The New Paradigm
vol. IV, Number 9

Dear Friends,

Here comes "Part IV" and the concluding edition (for at least the time being) of the recent "WingMakers, Revisited" series. The revised "Table of Contents" for the entire tnp WingMakers series of essays now stands as follows:

• "Ancient Arrow, Part I," vol. II #10, 4/12/99: "first contact," a preliminary overview and first impression of the WingMakers' Web site;

• "Ancient Arrow, Part II," vol. II #11, 4/22/99: examination of the possibility the WingMakers material may be an elaborate hoax;

• "Ancient Arrow, Part III," vol. II #12, 4/26/99: an extended e-mail exchange with Karen Mills in Nelson, New Zealand on some of the implications of the WingMakers' Philosophy;

• "WingMakers, Revisited, Part I," vol. IV #5, 1/11/01: after 21 months, attention is returned to the "WingMakers Myth," prompted by new disclosures;

• "WingMakers, Revisited, Part II," vol. IV #7, 3/9/01: a "review," or description, of a CD-ROM "E-book" titled WingMakers First Source Volume I, commercially available through the WingMakers' Web site;

• "WingMakers, Revisited, Part III," vol. IV #8, 3/22/01: a deeper analysis of the WingMakers' Cosmology;

• "WingMakers, Revisited, Part IV," vol. IV #9, which follows directly; discussion of some of the implications of OLIN Technology (One Language Intelligent Networks), cryptography, cryptanalysis, and some "Constructive Recommendations" for improvements in forthcoming First Source CD-ROMs.

• "Ancient Arrow, Part IV," 8/20/03: Takes up yet again the meaning and import of WingMakers^TM: The Ancient Arrow Project, prompted by a brief e-mail message.

[Continued from "WingMakers, Revisited, Part III"]

Of the three items I had set out in the preceding edition to address in further consideration of the First Source Volume I "WingMakers Myth" disclosures, so far we have dealt at some length with one: the WingMakers' cosmology. Remaining on the agenda are a) OLIN Technology, meaning One Language Intelligent Networks, and b) some "constructive recommendations" I would like to express, in particular to James, in relation to future editions of the First Source discs.

2. OLIN Technology
The WingMakers' Glossary is laid out in a somewhat peculiar way, for a glossary, i.e. for a reference tool to facilitate looking up the meanings of key words encountered elsewhere within the "WingMakers Myth." A glossary is usually a kind of dictionary, or an abbreviated encyclopedia, in which the entries are arranged in such an order (alphabetical, for instance) that they may easily be referenced. The WingMakers' Glossary, in contrast, is laid out much more along the lines of a philosophical treatise, in which numerous topics are juxtaposed, not on the basis of their spelling, but on the basis of the intuitive flow of thought connecting them. Because the Glossary is not very large, this works surprisingly well; for although one entry leads naturally to the next in an orderly flow, regardless of their alphabetical relationships, the entries are few enough that any particular one of them may be found with relative ease, simply by scrolling down the document. Alternatively, one may employ the Find command to locate any given term, wherever it occurs in the Glossary. Unlike most glossaries, the WingMakers' Glossary is obviously intended to, and succeeds in making interesting reading as a whole, and gives a fairly comprehensive overview of the breadth and depth of the so far disclosed "WingMakers Myth."

Accordingly, the final paragraph of the entry on The Genetic Mind, quoted in full in the preceding edition, flows naturally into the entry which follows it, on OLIN Technology.

Over the next twenty years [concludes the entry on The Genetic Mind], the genetic mind will become increasingly fragmented and thus, vulnerable to modification. This will be an effect of the growing ubiquity of intelligent networks and artificial intelligence therein. The expanding interconnection of intelligent networks has a significant impact on the genetic mind because of the emergence of a global culture that accompanies the arrival of such technologies.¹

We are already experiencing the fragmentation of the genetic mind, due in significant part to the rapid expansion of the Internet, and the exponentially enlarged opportunity it affords increasing numbers of people to communicate with one another, regardless where on the planet any of us may be physically located. This is a trend the "WingMakers Myth" anticipates will continue at an accelerating pace.

Intelligent networks [the entry on OLIN Technology informs us] are able to operate from a single language with translation interfaces that enable global intercourse. This means language is no longer a barrier to communication. Intelligent networks will introduce a meta-language that translates both real-time written and spoken applications. It will revolutionize the genetic mind's global construct, and facilitate the digitalization of your global economy.

There will be many within the Hierarchy, who will object vehemently to the notion of a global, digital economy, but we will tell you, it will happen regardless of the complaints and registered concerns. Your most powerful banks, computer manufacturers, and software companies will merge to create this momentous technology, and the One Language Intelligent Network (OLIN) will become the standard operating system of all the world's computer-based systems.

This will not occur until the year 2008, so it is some time before you will encounter this globalization of your economy, but all of the systems and architecture are already being designed and conceptualized in the minds of some of your brightest engineers and scientists. We assure you, this is not something to be feared, but rather embraced, and not because of the economic values, but because of the way the OLIN technology will facilitate the development of a global culture.

As the OLIN technology evolves, it will increasingly become subject to individual control. In other words, individuals will become inextricably linked into the network's entertainment and educational applications, which will become globalized. No longer will global media companies publish for a geographical market. They will produce content for a global audience and each individual will define what and how it desires to be entertained or educated.

The OLIN technology will "know" the preferences and interests of every individual linked to its network, and by the year 2016, it will be more ubiquitous than telephones in the late 20^th century. Hence, the network will be controlled by individuals, and producers of content and services will be the "slave" or reactionary force of the individual. Thus, the individual will need to define their entertainment and educational desires carefully, or the OLIN technology will deliver content that is undesirable.

We know this sounds obvious and trite, but it is profoundly different than the way entertainment and education are delivered in your world of the pre-OLIN technology. The time capsules that the WingMakers have left behind will act as a template to those who operate outside of the limiting force of the genetic mind, and desire to create content for the OLIN technology even before it exists. The time capsules will show how to do this and demonstrate how to create multi-dimensional content that carries its viewer-participant into new corridors of understanding and illumination.

This is how the genetic mind will fragment and become unable to exert a unified force upon the human instruments of terra-earth. When it is in this condition it will yield to the transformation / mastership model of existence and form a synthesis with it. It will transform itself, and the genetic mind will become the leader of transformation for entities upon terra-earth instead of its barrier force.²

What is being described here is a phenomenon on a higher arc that has occurred repeatedly in the past, and has been discussed in these pages in the past as well.³ Elements of the above, such as "The OLIN technology will 'know' the preferences and interests of every individual linked to its network, and by the year 2016, it will be more ubiquitous than telephones in the late 20th century," may suggest to some a possibly "sinister" intent. I mean, a global network "more ubiquitous than telephones in the late 20th century," that "will 'know' the preferences and interests of every individual linked to it" could be a bit scary... couldn't it?

On the other hand, the original purpose of ARPAnet, the original ancestor to the existing Internet, was explicitly to link together a network of war-making computers in such a way as to insure the survivability of vital command and control structures in the event of global nuclear war. How much "sinister" do you want? Yet out of the depths of the "Military-Industrial Complex" has emerged the most universally liberating invention ever yet implemented on this planet (with the possible exception of a sequel I will be discussing in a moment). This was probably not the deliberate intention of the Hierarchy that spawned it. However it is the actual result.

Yes, computers, networks, and associated technologies can be, and routinely are, harnessed to the "sinister purposes," if you like, of controlling populations and information, stringing fences around human behavior, and other enterprises aimed at compromising our Individual Sovereignty. However, they can just as effectively be employed by determined Individuals to build bridges and engineer routes over, under, around, and through the cybernetic fences erected by the Hierarchy. A rather spectacular case in point is the protracted struggle over cryptography and cryptanalysis, which 30 years ago were the uncontested exclusive domain of the most obscure and unapproachable bastions of the Hierarchy resident on this planet, i.e. the National Security Agency in the U.S., and its "intelligence community" clones in other jurisdictions.

A "well told tale"⁴ has recently risen to the surface, chronicling the emergence into daylight of "crypto," the arcane art and science of conducting private exchanges of information over telecommunication channels subject to message interception by others not intended to be party to the exchange. In other contexts, exchanging private information has always been as natural as taking a friend or associate aside for a chat, out of the hearing of others. The sophisticated art of enciphering messages, however, such that they may be understood only by their intended recipients, and by no one else, has for long been held in strictest secrecy by the Hierarchy on this planet; which have taken every possible measure to keep their ciphers secret, to defeat or break the ciphers of "outsiders," or "enemies," and to discourage by every means the "unauthorized" acquisition of advanced knowledge of the making and breaking of ciphers.

Traditionally, cryptography and cryptanalysis have occurred only in the contexts of war and espionage, and the "common folk" not professionally engaged in such activities have had little need for, or interest in these highly specialized disciplines. All this began to change, however, with the advent of computers, computer networks, and digital telecommunications. With rapidly expanding segments of the "common folk" conducting expanding portions of their business "on-line," "crypto" has swiftly emerged as a vital issue for a vastly wider segment of the population than the miniscule subset of "military commanders" and "spooks."

When you make a short- or long-distance telephone call, or exchange e-mail correspondence with a friend or associate, or conduct an electronic credit card transaction, what assurance have you that your exchange is not "overheard," or deliberately intercepted by "unknown others" who are not intended parties to the exchange? In the contemporary world of "e-this" and "digital-that," in the absence of crypto, the dismaying answer is, "None whatsoever." In the "electronic environment," you may as well be living in a goldfish bowl. There is simply no way to insure that a "private information exchange" of any kind is genuinely private, unless that exchange is secured by crypto such that it is utterly unintelligible to anyone not a party to it. In a general sense this has always been so, and it has always presented formidable challenges to those for whom secrecy and/or privacy have been of vital importance. Until recently, these have mainly been "military commanders" and "spooks." Today, however, it potentially includes everyone.

The classic "problem" confronting any cryptographer is the means by which an intelligible message can be rendered apparently unintelligible to all but its intended recipient. In other words, even though the message has been converted to "madness" - apparent gibberish - still there is necessarily "method in it;" otherwise the gibberish could never be reconstructed by its recipient back into an intelligible message. The corresponding "problem" confronting the cryptanalyst is to discern the "method in the madness," and to extract the message hidden in the gibberish. The tension between these two "problems" is as old and varied as that between conversationalists within closed doors, and the outsider bent with ear to keyhole in an endeavor, unobserved, to catch the drift of the conversation within.

The "method in the madness," then, is the crucial element in all crypto; it is the key to unlock an otherwise inscrutable puzzle. Thus cryptography might be informally defined as "the art and science of creating madness with hidden method in it," and cryptanalysis "the art and science of discerning the method in the madness." Both focus their attention upon the method, which is the key to the cipher.

In consequence, a corollary "problem" to that of keeping a message private, where any kind of crypto is involved, has always been that of keeping the key private as well. What it all boils down to is, two persons, call them Pat and Mike, wish to exchange information privately by cryptographic means. Fine; but before they can commence exchanging private messages, Pat and Mike must first arrive at a common understanding about the key by means of which their messages are to be enciphered and deciphered. If it is not convenient or possible for them to meet privately face-to-face (e.g. they live on different continents), how do they reach this common understanding privately, without the hazard that their key might be intercepted, thus compromising the privacy of all subsequent exchanges? This is the classic dilemma confronting all matters crypto. It has been dealt with in many different ways, which along with the mechanics of making and breaking ciphers, have traditionally constituted the "secret lore of crypto," closely held in deepest obscurity by the Hierarchy.

So long as matters crypto were of interest only to "military commanders" and "spooks," these arcane concerns were relatively easy to keep under wraps. With the advent of computer networks, however, and a rapidly growing population of entrants into the digital age, a few "outsiders" began taking an interest in these forbidden topics as well. Some of the more far-thinking minds involved with computers during the early and mid '70s were able to anticipate that as digital networks and technologies become more ubiquitous, privacy is certain to become an increasingly vital issue; and quite innocently - even naïvely - began casting about for effective means of securing the privacy of messages transmitted digitally over computer networks. What they found was that virtually all inquiries into methods for accomplishing just this little thing invariably led to the gates of the electrified, triple-barbed-wire-fenced compound of Fort George Meade, Maryland, headquarters of the National Security Agency... and disappeared into a void of silence.

The NSA in effect had a virtual monopoly on crypto. All the advanced cryptographic research was conducted either at the Fort, or elsewhere under the strictest secrecy of which the NSA is capable - which is pretty strict. Moreover, any research conducted elsewhere, such as at universities or in industry, or patents applied for that had any bearing upon cryptography, came quickly to the attention of the NSA and were immediately classified as "munitions."

Such was the climate in which certain "outsiders," notably Whitfield Diffie, Martin Hellman, Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, Leonard Adleman, and others, found themselves wrestling with the issue of securing various kinds of transactions conducted over computer networks in the '70s and '80s. So, in the absence of unclassified information on the subject, these "outsiders" were compelled to "reinvent the wheel." What they ultimately came up with, "because they didn't know any better," was the concept and implementation of an ingenious system known today as public key cryptography.

The idea of making the vital key to a cipher public flew in the face of every axiom of cryptography ever known, discovered, or imagined within the scope of classical cryptographic tradition. "It isn't done," might well have been the knee-jerk reaction of the cryptographic cognoscenti at the Fort. However, it is done now, and it evidently works; and as a result, the whole cryptographic picture has changed radically. How it all came about is a long and fascinating story. I won't go into it further here; you'll have to read the book.

The end result is that Pat and Mike can establish for themselves, respectively, public encryption keys capable of enciphering any message. However, the key that enciphers the message is not capable of deciphering it; what is required for this is a corresponding private decryption key known only to its owner. So Pat and Mike each have a related pair of keys, one each for enciphering, and one each for deciphering messages. Pat and Mike are able to exchange their respective enciphering keys by any available means, including publishing them on a bulletin board, or in the equivalent of a telephone directory. They can be made public because they can only encipher messages, but cannot decipher messages they encipher.

Then, when Pat wishes to send Mike a private message, he enciphers it with Mike's public key, and sends it to Mike via any appropriate channel, such as e-mail. When Mike receives Pat's enciphered message, he deciphers it with his (Mike's) private key, known only to himself. Anyone else, intercepting Pat's message, but not being in possession of Mike's deciphering key, cannot read it.

To reply, Mike uses Pat's public key to encipher a message which only Pat, and no one else, can decipher, using Pat's exclusively held private key.

Messages can also be digitally "signed" and authenticated by means of public key cryptography, which makes possible the electronic exchange of the equivalent of binding signatures on contracts and bank drafts. If Mike, for instance, wishes to send Pat a private message, and ensure that Pat knows it really came from Mike, and no one else, he first enciphers the message, or part of it, with his private key, so it can only be deciphered with his public key. He then enciphers the result with Pat's public key, and sends it to Pat. Pat deciphers the message with his private key, and deciphers the remaining cipher with Mike's public key, thus authenticating that the message really did come from Mike, and not someone else impersonating him. Conversely, Mike cannot deny sending Pat a message bearing a digital signature enciphered with Mike's private key; so if the message is a contract, it can be held to be lawfully binding.

Reading about all this, particularly if you haven't given it any prior thought, may convey the impression of Byzantine complexity. However, in practice, all this can be so thoroughly automated that it is entirely "transparent" to users; so Pat types a message to Mike, and Mike receives a message from Pat, both in clear text. All encryption, decryption, signing, and authentication are handled within their respective automated systems; all either of them works with is clear text - and all anyone else ever sees pass between them is gibberish. These techniques are potentially applicable to any and all digital information, such as video signals, cell phone conversations, medical records, fiscal transactions,... anything; and the encryption can be so robust that breaking the cipher may require literally millions or billions of years of intensive computerized "brute force" attack: something possibly beyond the scope even of the NSA.

Needless to say, the Hierarchy was not crazy about the idea of public key cryptography; and they fought it every step of the way to full implementation. They lost the struggle in the end, however, and public key cryptography is now an established fact; and it has opened the way to full-scale global digital commerce. As the WingMakers said, "There will be many within the Hierarchy, who will object vehemently to the notion of a global, digital economy, but we will tell you, it will happen regardless of the complaints and registered concerns." Yes it will; it has, in part, and it is. The invention and implementation of public key cryptography, entirely outside the domain of the Hierarchy, makes possible major developments in human commerce that could not have been contemplated without it. That is why I mentioned it above in juxtaposition with the Internet as a probable equivalent sequel to "the most universally liberating invention ever yet implemented on this planet."

Public key cryptography combines with the existing Internet and the World Wide Web, and with the One Language Intelligent Networks anticipated in the relatively near-term future, to make possible avenues to Individual Sovereignty not previously available on this planet; such as digital currencies, entirely immune to counterfeiting, backed by real goods, services, and commodities, instead of by blind faith in the integrity of corrupt elements of the Hierarchy; and global social structures formed among Sovereign Individuals of common intent and purpose, administered if necessary by means of contractual agreements with no point of contact with the so-called "laws"⁵ of the Hierarchy.

The technology of One Language Intelligent Networks will make possible fully functional corporate entities that may bear no relationship to national, racial, or cultural boundaries of the present and past; for the OLIN meta-language will do for intercultural communication what the digital protocols of the World Wide Web have done for file sharing among dissimilar computer platforms and operating systems.⁶ These technologies, as they are imagined, discovered, invented, and implemented, will combine synergistically, with one another, and with the awakening and maturing process of the human race now in headlong progress, to open windows of opportunity into human lifestyles never before imagined under the stifling "authority" of the Hierarchy. National, racial, language, and cultural differences that have traditionally divided us against ourselves and one another will dissolve away, and be replaced by a global culture of incalculable power and potential. This, it seems to me, is (in small part) the human future made imaginable by the "WingMakers Myth."

Bringing this imaginary vision into concrete manifestation in the world of daily experience, as I have emphasized repeatedly in these pages, rests upon "the awakening and maturing process of the human race now in headlong progress." And not, at bottom, of the "human race," but of me, and you, and he, and she, and us, and them; of each of us, and all of them, to the truth that, although we appear to be many, within the largest context, we are One. So sayeth Harmon; and so sayeth, if I understand properly, First Source.

3. Constructive Recommendations
Finally, I would like to make some comments in the interest of improving the effectiveness of future editions of the anticipated sequence of First Source discs. What follows will be based upon the intuitive assumption, which may be in error, that the author's intent (i.e. James) is to maximize the exposure of the "WingMakers Myth," and that commercial considerations, specifically the commercial success of the First Source discs, are secondary to that end. I base this assumption on something I can not entirely recall, and have not been able to find, which was the basis for my comment in "Part II" that

"It [First Source Volume I] comes with a price tag, unlike all previous WingMakers content, because whoever / whatever is back of this mysterious information is explicitly aware of the marketing principle that no-cost items, regardless their quality, are seldom valued or used; and 'they' would like to see the 'WingMakers Myth' expand rapidly and widely around the planet."

If I am mistaken in my starting assumption, then much of what follows will not be reliable and should be ignored. I hope someone will either confirm or correct my assumption.⁷

The immediately preceding discussion has focused largely on the issue of keeping private information private in the context of digital networks; which is certainly a vital element in the emergence of a global digital culture. However, a major thrust of OLIN Technology in particular, and of the "WingMakers Myth" in general, is penetration and dissolution of barriers to communication and mutual understanding which obstruct the process of synthesizing the Transformation / Mastership model of existence⁸ within human culture on this planet.

That is, one of the most powerful aspects of a global network is the ease with which information may be shared throughout its precincts. In the case of the contemporary Internet, particularly the World Wide Web, this "information fluidity" has been achieved primarily by virtue of the universal data protocols invented by Tim Berners-Lee in the course of creating the World Wide Web,⁹ and maintained to date by the efforts of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (For elaboration, see the work cited in footnote 6.)

By "plac[ing] the WingMakers' website into the public domain,"¹⁰ James has commenced sharing an enormous collection of information with a global community of Individuals attracted by that information. He has, without fanfare or publicity of any kind, initiated a spontaneous network of human minds that share the property of being in some way stimulated by what I am calling the "WingMakers Myth." I submit that a significant factor in the birth and growth of this global community network of shared interest is a function of the ease with which the original WingMakers site materials have been available for access and sharing.

In particular, it has been easy to share quotes from the WingMakers site, because all text files are presented in the universally accessible HTML protocol, which at bottom is plain ASCII text, formatted by HyperText Markup Language tags, which also consist of plain ASCII text characters. This makes them accessible to anyone with Internet access and any kind of computer equipped with a "browser" capable of properly interpreting text rendered according to the W3C standard HTML protocol.

The WingMakers First Source Volume I, disc departs from this practice in some important respects, with the "positive" result that it makes possible a spectacular experience for the viewer of leading-edge interactive digital multimedia technology. This is fine, when it works, which it presumably does for those equipped with the latest generation of specific hardware / software configurations. It doesn't work flawlessly for me, and I have received e-mail from others expressing difficulties of various kinds with the First Source Volume I, disc. All the components that are intended to work seamlessly together do not necessarily do so on all computer systems. This strikes me as likely to be a chronic problem into the immediately foreseeable future, and I see it as a function of the complexity of the First Source disc. It is a problem shared by a great many Web sites currently posted on the Internet, which doubtless look fine on their designers' equipment; but their designers might be dismayed at how they look to others viewing them.

The tension between the desire for the latest hi-tech "sizzle" available at the "bleeding edge" of evolving digital technologies, and the desire for maximum accessibility by the widest possible audience, is not likely to go away any time soon. There will "always" be a significant contingent of people like me who simply are not equipped to participate in the most advanced "state of the art;" because the "state of the art" is perpetually advancing, but one's equipment is prone to being "frozen in time," even if it was at the "bleeding edge" when purchased. To accommodate those who may have been "left behind" the advancing wave, we have made the following statement in relation to the Free Digital Library:

A great deal of the "sizzle" prevalent on the World Wide Web is accountable to the presence of advanced features built into certain browsers that are quite popular and in widespread use today. Many Web page designs rely upon the assumption that "everybody can see this nifty little gimmick;" and of course those that have the particular browser the designer has in mind, can.

Nevertheless, if Web pages are designed around a single software product, how accessible are they to those who, for various reasons, do not use that particular product? Follow this trend to its logical conclusion, and you arrive right back at, as Tim Berners-Lee puts it, "the bad old days" when different hardware / software configurations weren't on speaking terms:

"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network."

[Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996. Quote courtesy of Cari D. Burstein]

The clear alternative, it seems to us, is strict voluntary adherence to the published specifications of the standard HTML protocol, as recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Tim Berners-Lee, Director. And the way to assure maximum accessibility of information on the FDL site is to adhere to the HTML v. 3.2 specification, which although lacking features we may wish to have on the site, is well settled and should make the FDL site accessible to any browser.¹¹

This may be a somewhat extreme solution. Alternatively, the above mentioned Cari D. Burstein has developed a concept she calls "graceful degredation," which employs "advanced features" in such a way that hardware / software configurations that are not able to access all such features, are not disabled as a result, and are able to access the basic content of the page, even if not all of its features are functional for them.

Something along these lines, it seems to me, would be appropriate to incorporate into the design of future First Source discs. In particular, most text on the disc is provided in Adobe Acrobat^TM .PDF format; which is becoming a widespread data standard for formatted text. The Adobe Acrobat Reader is downloadable "freeware;" however, it does not necessarily run on all systems, and it is, ultimately, a proprietary technology. Therefore I recommend that duplicate files in standard "plain vanilla" HTML format be included with the .PDF files, so those who for any reason are unable to read .PDF files are not thereby disenfranchised from the unfolding "WingMakers Myth."

Also, I've noticed that some of the .PDF files have printing disabled, while others do not. And almost none of them can be copied, although there are exceptions: "Structure and Relationships of Labyrinth Group" (acio.pdf) can be highlighted, copied, pasted, and printed; as can "Excerpt from Liminal Cosmogony" (cosmogony.pdf). Printing and copying are both disabled in my copies of the first two Philosophy files, philosophy1.pdf and philosophy2.pdf; however, printing, but not copying, is enabled for philosophy3.pdf. It is not clear whether any of this is deliberate; if there is a pattern, I do not discern it, and I suspect James was not aware of these settings when he created the original masters for the disc. In my opinion, he may be forgiven for not being aware of everything.

I have quoted extensively from these files in the course of writing this series, which I hope in some way stimulates further interest in the "WingMakers Myth." Those files in which highlighting, copying, and pasting are disabled I have had no recourse but to retype verbatim (I hope), a process always subject to error. In the case of the WingMakers' Glossary I have assisted myself by making use of the HTML version from the WingMakers' Web site - which is not identical with the .PDF version, but similar enough to be preferable to typing the quoted passages from scratch. I hope I have corrected the dissimilarities between the two texts. (If I have overlooked any, someone please bring them to my attention, and I will correct them.)

Needless to say, had copying been enabled, and/or had HTML duplicates to all .PDF files been available, this task would have been significantly easier, and less error-prone. The up-side is that I may have been encouraged by these obstacles to have come into somewhat more intimate contact with the "WingMakers Myth" than I would have done had copying my selected quotes required less effort. Nevertheless, I recommend, if it is James's intent that the original files associated with the "WingMakers Myth" and the First Source discs should be as accessible and shareable as possible, that future editions, including, if possible, future impressions of First Source Volume I, have all possible obstacles to file sharing, printing, and copying removed, and that duplicate "plain vanilla" HTML files be included.

I further recommend, again if this is James's intent, that he clearly state the intent that First Source files may be freely copied, shared, quoted, etc., for noncommercial purposes, or for the purposes, and under the conditions he specifies, provided notice to this effect is included with such files or quotes. In the parlance we have adopted for the Free Digital Library we call this "copyleft,"¹² as distinguished from copyright, and we feel widespread implementation of this policy by the authors of works they wish to freely share, would significantly facilitate the widespread sharing of information among human minds - with the ultimate consequence of hastening the redesign of the genetic mind, and encouraging the synthesis of the Transformation / Mastership model of existence.

This about sums up my "constructive recommendations." I am aware that James may have purposeful reasons for every aspect of the First Source disc, and that my understanding of such purposes is probably quite superficial. My continued study of the available materials repeatedly discloses new and previously unperceived highlights and shadows on materials with which I have grown at least somewhat familiar. Therefore it may be quite presumptuous of me to make these recommendations. However, such is my understanding of the "WingMakers Myth" at the moment of writing that I am able to harbor the hope that they are in harmony with James's intent, and are in consequence genuinely constructive.¹³

Before concluding this series on the "WingMakers Myth" I would like to thank a few Individuals who have assisted me in various ways, including giving me valuable encouragement. I would like to thank Bonnie, whose unsolicited e-mail message drawing my attention to new WingMakers developments is quoted in "Part I" of this series. Our subsequent wide-ranging exchanges have been most stimulating and illuminating.

I would also like to thank Kerry Knight [www.wmresearch.cjb.net/], whose WingMakers Information and Research site continues to be an up-to-date source of WingMakers-related information; and Jeremy Purola [purola.iwarp.com/],¹⁴ whose parallel research site covers similar yet different ground from an alternative perspective. Both have been very encouraging to me, and contribute significantly to the discussion and the lore of WingMakers-related information.

And of course I can't leave off without thanking Mark Hempel, who by putting the WingMakers' site [www.wingmakers.com/] up in the first place, has made this entire adventure available to the rest of us; and "Anne" a/k/a "Sarah," the journalist who interviewed "Dr. Anderson" a/k/a Dr. Jamisson Neruda; and "the other (or possibly the same) Sarah" De Rosnay, sole liaison between the WingMakers and Mark Hempel, and "apprentice or disciple" to James, "mythmaker" and author of the "WingMakers Myth." Thank you all, every one, for the vital part each of you have played, and are playing, in this astounding adventure.

I have had valuable input from other correspondents who I will not name here; you know who you are. Suffice to say that I value your interest and commentary, and look forward to further exchanges as the "Myth" unfolds and gains substance.

Love & Light,
Harmon

_____________________________________

1. The Genetic Mind: Glossary definition quoted in full in "Wingmakers, Revisited, Part III," boldface emphasis added.

2. OLIN Technology: "Glossary: WingMakers Philosophy," WingMakers First Source Volume I, boldface emphasis added.

3. See "The Internet as a New Paradigm Manifestation," The New Paradigm, vol. I #7, 1/4/98; "The World Wide Web," vol. III #4, 1/26/00; and Richard Stallman, "The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource," vol. III #5, 2/5/00. The Stallman article leads to a succession of follow-on essays which culminated in the launch of the Free Digital Library, August 2000.

4. Steven Levy, Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government - Saving Privacy in the Digital Age, Viking, the Penguin Group, New York, London, Victoria (Australia), Toronto, Auckland, 2001.

5. See "Critique of 'A Memorandum of Law'," The New Paradigm, vol. III #13, 11/13/00.

6. See "The World Wide Web," The New Paradigm, vol. III #4, 1/26/00.

7. See WingMakers^TM "Frequently Asked Questions," Question 5.

8. See Models of Existence: Glossary definition quoted in full in "Wingmakers, Revisited, Part II," boldface emphasis added.

9. Tim Berners-Lee, with Mark Fischetti, Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by its Inventor, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1999.

10. James, "Dear Ones," WingMakers First Source Volume I, quoted in full in "Wingmakers, Revisited, Part II."

11. "Frequently Asked Questions," Free Digital Library. [FAQ section no longer available.]

12. See "The Origin and Practice of Copyleft," Free Digital Library.

13. Evidently, they are both. See WingMakers' Text Files.

14. Jeremy Purola [purola.iwarp.com/] is no longer active, and is sorely missed.

"WingMakers, Revisited, Part IV"
copyright 2001 by J. Harmon Grahn.
Verbatim copying and redistribution are permitted
in any medium provided this notice is preserved.