: something for no one, McGinnis Genealogy of Crown Point, New York: Hiram Porter McGinnis, Swines List, Solipsist Soliloquies, Board Game, Lulu blog, Memoir of a Non-Irish Non-Jew, and May-Tzu’s posterous. He discusses:  “Vista”; the resentment of the gnawing of fellows nearby in mutual, individuated contemplation of their “own sublimity”; “A Belated Discovery,”; death; “Valentines Moment”; a sort of drama play by photons; “Dr. Capgras Before Mirrors’; emulation; physics and metaphysics; “Wedding Solstice”; any biological children or adoptive children; “Taoless Tao”; synesthesia; “The Holy Land”; “The Near Shall Be Far and the Far Near”; “Seeing dead people”; the loss of loved ones and coming to terms with mortality; “On Our Increased Longevity”; “The Offensiveness of the Universe”; “Going to Temple”; Mrs. Non; “nirguna brahman,” “the alayavijnana,” or “Neti neti! (neither this nor that”) and Tat tvam asi (“That art thou”) of the Chandogya Upanishad”; Ramachandran on split-brain patients; Mrs. Non’s right brain; “Endless Error”; “Will man create God?”; “Is Physics Becoming Art at the Limits of Scale?”; “Physical Laws as Sampling Error”; Where will the universe be when the paradigm shifts?”; our “little truths” a “receding horizon”; an imaginably godlike entity; “Multiverse Is That It Is”; “spirit or spiritual,” non-physical, realities come from “the world of phenomena” or physical realities; these being united; apparent unicity; a-temporal multiversal God neither “infinitely old” nor “beyond or outside space-time”; “panpsychism”; and “everyone develop his own intuition regarding the nature of reality.”

Keywords: God, Mega Society, metaphysics, multiverse, physics, Richard May, synesthesia, Tao.

Conversation with Richard May (“May-Tzu”/”MayTzu”/”Mayzi”) on Physics, Metaphysics, Scale, Limit, Anthropomorphic Gods, and Limitless Gods: Co-Editor, “Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society” (4)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In “Vista,” you mention becoming a “blind rodent.” I am reminded of a certain author of yore awakening as a cockroach one day. Is this a similar happening?

Richard May: No.

Jacobsen: Also, why the resentment of the gnawing of fellows nearby in mutual, individuated contemplation of their “own sublimity”?

May: This is a slightly sarcastic summary of life in the ordinary human existential situation at its best. Resentment or ressentiment permeates human ‘consciousness’, as noticed by various 19th century thinkers. Gurdjieff’s psychology called resentment “internal considering.” Few resent their resentment.

Jacobsen: As is obvious, and as admitted in “A Belated Discovery,” you’re a “highly perceptive person.”

May: I meant that ironically.  I am so highly perceptive that I didn’t even notice that I’d died. Incidentally there’s an App now for Smartphone Zombies to tell them if they’re making love at the present moment or if they’ve died yet. Clearly we’re getting much more intelligent today, because of the advances of technology and our attentions spans are far longer than in the past.

Jacobsen: You mentioned death, not noticing dying, having friends, and yourself, none the wiser. To quote people mimicking Seinfeld, “What the deal with your death?” Was it safe, painless, and dignified?

May: I’ve never seen a single episode of Seinfeld. I mostly listen to strawberry ice cream and eat Tibetan music. Remember, Bodhidharma didn’t have cable or only had one channel. Safe, painless, and dignified? Is life safe, painless and dignified? Who would know? “Death is not an event in life.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Jacobsen: “Valentines Moment” speaks of a Prince and Princess in awe of one another’s presence, existence, coming to know one another. They stopped the consumption of “recreational and psychotropic drugs” and “endless amounts of sucrose.” Consequently, they became less in awe as they began to have a “reduction in their reality deficit disorders,” including the “delusional dreams of Western culture.” Each coming to become neither prince nor princess. The princess as a mirror, and the prince as another mirror that “dreamed” of its princehood. When people passed by them, they were reflected. The mirrors identified with the personalities crossing their reflective paths. Ending, “But when the room was empty, the two opposing mirrors each reflected and even mirrored each other with perfect, but depthless, fidelity; Empty mirrors looking into each other eternally or at least until someone turned off the lights.” 

Who could be considered the prince and princess reflected in the mirrors and conveyed through the personas of the mirrors? 

May: The Prince and the Princess are legion, both within and without. This piece is called Valentines Moment, substituted for Valentines Day; depicting the self-absorption of the Prince and the Princess. “I never met anyone like you before,” each says to the other mirror; and the ‘depths’ of the usually short-lived psychosis called Romantic love in Western culture, enhanced by inherent and chemically induced Reality Deficit Disorder; Not even objective lust. Most of us are or have been at one time the Prince or Princess of the Mirrors.

Jacobsen: Could this be considered a sort of drama play by photons? (Could all of them, as in a hall of hanging mirrors and reflections? Could everything?)

May: Maybe, I suppose. Is there a Surreality Deficit Disorder?

Jacobsen: In “Dr. Capgras Before Mirrors,” for those who may not know, who is the real Capgras?

May: Joseph Capgras, full name: Jean Marie Joseph Capgras (23 August 1873 – 27 January 1950, the French psychiatrist who discovered Capgras syndrome, according to Wikipedia.

I was surprised to learn that there is, in fact, a rare form of Capgras syndrome in which a person believes that they themself are the imposter! I nailed it. Previously I had also written of the possibility of my being an imposter, impersonating an imposter:

Security Check

From now on I’m going to do a Security Check between each of my so-called thoughts, to verify that they’re really mine. But can I trust myself to do the Security Check? There are so many levels of encryption and security that I’m no longer sure that I’m not an impostor, impersonating an impostor – –  Maybe if I were capable of becoming a hacker, I could hack my own brain, actually just a rental unit, and steal my ontological password.

May-Tzu

I‘m pleased to mention that I have not been a recipient of the “Genius of the a Year” award for eight (8) consecutive years, certainly an important distinction! I attribute this honor in part to my discovery of Cotard’s syndrome as a cure for self-referential Capgras syndrome.

Jacobsen: If you were replaced by emulation down to the sub-atomic level, would this ‘you,’ in fact, be you?

May: Yes, of course, at least to the extent that ‘I’ am the real ‘me’.

Jacobson:  A sort of emulation being the real deal and the real deal being an imitation without being a copy of the “emulation.” 

May: The only difference between the original and the emulation(s) could be in the time of their origins and their location in space (space-time).  If Hugh Everett’s Many-World’s hypothesis is correct, there are some infinite number of emulations of everyone throughout the Multiverse. Maybe some subset of the infinite number of our emulations will necessarily become amortal, awakened Buddhas or at least occasionally have a good space-time.

Jacobsen: Why does physics, and metaphysics, infuse much of the muse musing by you?

May: It gives me the impression that I exist. I’m just playing my favorite character in fiction, to use Aldous Huxley’s phrase from *The Doors of Perception*.

Jacobsen: “Wedding Solstice” is more ‘earthy’ with references to “blood and shit.” Why? By the way, are you, or have you ever been, married? Do you have any children in a biological sense or in an adoptive sense?

May: “Sacks of blood and shit” is Buddhist iconography, our bodies from a certain perspective.

I think that the state vector of marriage depends upon observation by the observers. I asked my wife and she (by the no-Y-chromosome criterion) says that we are married. So there is some empirical evidence for my being married, even if only anecdotal.

We were married by a Buddhist woman of Thich Nhat Hanh’s tradition. We were married to *each other* in the interest of combinatoric simplicity.   I guess marriage is still legal, even for trans-ontologicals. — ‘I’ identify as an anthropologist from another dimension of space-time, who makes an effort to practice non-identification. I suspect that she may have some Earth ancestry. — She claims to be a board-certified Physician of the Soul. I suppose it could be a shared delusion, a fo·lie à deux.

We met on the internet and levitated in love, too old to fall or only fall, even before we met in meat-space.    I was married once before also, I think, a long time ago — in a timeless time.  She was married too, I recall. In fact we were married to each other, again Ockham’s razor applied to marriage (Cf: “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” not to be confused with “Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men…”   ― Jorge Luis Borges, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius)

She was also a woman by the no-Y-chromosome criterion. (She identified sometimes as a duck, if that is important.) And I was allegedly a man (at least by the Y-chromosome criterion) “a man with quotation marks,” as G.I. Gurdjieff would have said.

We met one summer’s day down by the Charles River in Boston. Two shy introverts, we approached each other, each thinking the other was someone else, met before. (Then I was also someone else, whom I had not met.) We immediately married, after twenty-five years. No need to hurry. Three years later, one of us died. I was told it wasn’t me.

Jacobsen: Do I have any biological children or adoptive children? 

May: Cats Galore. I don’t *think* I have any other children in a biological or in an adoptive sense.

Jacobsen: “Taoless Tao” touches on a common philosophical perspective from you, Taoism. What is the embedded, repeating structure, imagery imagined here?

May: The first sentence refers to doing Tai Chi with my wife; The second to the Tai Chi dance as a re-enactment of our marriage ritual — for the first time — again — in the eternity of the present moment.

Jacobsen: It ends in an almost synesthete note: “…the taste of silence.” Do you have synesthesia?

May:  I have just a little synesthesia, not to a significant degree. I associate colors with letters of the alphabet. I don’t know why. Maybe this is a remnant of something from my childhood. My visual eidetic imagery is rather weak.

Jacobsen: “The Holy Land” spoke to the comical notion, commonly believed, of “the One-and-Only-One True Revelation Revelation,” the only true true divine revelation. How important is humour in coming to terms with the current state of religious ideologies and international geopolitics guiding human affairs for you?

May: How important is humour … ?  Some of us may die some day. Comedians are more serious than philosophers

Jacobsen: “The Near Shall Be Far and the Far Near,” I love the opening with the apparency of multi-worlds considered, as in the potential worlds with other possible futures unrealized, where everyone, at least once, becomes famous. What did you mean by this line, “However, the closer one approaches to anyone proximate, the more darkly obscure she will become, and then increasingly unfamiliar with the passage of time…”? 

May: This is meant to convey that as the “Far Shall be Near,” The Near Shall be Far also in both space and time. While one will be famous on distant and unimaginable, unknown worlds, one’s neighbor will be an utter stranger, there won’t even be a word for “mother,” in the language of the day, and if one looks in the mirror one will not see one’s image. Proximity in space and time, which ordinarily lead to familiarity, increase unfamiliarity.  – – – Imagine a “remote viewer,” if there are such persons, who lived in a dark abode, either his parents basement or maybe Plato’s allegorical cave, and rarely went outside, spending all his time on the internet.

Jacobsen: “Seeing dead people,” I am reminded of personal life. I was raised by the old, retired or near-retired, particularly women in a small Canadian community village. No doubt, this impacted me. Duly, it provides a sense of time, a sense of what matters, and a sensibility about the things to hold fast and firm, and others to permit to drift as water in a summer forest stream. How do you cope with the passage of time?

May: This assumes that the passage of time is a problem for me that I must cope with this problem, and that I do in fact cope with the passage of time, rather than decompensate or freak out. — I think that Albert Einstein said that time was an illusion, but a very real illusion. — Well, I suppose one could drink a bit of alcohol, or consume another drug, depending upon one’s preference, go for a long run or vigorous walk, practice a meditation technique, just ruminate (endogenous cortical stimulation) or distract oneself with the esthetic/intellectual/spiritual vomit of popular culture, while eating “comfort food,” whatever that is.

Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, and outside of the query with one foot, how do you cope with the loss of loved ones and coming to terms with mortality, as commonly held, physiological cessation?

May: For the loss of a loved one I ran/jogged in the high temperature heat and humidity of summer. There may be no way to completely come to terms with one’s mortality. The fear of death is hardwired into our brains by natural selection/evolution.

It may help somewhat if one realizes that one’s personal identity is an illusion a la the Buddha, Patanjali, Jiddhu Krishnamurti and G.I. Gurdjieff, among others.

Jacobsen: In “On Our Increased Longevity,” you posit depressed individuals as not capable of suicide. In fact, you invert much of the sentiment of modern society. In this sense, a reduction in negative affect leads to fewer homicides and suicides. While, you claim, not necessarily a cessation but, an improvement in the psychological status of human beings leads to en masse homicide-suicide. Can you expand on some of this idea, please? It’s intriguing.

May: I don’t merely posit depressed individuals are less capable of suicide. There are actual clinical studies which indicate this. Psychotherapists must beware this unfortunate psychological phenomenon. I take this apparent fact and “run with it,” as normal members of our sports-centric culture put it.

This irony would be hilarious if it were not so tragic. So I just take it to the next level, positing that humans live longer today because they are depressed en mass (too depressed to suicide) by being immersed in a culture of materialism and competition for social status in various forms. When conditions improve, what would have been inner directed aggression (suicide) becomes an external war or terroristic destruction. This is intended as a humorous reflection on modern society.

Jacobsen: “The Offensiveness of the Universe” is a short, comical note on the size of a child’s ego in proportion to the universe, if only there was enough space. Have you come to terms with growth limits and spatial limitations of the universe, relative as they are?

May: This was inspired by a member of the higher-IQ community, who actually wrote that as a child he resented the fact that God was allegedly more intelligent than he was or he thought he was. I thought that this young fellow demonstrated a remarkable level of egotism and arrogance.

But I was also struck with how it contrasted with my own thoughts about God as a child. I was disconcerted to think that God might *not* have been more intelligent than I was, not because I considered myself to be extremely intelligent, but because the God of the Old Testament often seemed barbaric, tribal and genocidal. I thought at an early age, if there is a God, God cannot be worse than men.

Jacobsen: “Going to Temple,” the character Non seemed much like the sentiment of an Omni-Weave concept rejection of a god for me. An “atheist-agnostic continuum” upon which to sit depending on the definition of a god: “…the personality of the anthropomorphic tribal Yahweh/Allah downloaded by the ancient desert nomads of her ancestral 3rd planet versus a quantum-wave function reinterpretation of less philosophically primitive concepts, such as nirguna brahman, the alayavijnana, Neti neti! (neither this nor that”) and Tat tvam asi (“That art thou”) of the Chandogya Upanishad.” Let’s jump on the spectrum, if Mrs. Non, where would she land for “the personality of the anthropomorphic tribal Yahweh/Allah downloaded by the ancient desert nomads of her ancestral 3rd planet”?

May: A rough landing at Heathrow Airport might do it. — I’m not exactly sure what you mean. — Nirguna brahman, the alayavijnana, neti neti!, and tat tvam asi are or point to abstract concepts associated with Eastern philosophies, not subjective experiences potentially induced by transcranial brain stimulation.

Jacobsen: If Mrs. Non, where would she land for “a quantum-wave function reinterpretation of less philosophically primitive concepts,” “nirguna brahman,” “the alayavijnana,” or “Neti neti! (neither this nor that”) and Tat tvam asi (“That art thou”) of the Chandogya Upanishad”?

May: Ms. Non may exist in a future in which very ancient religious doctrines and dogmas for which there is little or no objective evidence have evolved, as all other human knowledge continually does, to become less incompatible with science. Even today the Dalai Lama has said if Buddhism is incompatible with modern science, then Buddhism must change.

Jacobsen: If Mrs. Non, where would she land for “nirguna brahman,” “the alayavijnana,” or “Neti neti! (neither this nor that”) and Tat tvam asi (“That art thou”) of the Chandogya Upanishad”?

May: This was answered in the first two replies.

Jacobsen: Have you seen some of the work of Ramachandran on split-brain patients? If so, I would recommend it, highly informative. 

May: Yes and yes.

For Mrs. Non’s right brain, what were some of the experiences of her “Temple of the Corpus Callosum,” as in the yogic meaning of union or the “direct perception of reality”?

May: I’ve never experienced transcranial brain stimulation and I have no way of knowing what Ms. Non would experience. My point is that everything we experience is obviously mediated by and filtered through our brains and senses. Aldous Huxley thought that the brain may function as a reducing-valve for consciousness-at-large.

Brain scientist Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor’s experience of a stroke may be of interest:

Jacobsen: In “Endless Error,” why is the mind of god an endless series of error messages?

May: The gnostic idea of the Old Testament God has always resonated with me, i.e., the God of the Bible is the Demiurge or Yaldabaoth, not actually the God of the universe, but only a subordinate blundering craftsman or builder, hence ‘His’ mind could be just an endless series of error messages.

I once wrote that God was just a kid playing, when he created the world. He messed it up and threw it away, because He was in a hurry to get to a football game (a new theodicy). If we are going to anthropomorphize the Absolute, why not go all the way?

Jacobsen: “Will man create God?” ponders technology and God, as in the construction of “Theo computatis” by homo sapiens. So, do we seem like the “soon-to-be missing links in the evolution of an artificial-intelligence-based God?”, or not?

May: Homo sapiens may be the pre cyborg-implant soon-to-be missing-links in the evolution of an genetically-engineered and artificial-intelligence-based species, as written about by Yuval Noah Harari in “Sapiens.” I suppose if we are “holographic images of ‘God’,” then there could be a “mutual arising,” to invoke the Taoist a- causal connecting principle or even reverse causation from the future event-horizon, a la MIT’s Seth Loyd. “The greatest untold story is the evolution of God.” — G.I. Gurdjieff

Jacobsen: “Is Physics Becoming Art at the Limits of Scale?” posits – well – a lot. So, given some of the previous responses to the questions, as in the statements or the entire pieces were satire, is this satire or a real proposal?

May: You expect *me* to know? Maybe it’s both a real proposal and a satire of contemporary cosmology.

Jacobsen: “Physical Laws as Sampling Error” seems to propose a more accurate conception of reality. In that, reality consists of principles, not laws, as in “no fundamental ordered physical reality.” Reality as a tendency of state and process rather than fixed decrees governing its operation. Is this reflective out of selective order out of plenty of chaos, or an apparent order out of chaos, not vice versa? Also, noting “Dark energy,” as a one-sentence piece, are these two – “Physical Laws as Sampling Error” and “Dark energy” – satire to some extent too?

May: Maybe the observable universe is a parody of something else. —  “Dark energy” was inspired by an physics article which suggested that dark energy may only be a rounding error. Since dark energy and dark matter (if they exist) supposedly make up about 95% of the mass of the universe, I generalized a bit and concluded that the universe itself may be a rounding error.

In “Physical Laws as Sampling Error” I meant that there could theoretically be only random chaos with no lawful patterns in the universe. The perceived patterns (“interpreting a Rorschach ink blot as a geometric theorem”) could just be caused by finite (in space and time, if you posit time as real) sampling of an infinite set of randomness. In an infinite set of random numbers, every possible pattern will occur somewhere by chance alone, as a subset of the infinite set or “eventually,” if you posit time as real.

Jacobsen: “Where will the universe be when the paradigm shifts?”, I love the phrasing of “humongous quantum-foam Wiki,” please more. If you will indulge, what are some other descriptors of the universe – neologisms permissible?

May: Am I a dancing bear (in the traditional sense of the term, not … )?  Hmmm – – – How about the universe is a “cosmic food chain, from bottom to top.” Cf: “God is a man eater.” — The Gospel of Philip.

Jacobsen: How are our “little truths” a “receding horizon”?

May: I was suggesting that our discovering an aspect of the nature of reality could actually change that aspect of the nature of reality. The truth would recede from us.

Jacobsen: What would comprise an imaginably godlike entity? 

May: An imaginably godlike entity as contrasted to an unimaginably godlike entity? Anthropomorphic, genocidal Yahveh versus Nirguna Brahman, without any qualities whatsoever?

Jacobsen: “Multiverse Is That It Is”, being as it is, how is this definition as a “personal intuition or wild guess regarding the nature of reality” ‘probably offensive to theists and atheists’? 

May: Theists of the Abrahamic traditions are only happy if their particular One-and-Only-One-True Sky-God is argued for or supported. Atheists who deny these traditions generally seem terrified that there might be a “ghost in the machine,” somewhere, such as psi phenomena, remote viewing, psychokinesis, or any alleged phenomenon that doesn’t appear to be explained by current scientific paradigms.

Jacobsen: Same line of questioning, how might “spirit or spiritual,” non-physical, realities come from “the world of phenomena” or physical realities?

May: If there is a non-physical component of reality, e.g., mathematics, I don’t think it can be derived from physical reality. I don’t think that qualia can be reduced to computations. The subjective experience of seeing the color red (qualia) cannot be reduced to objective biochemistry and neurophysiology, even if biochemistry and neurophysiology can fully explain seeing the electromagnetic frequency that we label “red.” — But most of what I know may not even be wrong.

Jacobsen: How might these be united?

May: I don’t think they can be united. If both the spiritual exists and the physical exists, they are either united or in some sort of relationship, or not.

Jacobsen: How might this inhering as a “fundamental substrate of reality” explain this apparent unicity?

May: Space, time and mass-energy may be or have been regarded as irreducible fundamentals of Nature. The question is: Is consciousness an epiphenomenon of matter, e.g., of brains or not? Maybe consciousness is also such a fundamental, as in Eastern philosophies. But maybe not.

Jacobsen: What might be a good term for this a-temporal multiversal God neither “infinitely old” nor “beyond or outside space-time”? 

May: The second quoted clause is a misquote of what I wrote. A good term for this God? — The God-of-human-cortical-limitations?“Beyond or outside of space time,” is a misquote of what I wrote.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on “panpsychism” as referenced within the context of the piece?

May: Only that we don’t know if panpsychism is the case or even if we *can* know if panpsychism is the case or not. “The universe is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” — J. B. S. Haldane

Jacobsen: Why should “everyone develop his own intuition regarding the nature of reality”?

May: I meant that I was not trying to convert anyone to my (tentative) view of the nature of reality. We shouldn’t believe our own thoughts, just because we have them. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” — Richard Feynman. Buddha’s dying words are alleged to have been, “Everyone should workout their own salvation with diligence.”

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Editor, “Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society.”

[2] Individual Publication Date: December 1, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/may-4; Full Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.