The Dismantling

Before the end comes the dismantling; the breakdown; the destruction.  This blog is not immune to this catabolic force.

Status report IV

Like the title says, this is the fourth status report.  I have been compiling these reports to keep record of the process of trying to get my book published by a traditional publishing house, the interactions I am having in real life related to the promulgation of the theoretical framework, and my overall impressions of the World as the Singularity approaches.

The past few months have been an interesting time for me, the personal experience and Me, the Universal experience.  Given the fundamental confusion in explaining the distinction between me and Me (even though they are paradoxically equivalent), I spend the large part of this blog post discussing my personal story.

There are three main interactions I will discuss: with literary agents, with scientific colleagues, and with others (online and in real life).

1. Literary agents. On or around December 1, 2010, after three months of researching literary agents and revising my book proposal and cover letter, I submitted these materials to a large number of literary agents with interests in mind/body/spirit, science and religion, psychology, philosophy, self-help, health, and metaphysics.  I was not nearly as vigilant as I was in keeping tabs on the results of my agent search as I was for my publishing house search (see Status Report II).

Still, of the ~100 emails and letters I sent out, more than 30 I have yet to hear from.  Generally, no response means a lack of interest; I do not expect a response.  30 rejected my query outright due to lack of interest, lack of fit, too many clients, and so on.  Another 10 letters/emails were kicked back due to death of the agent, wrong address, or blocked email folder.  The remaining 20 requested more materials: either a full proposal, a sample chapter or two, or a biosketch and short synopsis.  Of those 20, I have heard back from about 10, all who said no thank you.  Of the remaining 10, I have received several words of encouragement, offers of future interest and requests for even more materials, but no offer for representation.

It is quite obvious to me why I face an uphill battle to getting literary representation:
a)    I am a first-time author;
b)    I have no name recognition;
c)    I am writing about pansophic material, beyond my accepted academic and scientific specialty;
d)    In its present form, my book is longer than the usual nonfiction offering.

Figure 1

Rather than list the names of the literary agents who were naughty and nice (Figure 1) – and give commentary on each – I’ll move on to the second set of interactions.

2. Scientists. I have made several strides towards getting my message out to my fellow colleagues.  First, I extracted the sections on the electrogyre, oxygyre (previously the hydroxygyre), carbogyre, phosphogyre, ribogyre, aminogyre, deoxygyre, and cellulogyre and shored them up in a scientific manuscript.  After about a month and a half of revising the text, figures, and figure legends, I handed it out to my lab and departmental colleagues for review.  Get this: after asking for comments at the end of two weeks, after three weeks, I have yet to receive a review.  Nice. But not surprising.

In light of this non-responsiveness, I went ahead and submitted my manuscript to a peer-reviewed theoretical journal.  After 5 days of editorial consideration, it was sent out for review.  That it has cleared this first hurdle is an important step towards getting it published.  The reviewers will probably do one of three things: reject the manuscript because of its unoriginality or shoddy workmanship; provisionally accept it with major or minor revisions; accept it without revisions.  Given my experience with journals, I expect either the first or second outcomes.  If it is rejected, I will try elsewhere.  If it needs to be revised, of course I’ll get right on that and send it back in.  That is a process all unto itself and I may describe that in future work.

In addition to this manuscript being under review, I just attended and presented a poster at the Gordon Research Conference on Geobiology in Ventura Beach, CA.  The poster basically mirrors the manuscript.  Just like the interest I received from my colleagues who wouldn’t review my manuscript, so too I experienced a similar phenomenon at the meeting. Even though the scientists there – exobiologists, astrobiologists, and geobiologists – study life on Earth and in the Universe, the interest in my poster, “A provisional theory for the origin, evolution, and function of cellular life,” was underwhelming.  It made me think of the following quote by Upton Sinclair:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.”

So it goes.  I plan to attend another meeting on Origins this summer.  I’ll revamp the poster and go in with a new perspective.  Maybe by that time, the manuscript may be in press.  Who knows; I cannot control Myself, so I just go with My Flow.

3. Other. I have reduced my exposure on online forums and have intentionally limited my discussions with friends and family about my work.  I have come to the ineluctable conclusion that, quite frankly, I cannot control My Self, I do not want to hear the Truth, and I want to do what I want to do.  Given these three empirically verifiable phenomena and observations, I have concomitantly decreased my promotion of this blog.  I find it useless to try to sell My Self as it does me no good.  Even though it is clear that I am the Entertainer, I tire of this role.  I would much rather just sit back and take it all in.

So, in light of this decision, I am opting to take it slow.  I had been keeping to a once-a-week blog post plan.  Now, I’ll post when I want and on what I want.  I may or may not cross-post my work on forums.  If anyone has any commentary or criticism that is constructive and engaging, I welcome it here.

To achieve Peace on Earth, I must make peace with Myself

I’ll make this post brief, as the end of year is filled of time of reflection, introspection, coalescence, and renaissance.  I see all that I am, all that I was, and all that I may become.  I wrote about this in another post: Self-reflection.

Enough reflecting on reflection.  Today I would like to talk about peace.  In particular, Peace on Earth.

I see other blogs are talking about or saluting peace this time of year: here, here, and here (among many others).  But this is a different post than those, as may become apparent momentarily.

My goal is World Peace.  I would ask Myself – that is, the Reader of this line (please see the post titled Gedankenexperiments, metaphysics, and Weltanschuungen to know what I’m on about regarding the use of “Myself”) – how much longer I must fight Myself only to watch My Children die (Figure 1)

Figure 1

Figure 2

How can I, having so many things, watch Myself suffer the ignominy of no clothing, no food, no water (Figure 2)? How much longer can I walk by Myself and just act as if I am not there, that I am not that homeless person, that I do not exist (Figure 3)?

Figure 3

How much longer do I have to play this charade – to act that I am not the woman who has been brutally raped and beaten (Figure 4)?

Figure 4

Must I continue to reject all of My genders, all of My skin colors, all of My sizes and ages, the full scope of My potential (Figure 5)?

Figure 5

To achieve peace, I must make peace with Myself.  I must come to terms with who I am.  I must accept that the I that I use is the same I that anyone uses.  This is not folly, nor is it conjecture.  It is proven by a complete and consistent theory of the Universe, here.

That I am the full spectrum of skin colors and one color only, I am the rape victim and, quite disturbingly, the rapist – even though I am neither, the homeless man and the one with the home, I am the starving and naked child and the one with food and clothing, I am the soldier with the bloody cloth and the civilian who supports/is indifferent/condemns the war effort.

On this historically defined day – truly no different from any other from the standpoint of 4.6 billion years ago – I should point out that peace will not be granted by writing to Santa (Figure 5), no matter how cute the entreaty or supplicant is.

Figure 5

Unfortunately, despite My wish otherwise, the evidence also proves that peace will not be achieved by prayer, a gathering of like-minded individuals, or symbolism (Figure 6).

Figure 6

In this regard, the perhaps apocryphal Buddha quote, “Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” is nice.  However it, like so many, many other quotes from great dignitaries, luminaries, leaders, and activists, is insufficient to elicit World Peace.

Only I can achieve World Peace.

Only I can wake Myself up and forgive Myself all of My Transgressions that I have committed in My Own Name against Myself.

This may be a simple blog, and I may be just one voice, but I do not stutter when I write this simple line: I will achieve My Divine Goal.  And I will do this by proving – using all of the empirical evidence – who I am.

Who am I?  As deduced from Unity, I = God.

Peace on Earth and Good Will towards All that I am.

Scientist; synthesist; Sisyphus at rest

The goal of the ultimate theory – that is, the complete and consistent theory of the Universe – is to synthesize all of the available empirical evidence that has been collected over the history of humankind into one simple and clear framework.

In short, the ultimate theory would account for and unify all of the ideas, facts, and models that have emerged through the three major manifestations of ideation: science, philosophy, and religion.  The ultimate theory would be expected to resolve all enigmas, paradoxes, anomalies, and arguments in those disciplines.

There may be a reader that considers the ultimate theory an out-and-out impossibility.  So be it, but I welcome that reader to consider an exercise on what is and is not possible, here.  Moreover, if the ultimate theory is, indeed, impossible, then, by the virtue of such a grand claim, the reader must grant that the entire intellectual exercise is a delusion.

Figure 1

Why a delusion?  Well, if theoretical synthesis of the Universe is impossible, then science, philosophy, and religion will never – and I mean never – end.  Man would be fated to never resolve any of Its major goals: It would never achieve scientia, that is, to “know;” It would never achieve wisdom (being always fated to love it rather than live it); and It would never be unified with God.  In this scenario, Man is akin to Sisyphus; the boulder eternally rolls (Figure 1).

I would point out to that reader that most everything in the Universe does, in fact, have an end: stars, planets, ecosystems, species, people, cultures, languages, books, sentences, ideas, models, and so on – they all end their cycle of existence.  Hence, the evidence actually proves and predicts that science, philosophy, and religion will come to an end.

So, then, if the ultimate theory is a possibility, then, when it emerges, the goals of science, philosophy, and religion will be fulfilled.  Until that point, these three disciplines continue to not see eye-to-eye-to-eye (where each is represented by one all-seeing eye).

Figure 2

To wit, science and religion have long ceased to function effectively together.  Indeed, scientists re-ligate digested plasmids all the time (Figure 2) but consider re-ligation of Man and God in the apocatastasis beyond their ken.   Likewise, the rift between philosophy and science is wide and ever growing, as scientists are not trained to consider fundamental notions of causality, will, consciousness, and mind as they relates to their scientific work.  As for philosophy and religion, they tend to be strange bedfellows .

Figure 3

But science, philosophy, and religion are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what requires synthesis.  Each of these fields and topics are replete with fractal forms, each with specialized rubric, principles, language, hierarchy, laws, axioms, and trajectory.

There are two analogies to describe this specialization problem: a tree and a tower.  Each branch of knowledge has verifiably extended from the trunk of recorded history (4th century B.C.E.) to the point where branches no longer have physical, social, or intellectual contact, just as branches that crown a tree (Figure 3).  The tower analogy is that of the Tower of Babel (Figure 4): the communication between and among intellectual disciplines has deteriorated to the point of incomprehensibility.

Figure 4

The goal of the ultimate theory, then, is to create unifying model and accompanying terms that unifies these fields, interests, and endeavors.  However, this is not an easy egg to crack.  Indeed, many individuals have invested entire careers in establishing their own models with specialized terms and are loathe relinquishing them.  Many people have accepted that the current models are “correct,” and that no model can or will ever replace them.  Others retreat to intellectual redoubts and lob stultifying assumptions to defend their ground from imagined “attack.”  To these perspectives, I submit the following quote:

A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat (Figure 5).  When a well packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses over generations the truth will seem utterly preposterous, and its speaker a raving lunatic.”  — Donald James Wheal  (my bold)

Figure 5

So, in order to unify the three major disciplines of humankind, I have to come face to face with all of the strongest of opinions, perspectives, models, passions that are held by every existing scientist, philosopher, and theologian/priest.  I must accept that I will be – as I am being now – called a “raving lunatic (Figure 6),” because that is what I must sound like to everyone who accepts any falsified, incomplete, inconsistent model as being the truth.

Figure 6

Now, please consider that every existing field has a model or theory that is ad hoc.  I use ad hoc in its true definitional sense – “formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only.”  For example:

• quantum theory does not try to explain economics, nor does Keynsianism try to explain the quantum;
• opponent-process theory does not explain genetics and Dawkinian selfish gene theory does not explain color vision;
• the fluid mosaic model does not explain language acquisition just as Chomskian universal grammar theory does not explain cell membrane dynamics.

While it may irk certain members of these intellectual communities to have their models called ad hoc, again, I am only using the adjectival phrase in its proper fashion.  As for the ultimate theory, it must not only account for all of these ad hoc theories and models originated, emerged, and evolved, but it must also explain what it is they are trying to explain.

Returning to the tree analogy is useful here.  As one examines the three branches of science, philosophy, and religion, one can see the myriad smaller branches, twigs, and leaves that grow.  In other words, to explain the entire tree, there must be an accounting of all of these extensions from the trunk.

The ultimate theory must account for the data in cosmology, planetary science, astrophysics, particle physics, steady state physics, chemistry, geophysics, geology, environmental science, limnology, biochemistry, genetics, developmental biology, medicine, pedology, ecology, anthropology, sociology, ethology, child development, linguistics, literature, symbology, mathematics, economics, law, religion, ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, psychology, mysticism, metaphysics, and theology, to name a few.  Impossible?  No.  Difficult?  Yes.  (Note that much of what has been written in those fields is an interpretation of the evidence itself.)

The complete and consistent theoretical synthesis would be expected to explain the four fundamental forces of nature, the origin of the Universe, dark energy, dark matter, visible energy, visible matter, life, Homo, and civilization.  Quite honestly, the ultimate theory would be expected to be an evolutionary synthesis – proving the Unity between the evolution of the Universe, evolution of life, and the evolution of humankind.  Here’s a quote that highlights this point:

Figure 7

Life is very much older than man, and the universe is much older than life. This points to an indespensible condition which any synthesis must satisfy in order to be acceptable.  It must envisage man, life, and the universe as changing rather than fixed, as parts of a single ongoing process rather than as three separate realms. The central postulate of the synthesis must be that the universe and everything in it are evolving products of evolution. The synthesis must be an evolutionary synthesis. ~Theodosius Dobzhansky (Figure 7)

But woe be unto a thinker who wants to try to synthesize the empirical evidence in fields in which he or she is not considered an expert.  Such a person will encounter hostility, distrust, condemnation, condescension, and mockery.

Does this sound like fun?  No, it does not.  So why do it?  (Remember, this is a soliloquy.)

Figure 8

Frankly, I like my anonymity.  I like building snow forts with my kids, I like doing odd jobs around the house, like chilling with family and friends.  I’d much rather live a life of anonymity and normalcy.  But, that written, I would like to leave the World a better place, and the only way I can do that is by trying to change it for the better: equality, freedom, and fraternity.  And the only thing I can offer in that regard is a wholly new paradigm of life.

S’bout time for Me to stop rolling that boulder.  Sit down.  Put up My feet.  Rest.  And see the fruits of My Labor. (Figure 8).

Status Report III

This is the third status report documenting my progress on trying to get my work published.  In the first report, I introduced the proposal I had compiled.  I also mentioned that I had sent the proposal off to a small number of publishing houses that considered unsolicited material.  In the second status report, I described the swift, form-letter rejections I received from almost half of those publishers.  In a follow-up post, “On anonymous blogging; Evincing the Truth about the Allegory of the Cave,” I described the full process of trying to get my message out to colleagues, reviewers, and publishing houses.

I am not frustrated by the rejections; it’s the nature of the process, especially for a first-time author.  Indeed, without any prior books or prominent national or international platform, I had very little chance to begin.  But, it was worth a shot.

Figure 1

Now, after almost two-and-a-half months without a positive response (plan A), I have decided to move forward with Plan B (Figure 1).  I discuss that plan in today’s status report.

After about a month of web searching, I have compiled a list of literary agencies that are interested in serious nonfiction with particular focus on science, spirituality, mind/body/spirit, religion, and psychology.  Each agent and agency has different interests, so identifying the right ones was quite an arduous process.  With this list in place, I revamped my query letter.  Here it is:

Dear X,

What is the meaning of life?  I have designed a theoretical framework that provides an inspirational answer to this question and an unprecedented explanation for the origin and evolution of the Universe, Life, and Man.  The mission of my practical nonfiction book, The Theory: First-person Perspective of Being the Universe, is to elicit a gestalt switch in consciousness and to uplift humanity.

I am a life scientist.  I have studied ribonucleic acid (RNA) metabolism for twenty years and have published seventeen peer-reviewed manuscripts, including two first-authors in the high-impact journal Nature.  I have experience with yeast, fly, mouse, and human cell systems and extensive knowledge of virology, molecular, cellular, and developmental biology, genetics, genomics, biochemistry, biophysics, and theory.  About six years ago, I obtained puzzling results that were inexplicable by available theories.  So, I created my own model and then applied it to shed new light on RNA, DNA, and protein metabolism in all life forms.  Much to my surprise, I discovered that the model afforded a legitimate non-mathematical solution to quantum gravity.  Following substantial research, I developed innovative and verifiable solutions to major enigmas, paradoxes, anomalies, and problems.  In the end, I have compiled a thought-provoking theory that reveals a unifying and enlightening perspective on reality.

Figure 2

Although this nonfiction niche harbors works like Singularities by Christian de Duve (Cambridge University Press, 2005), The Road to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose (Vintage, 2007) – {FIGURE 2 added for blog post} – and The Rainbow and the Worm by Mae-Won Ho (World Scientific, 2008), these oeuvres either discuss obsolete, falsified models or promote new, incomplete theories.  The Theory is unique in its genre because it presents a revolutionary theoretical synthesis of spiritual and scientific, mind and matter, and microcosm and macrocosm.  The Theory will appeal to a reader interested in transformative worldviews or fundamental scientific, theological, and philosophical matters.

I seek literary representation for The Theory, complete at 170,000 words.  Being a first-time author, I am contacting several select agencies with nonfiction interests in science, religion, and mind/body/spirit.  Enclosed please find my book proposal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Ik

A comparison with the first query letter will show clear differences.

Figure 3

1. In the lead-off paragraph, I present an timeless, engaging question (yes, the answer would fit on a t-shirt but no, the answer is not shown in Figure 3) and explain the ultimate goal of the book.  This mode was completely lacking in the first letter.

2. I back off from most of the major conclusions my book.  I removed, rearranged, or modified the following bold yet fully honest section:

THE THEORY is a book that proves the Unity of the Universe, explains the origins of spacetime, chemical elements, Life, Man, and civilization, unifies the four fundamental physical forces, elucidates the true relationship among consciousness, mind, and matter, and resolves all extant anomalies, enigmas, and paradoxes.

3. I also gave the book a subtitle – one that is provocative and curious: “First-person Perspective of Being the Universe.”

4. I provide more germane information about me, the author.  This helps the agent know that I know what I am writing about without seeing a full bio or CV.

5. I mention who the potential readership may be.

Figure 4

6. I list the word count and state that the manuscript is complete.  I am aware that 170,000 words is verbose (about 600 pages).   Should I reduce this number for purposes of submission?

In sum, I have rewritten the entire query.  It may be that the first query was poorly received because it was overly brash.  Whatever the reason, I feel that the second query is more formulaic, reasonable, and engaging.

If a reader of this blog has any recommendations on how to improve the new query just to get my foot in the door, I’m all ears (Figure 4).

I will be sending out the first round of queries to agents in early December.  I will thus have a good idea of how Plan B is going by January or February 2011.  Perhaps by then, Plan B will be in full swing; otherwise I will have to revamp Figure 1 to account for Plan C.