Down through centuries and centuries, this standard habit of people is to get bored or dissatisfied with whatever belief system they previously had, and turn everything upside down and formulate some 'new' belief system.
These days, we can read all about the 'ancient gods of Sumeria' because someone came close to working out what the Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform scripts actually say - and so, we now have this story about those 'who from the heavens to the Earth descended.'
This is just another one of these 'rebel cycles' in standard mainstream belief. Away from Genesis and Jehovah and towards the Anunnaki: 'who from the heavens to the Earth descended.' And then so what though?
Now really, this is a very complex sentence to get completely right in the first place: is it 'heavens' or is it 'heaven?' Makes a big difference which one it is.
 |
| The 'White Room' - but now with communications interface panels. |
'Descended?' What is that, really? Came down, sure, but how? Exactly?
Is it 'came down' or is it what the Campbell's Tomato Soup Christians say 'fell down/fallen?'
You can split up the theories on where Mankind came from into three distinct ideas:
1. They simply developed from slime (Richard Dawkins), aka they 'evolved' (now also called 'emergence theory' when jammed up with modern physics);
2. God created them in the Garden of Eden;
3. The ET Aliens came down and played around with some DNA experiments, made Man, decided it was a mistake, flooded them all thinking they would kill off the whole entire lot, failed, and then just took off never to return.
 |
| No no! Not the Russian Standard Vodka! Aaaaargh, now, you're gonna be sick in the White Room! |
...If we go to the last one first, what you have is an illusion. You have a never-ending backwards facing mirror. Yes the Aliens came (let's say), here -, but then, where did they come from themselves? The apparent answer is, seemingly, well, doesn't matter - it was all so long ago who cares now? So, we're left back to the 'developed all by themselves like slime' story. It's just that these guys developed from slime a long long time earlier than when Dawkin's evolution fairy tale here happened. And it's so far backwards into the distance of past time, that well, it's invisible, really.
If we next move to the Garden of Eden story, we are left with some utterly amazing logical problems that no one bothers to address, because, well, this time, in place of the religion of 'sci-ence,' we have the scientific hierophancy of religion. How come this amazing, all-powerful, all-knowing God was not able to simply 'wipe the minds' of these beings He created, when they apparently learned the Knowledge of the Fruit of Good and Evil (why is that even a problem anyway?) - and, what was He doing sticking this tremendously wicked tree in such a place anyway, right in the path of these poor unsuspecting, innocent creatures, who now have to suffer immensely, pretty much for thousands of years now and still going...?
So then you get the same old paltry, pathetic 'justifications' about why this all 'had to happen.'
One answer literally being that then, then, Jesus could come and suffer some more and 'die' so that this 'Original Sin' could be fixed, except it hasn't been fixed, yet.
Does that really make any sense to anyone who is prepared to use logic and not religious ideology?
In both cases, the backwards-looking mirror one, and the modern Christian one, we have this 'things falling off the cliff at the end of the horizon' business. It's all 'happening' - happening so far into the past that you can't see it, and it doesn't matter, or so on-going into the never-ending future that you can't see that ending either and so the meaning of it all in any conclusive sense 'doesn't matter' there either.
Except it does matter, doesn't it?
We are literally facing actual extinction through the risk of global nuclear war.
The problem with Richard Dawkins' stupid nonsense is that of all of them, you would have supposed the 'scientific' theory would actually use a bit of maths and physics.
Today, 'science' has been hijacked by 'observation theory.'
 |
| Maybe if I just meet a 'mini god,' I will be able to seduce them. We don't need no 'super duper' hot-shot top-line dude... |
But science is not actually about observation; it's about observation in conjunction with functions that are real - in other words, it is about logic.
You can have a function which is not real. And then if you continue to 'make observations' in line with the functionally false equation, you can assert that it is 'true' and that it is 'science' but it's just making noise with your mouth. And that is what people like Richard Dawkins do.
I am about to demonstrate to you, prove to you, how to read the future scientifically, and how the religious problem of theodicy is actually resolved:
A triangle is a real thing; it really exists.
But it is a principle, not a naturally-occurring physical thing - there are no actual perfect triangles anywhere in the material Universe.
If one inner angle of a given triangle is an obtuse angle...
...the the other two internal angles must always be acute angles.
And it is not the case that such a situation bespeaks only a fully formed triangle, it can be a linear relationship thing (hence, in time, along a timeline of events): if you have a base line, and two laser 'guide star' rays proceeding at acute angles, then they shall meet at an obtuse angle in the future, as the rays proceed along the angle that subtends the eventual apex (or corner).
100% always predicts the future, that situation.
If for one geometric relationship, then for all of them.
I can spin a baseline of a 'pre-form or proto-triangle' and tell you the conical end section...
I can place indents in the radial orbit of the baseline and tell you the exact gearing (speed) at the apex of the cone, with fluid measurement due to the fluidity of the circular surface, which is no long a two-dimensional thing as the baseline is spun as if it were a radial element.
In other words, I can not only tell you that (because of the logical conclusion of the subtended angle rays, and also why (definition/principle of the triangle form), but also when ('gearing,' aka ratios).
 |
| Well over thirty now. Boy, time flies when you're in Twilight. |
God did not 'make Man' at any time. God is, and because God is, Man also is. God is principle, Man is form in function.
When you follow in the train of the gods, who most closely follows - and many fall away, fall down not being able to stand the rigors - you ultimately go to where you are able to see the gods as they really are, and be friends with them. ...Words from an ancient text.
Let us see together if we can 'see' the future now.
There is no 'never-ending backwards looking mirror;' that is an illusion. There is, a triangle. There is one of those for real. That's a real thing.
Life is not a 'matrix' and it is not a hologram. It is totally completely real. Triangles are real, spinning triangles are real, gears are real, wheels are real, and...
...broken wheels are real too.
'Evil' is a broken wheel.
It can't be fixed; it's 'broken.' If it is broken in principle, well then, it is just broken! A broken wheel which is fixed is no longer a 'broken wheel' at all but a functioning wheel.
If your mind is broken in principle, then it actually cannot be fixed at all.
My friends, the gods do not play by FBI rules...
I hope you know what that means.
Look, I read this bullshit here and I know the role I play in this little thing, the person, the only person, who leaves comments that aren't just obviously ass kissy "oh yes you're so right" yadda yadda. And that's part of the scene, and in a sense I actually strengthen the situation, helping it to become what it truly is and needs to be in order to thrive as a living operation. Perhaps I should reconsider my involvement in that. It started with "hey ETs are welcome to come and have some tea and we can talk because I have questions."
ReplyDeleteAnyway there is a little voice telling me "oh tell them about the WEBLEY." So "ma dad" had this webley revolver. The round thingy that spins had a split down the middle, and the thing wouldn't close properly whichever way you tried to turn it.
So dad was this guy who had a friend who had a whole collection of guns and they liked to go down to the sage brush lands and shoot things. Dad couldn't get the proper bullets for the Webley so he used the closest thing he could find. It worked for a while and then the whole thing exploded. He said it left his hand numb and he was very lucky not to have been injured worse.
So, that was one time when the equations just didn't predict exactly where that bullet would land.
Turns out that this unpredictability is woven right into the "fabric of everything" and as you "factor" reality out into ever tinier components it shows up in what they call "Bell's inequality." Those effects, as you wind your way back up the chain of factorizings, gets "orchestrated" into what we recognize as consciousness, so say the likes of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Roger Penrose is a little stand-offish when they ask him the "woo-woo" questions about consciousness. Not Stuart Hameroff. Funny scene.
People who show up talking about the inevitability of mathematical equations and also about the great moral code of the "intellectually narrow" universe are always just trying to rob you. I've seen it already.
But thank god for wikipedia. "With a modified, "shaved" cylinder and the use of a half moon clip, the Webley Mk VI can fire the .45 ACP cartridge,[citation needed] although standard pressure .45 ACP cartridges exceed Webley proof loads and should not be used."
DeleteWell, frankly, brilliant. On two counts, because 1. you are quite right, no point people just nodding in agreement uncritically ALL the time. This is where mistakes are almost inevitably made. And 2. you raise the issue of the moral code of the intellectually narrow Universe - I fully concur with that. I don't think I am proposing an intellectually narrow Universe; quite the opposite. The movement of the basic geometric forms, and then the interplay of those, develops a massively complex 'Universe' and not a simple one at all. I was trying to point out that standard religious narratives never show you any kind of existential fact: later, when you die, if you go to heaven/hell, whatever... Whereas we pointed out here the reliable predictability of linear geometry in motion. In Islam, the teaching is that Allah ORDAINS everything, in Christianity things are not so cut-and-dried and which things He 'ordains' and which he allows some kind of 'free reign' too, yet even here there is an issue with genuine culpability. The 'geometry' lies in some principle behind 'Justice.' There really must BE such a thing in order to have any sort of 'ultimate civilization,' whether these consist of super advanced 'Aliens' with a massive time-scale of successful existence, or actual 'gods' as such, or whatever. 'Principles of Justice' must have definitional characteristics the same way geometrical structures and forms like 'triangles' do - otherwise there is really no such thing as a 'principle' of 'Justice,' simply competition between rivals for a gain or advantage of some sort. If the latter is the reality, then corruption is THE most significant fundamental 'principle;' subverting of legitimacy and validity is the ultimate goal, the ultimate 'way.' Humans, as a civilized form of sentient existence, have decided there are definite structures for 'civilized behavior.' And we have decided this is so on account of our experience of socially enduring forward motion, not on account of fairy tales we bow down to of which 'Viking lord was most powerful in Game-of-Thrones world!' ...We are living today in a world of lies, fabrications, and fairy tales about what is right, what works, what is to be admired, and what we should do. We have lost the knowledge of what it takes to ensure stable and successful forward motion of society. Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin have the platform. ...You play with a bolt action rifle the way that Sean Penn handles it on screen and one day you might easily have the bolt go right through the palm of your hand!
DeleteSo I guess the news now is that experiments on microtubules confirm that anesthesia reduces the quantum effects in the microtubules. For me this is bigger than the whole UAP story thing. I mean this is enough for me now, I can decide that it is practical to believe that consciousness itself should be regarded as "substrate", and not as a kind of illusion contained within brains as physical substrate.
DeleteHelp me, Obi Wan. I ned help...
ReplyDeleteCensorship is wrong, Calvin. You know better than that.
ReplyDeleteNot censoring anyone here. Maybe being a bit sneaky, but never preventing comments. Not on my side.
ReplyDeleteInteresting aspect about 'having tea with ET' and discussing things with them, asking them questions. It is pretty clear to me they never brook questions. If they did at all (again, assuming such beings exist) they would have arranged some format for it - instead, they present things as a 'fait accompli' and you just go along with it, and work it out for yourself by yourself, or if not simply take the risk of the consequences. Why is this so, or why might it be so, logically? ...It's because the human race as a species, is not really in a position where you can trust it, and this calls into question who 'we' really are, or who are some of the beings masquerading here as humans. Those that are 'just' humans are utterly ignorant and naive. 'Dialogue' is a red flag. If the other guy has far better information than you, and asks for 'dialogue, THAT is when you are about to be stolen from.
ReplyDeleteCool! You delivered! This is good!
DeleteAs far as lunch dates with ETs go, I'm ready to believe that they are far more interested in the Turkey Tail mushrooms growing on my dead rhododendrons, in terms of time spent with an intellectual peer.
Delete