How old is the matrix

[losangelesgraffiti]

how long ago have they been talking about the matrix. some one said sense ancient china or japan. any one know about this?

[the infinite one]

Your referring to the measurement of time, which in truth is just an illusionary concept.

There is no correct answer.

[mada88]

Your referring to the measurement of time, which in truth is just an illusionary concept.

There is no correct answer.

I agree, and all this 2012 stuff is getting a wee bit annoying. There is only this moment.

[losangelesgraffiti]

no, that may be true, but i wanna talk about the ancient Chinese writings or proverbs about the matrix.

[hagbard_celine]

Maybe it goes all the way back to the Big Bang.

[cleft_asunder]

I agree, and all this 2012 stuff is getting a wee bit annoying. There is only this moment.

You make it sound as if nothing is happening. I understand what you're saying but it's still not relevant to the question. The bottom line is that the Matrix and time exist as an illusion, and we're living/trapped in that illusion. Therefore, the question is totally relevant. Also, the NOW is in constant change, and that is what time is--and illusion of progress.

The 2012 info is quite relevant. Everything seems to be coming to a climax.

I don't know how old the Matrix is. The universe is outrageously huge, I know that.

from truthism.com:

"Darkness (a.k.a. "Satan" or "the Devil") created the universe (this includes the higher dimensions, too). He is holding all of us captive inside of it. The true creator of existence lives in a different realm--the True Realm. The universe is indeed a crude pseudo-creation; everything in it is based upon programming (i.e. DNA). There is no programming in the True Realm, because it is not a virtual reality, it is simply reality. In the True Realm, crude concepts such as time, biological life, and physics do not exist. Only Darkness (a pseudo creator) would create a realm based on such things. Anything that is "technical" or governed by rules/restrictions (which is everything in the universe) is crude. The True Creator does not need to rely on any rules. That is why the universe is the Matrix--it has rules. It is a virtual reality, as opposed to reality."

"When one dies, then goes on to the astral world (the fourth dimension), they are still inside of Darkness's universe. The only way to get out of the universe and into the True Realm is for the universe to be destroyed."

[bigus_dickus]

"When one dies, then goes on to the astral world (the fourth dimension), they are still inside of Darkness's universe. The only way to get out of the universe and into the True Realm is for the universe to be destroyed."

we are already in the "true realm", projecting consciousness in the universe of matter to experience it.

we choose to do it and we do it for ...fun.

there are billions of other worlds too, but this one.. one hell of a place, literally, in its own beauty.

if i ever get out of this world, that is if we ever get out of this world, we will be together, all knowing ourselves and each other as everything that we have created ourselves to be. what a ride.

[seamus]

Well... I was pretty sure that if I just annihilated myself, that would do away with the whole universe. Since it's here just for me anyway.

Notice I said "was".

I don't know... I think we will know a lot more than we do now. I wrote a poem about it almost 9 years ago.

I know

I know that when I die,
I will see things as they really are.
And I will see things I thought I had seen all along.
And I will be right.
And I will be wrong.


No applause, please, just throw money.

s

[tru3]

how long ago have they been talking about the matrix. some one said sense ancient china or japan. any one know about this?

based on my understanding, it goes back to shortly before the big bang.

there is a book still in print called "dear god, what is happening to us?", by lynn grabhorn; another called "planet two". as i've posted elsewhere, there aren't many writers claiming that the univerve/matrix was NOT created by the infinite. one is lynn grabhorn; another is david icke.

so it's an interesting read. it's one of the best interpretions of the lucifer experiment i've ever read. that's right, experiment. i would suggest anyone who can't quite plumb the depths of the betrayal read this book.

p.s. lynn grabhorn checked out of 3d about 2 years ago; it came to me one day in meditaiton she's already on planet two. so who knows?

[mada88]

I agree that things are changing but the mayans who predicted that 2012 would be a time of great change where reading the stars (the program) the time loop. They talk about these great cycles, so the same things just keep happening. So 2012 isn't going to change much it will change the game yes i agree with that but its not going to end the game only we can do that. Some people say that we are in the end times. So the Apocalypse is going to happen. But Apocalypse means the lifting of the veil! lol is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind! lmao

The Michael Tsarion 2012 - The Future of Mankind video on google is worth watching.

Here's a link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8545585184878490822

I believe 2012 will be the point that the time loop starts over again. The DVD will be repeated. In the 2012 video Tsarion talks about the apocalypse and he says in greek it means to reveil something that is leather. And another idea I thought about was maybe 2012 will be the reveiling of our leather skin/bodies!

[mara of the acoma]

I agree that things are changing but the mayans who predicted that 2012 would be a time of great change where reading the stars (the program) the time loop. They talk about these great cycles, so the same things just keep happening. So 2012 isn't going to change much it will change the game yes i agree with that but its not going to end the game only we can do that. Some people say that we are in the end times. So the Apocalypse is going to happen. But Apocalypse means the lifting of the veil! lol is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind! lmao

The Michael Tsarion 2012 - The Future of Mankind video on google is worth watching.

Here's a link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8545585184878490822

I believe 2012 will be the point that the time loop starts over again. The DVD will be repeated. In the 2012 video Tsarion talks about the apocalypse and he says in greek it means to reveil something that is leather. And another idea I thought about was maybe 2012 will be the reveiling of our leather skin/bodies!

What you have to grasp about the Mayan calendar is that it wasn't a measurement of time, but rather consciousness.

What the Mayans actually said was that 2011/12 would be the end of creation, or rather, this stream of creation, ie. the illusion of linear time. The cycles you speak of were not described as being repetitive as in identical, but rather that each cycle is dominated by a specific mode of consciousness and each time a mode is repeated, the expressions of that consciousness will take a higher form.

An example: The Mayan Long Count is 13 baktuns (approx 5125 solar years), 0-12 and each baktun can be allocated a time in our Gregorian calendar, thus:

Baktun.......... Gregorian Date

0................ 3115-2721 BC
1................ 2721-2326 BC
2................ 2326-1932 BC
3................ 932-1538 BC
4................ 1538-1144 BC
5................ 1144-749 BC
6................ 749-355 BC
7................ 355 BC - AD 40
8................ AD 40-434
9................ AD 434-829
10............... AD 829-1223
11............... AD 1223-1617
12............... AD 1617-2011

This cycle saw the emergence of writing (approx 3000 BC) in Sumer right at the beginning of Baktun 0. The continuation of the evolution of writing is seen all through the Baktuns up till the 13th Baktun. The start of the 13th in 1618 in Amsterdam saw the world's first daily newspaper. Shortly after in 1624 in Denmark was the world's first mail service. So here we see how the evolution of writing corresponds with the wavelike motion of energy described by the cycles in the Mayan calendar. This is because they were aware of the pattern of creation and could therefore prophesise events based on that which had already occurred in corresponding cycles.

That's just one small example of course, for more of this please read The Mayan Calendar by Carl Calleman and watch the Mayan Calendar videos by Ian Xel Lungold (available to watch on Google video) if you haven't already.



EDIT: For some reason I feel compelled to add this poem to this thread which pretty much sums things up for me.

For those who don't know, a soliloquy is a speech you make to yourself and a solipsist is someone who believes the world exists only in their own head.

Soliloquy of the Solipsist
by Sylvia Plath

I?
I walk alone;
The midnight street
Spins itself from under my feet;
When my eyes shut
These dreaming houses all snuff out;
Through a whim of mine
Over gables the moon's celestial onion
Hangs high.

I
Make houses shrink
And trees diminish
By going far; my look's leash
Dangles the puppet-people
Who, unaware how they dwindle,
Laugh, kiss, get drunk,
Nor guess that if I choose to blink
They die.
I
When in good humor,
Give grass its green
Blazon sky blue, and endow the sun
With gold;
Yet, in my wintriest moods, I hold
Absolute power
To boycott any color and forbid any flower
To be.

I
Know you appear
Vivid at my side,
Denying you sprang out of my head,
Claiming you feel
Love fiery enough to prove flesh real,
Though it's quite clear
All you beauty, all your wit, is a gift, my dear,
From me.

[awakensong]

there is a book still in print called "dear god, what is happening to us?", by lynn grabhorn; another called "planet two". as i've posted elsewhere, there aren't many writers claiming that the univerve/matrix was NOT created by the infinite. one is lynn grabhorn; another is david icke.
Except that this is exactly what the Gnostics teach. The universe was created by the Demiurge or Halfmaker, according to their teachings and writings.

[masonic3]

how long ago have they been talking about the matrix. some one said sense ancient china or japan. any one know about this?

Found this: Not my words from web:;)


Once Chuang Chou (phoilosopher) dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. (2, tr. Burton Watson 1968:49)

This hints at many questions in the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and epistemology. The name of the passage has become a common Chinese idiom, and has spread into Western languages as well. It appears, inter alia, as an illustration in Jorge Luis Borges' famous essay "A New Refutation of Time", and may have inspired Howard Phillips Lovecraft's 1918 short story "Polaris".

Zhuangzi's philosophy was very influential in the development of Chinese Buddhism, especially Chan, and Zen which evolved out of Chan. Zhuangzi's points about the limitations of language and the importance of being spontaneous, in particular, were strongly influential in the development of Chan.

also:

Wittgenstein's philosophical thought is unified by a constant concern with the relationship between language, mind, and reality; but it divides into two importantly different phases. The first phase, expressed in the Tractatus, posits a close, formal relationship between language, thought, and the world; there is a direct logical correspondence between the configurations of simple objects in the world, thoughts in the mind, and words in language. Thus the shape of ideas in the mind and the relationship of words in a sentence are identical in form with the structure of reality or “state of affairs” they represent. Language and thought work literally like a picture of the real, and to conceive or speak of any state of affairs is to be able to form a “picture” of it.

To understand any sentence one must grasp the reference of its constituents, both to each other and to the real. Meaning in thought and language requires a direct reference to the real. The Tractatus, however, made a distinction between what language could say and what it might show. The structures of language and thought could indicate, but not represent, their very correspondence to reality; unsayable things thus exist, and sentences whose structures of meaning amount strictly to nonsense can result in philosophical insight. Thus the Tractatus did not, like the logical positivists, reject the metaphysical; rather, it denied the possibility of stating the metaphysical: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Indeed, this is one of Wittgenstein's (1953) central methods in his philosophy: where, by giving 'prominence to distinctions which our ordinary forms of language easily make us overlook' (Wittgnestein, 1953, no.132), he wants to change our 'way of looking at things' (Wittgenstein, 1953, no.144). But what is it he wants us to see, through our new way of looking? For, as he says, he is not concerned 'to hunt out new facts; it is, rather, of the essence of our investigation that... we want to understand something that is already in plain view. For this is what we seem in some sense not to understand' (Wittgenstein, 1953, no.89). What he wants us to see, I suggest, are the different 'forms' or 'streams of life,' that comprise the usually ignored background to everything that we do or say - what he calls 'the whole hurly-burly:'

'How could human behavior be described? Surely only by sketching the actions of a variety of humans, as they are all mixed up together. What determines our judgment, our concepts and reactions, is not what one man is doing now, an individual action, but the whole hurly-burly of human actions, the background against which we see any action' (Wittgenstein, 1981, no.567).
This, I think, is one of the very basic lessons he has to teach. What Wittgenstein brings to our attention, is the nature and extent of the usually unnoticed, background activities constituting the everyday lives we live, as non-intellectualizing, non- deliberating, embodied beings, spontaneously reacting and responding to those around us. For, developmentally, prior to establishing any institutionalized forms of life, with their associated orderly language games, what we just do, unselfconsciously and spontaneously, provides the creative grounds within which such forms can grow. As he suggests: 'The origin and the primitive form of the language game is a reaction; only from this can more complicated forms develop. Language - I want to say - is a refinement, 'in the beginning was the deed'.' Where, in this kind of activity - that elsewhere, I have called joint action (Shotter, 1980, 1984, 1993) - what we do is 'shaped' just as much by the social context 'into' which we must fit our actions, as any inner plans or desires from 'out of' which we act. So, although participants may respond to each other in a 'fitting' manner, to the extent that they influence each other's actions in a moment-by-moment fashion, its nature is intrinsically unpredictable, indeterminate, and creative: it is an entirely unique and novel outcome, related to its circumstances, but unintended by any of the individual participants involved. So, although they react and respond to each other in a meaningful way, none of them can have a complete reflective grasp on the meaning of their activities - they only 'show' it in how they perform them.

The consequences of our embedding within streams of such living, corporeal activity flowing between ourselves and our surroundings are, then, easily ignored. Used to thinking of ourselves as wholly free agents, self-consciously containing the meaning of our own actions 'in our heads' somewhere, the anonymous, pre-personal life of our bodies remains somewhat invisible to us. Intent upon our own sayings and doings, we fail to notice the continuously changing background circumstances 'calling out' our actions from us, or, the 'shaping' influences they exert upon us as we act 'into' them: concerned, for instance, with formulating a question to a speaker according to our own, self- conscious aims, we fail to notice the fleeting, peculiar, momentary influences that made us feel the urge to question what they were saying in the first place, or, what determines how we uniquely enunciate our words in its utterance.

It is in these transitory dialogical or interactive moments - when second person 'you's' respond to what first person 'I's' are doing - that second persons 'show' their understandings to first persons in their practical responses to them; that is, whatever their meaning in theory, the meaning of a person's action or utterance in practice, is a matter of how those who are its recipients respond to it. It is the special, uniquely creative nature of this form of 'active, responsive understanding,' as Bakhtin (1986, p.68) calls it - to contrast it with the 'passive understanding that, so to speak, only duplicates [a speaker's] own idea in someone else's head' (Bakhtin, 1986, p.69) - that I want to explore. It is these living, responsive, background reactions that we are failing to see for what they are, and it is to their nature that, through certain, new relational forms of talk, I want to draw our attention.

[mada88]

Found this: Not my words from web:;)


Once Chuang Chou (phoilosopher) dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. (2, tr. Burton Watson 1968:49)

This hints at many questions in the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and epistemology. The name of the passage has become a common Chinese idiom, and has spread into Western languages as well. It appears, inter alia, as an illustration in Jorge Luis Borges' famous essay "A New Refutation of Time", and may have inspired Howard Phillips Lovecraft's 1918 short story "Polaris".

Zhuangzi's philosophy was very influential in the development of Chinese Buddhism, especially Chan, and Zen which evolved out of Chan. Zhuangzi's points about the limitations of language and the importance of being spontaneous, in particular, were strongly influential in the development of Chan.

also:

Wittgenstein's philosophical thought is unified by a constant concern with the relationship between language, mind, and reality; but it divides into two importantly different phases. The first phase, expressed in the Tractatus, posits a close, formal relationship between language, thought, and the world; there is a direct logical correspondence between the configurations of simple objects in the world, thoughts in the mind, and words in language. Thus the shape of ideas in the mind and the relationship of words in a sentence are identical in form with the structure of reality or “state of affairs” they represent. Language and thought work literally like a picture of the real, and to conceive or speak of any state of affairs is to be able to form a “picture” of it.

To understand any sentence one must grasp the reference of its constituents, both to each other and to the real. Meaning in thought and language requires a direct reference to the real. The Tractatus, however, made a distinction between what language could say and what it might show. The structures of language and thought could indicate, but not represent, their very correspondence to reality; unsayable things thus exist, and sentences whose structures of meaning amount strictly to nonsense can result in philosophical insight. Thus the Tractatus did not, like the logical positivists, reject the metaphysical; rather, it denied the possibility of stating the metaphysical: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Indeed, this is one of Wittgenstein's (1953) central methods in his philosophy: where, by giving 'prominence to distinctions which our ordinary forms of language easily make us overlook' (Wittgnestein, 1953, no.132), he wants to change our 'way of looking at things' (Wittgenstein, 1953, no.144). But what is it he wants us to see, through our new way of looking? For, as he says, he is not concerned 'to hunt out new facts; it is, rather, of the essence of our investigation that... we want to understand something that is already in plain view. For this is what we seem in some sense not to understand' (Wittgenstein, 1953, no.89). What he wants us to see, I suggest, are the different 'forms' or 'streams of life,' that comprise the usually ignored background to everything that we do or say - what he calls 'the whole hurly-burly:'

'How could human behavior be described? Surely only by sketching the actions of a variety of humans, as they are all mixed up together. What determines our judgment, our concepts and reactions, is not what one man is doing now, an individual action, but the whole hurly-burly of human actions, the background against which we see any action' (Wittgenstein, 1981, no.567).
This, I think, is one of the very basic lessons he has to teach. What Wittgenstein brings to our attention, is the nature and extent of the usually unnoticed, background activities constituting the everyday lives we live, as non-intellectualizing, non- deliberating, embodied beings, spontaneously reacting and responding to those around us. For, developmentally, prior to establishing any institutionalized forms of life, with their associated orderly language games, what we just do, unselfconsciously and spontaneously, provides the creative grounds within which such forms can grow. As he suggests: 'The origin and the primitive form of the language game is a reaction; only from this can more complicated forms develop. Language - I want to say - is a refinement, 'in the beginning was the deed'.' Where, in this kind of activity - that elsewhere, I have called joint action (Shotter, 1980, 1984, 1993) - what we do is 'shaped' just as much by the social context 'into' which we must fit our actions, as any inner plans or desires from 'out of' which we act. So, although participants may respond to each other in a 'fitting' manner, to the extent that they influence each other's actions in a moment-by-moment fashion, its nature is intrinsically unpredictable, indeterminate, and creative: it is an entirely unique and novel outcome, related to its circumstances, but unintended by any of the individual participants involved. So, although they react and respond to each other in a meaningful way, none of them can have a complete reflective grasp on the meaning of their activities - they only 'show' it in how they perform them.

The consequences of our embedding within streams of such living, corporeal activity flowing between ourselves and our surroundings are, then, easily ignored. Used to thinking of ourselves as wholly free agents, self-consciously containing the meaning of our own actions 'in our heads' somewhere, the anonymous, pre-personal life of our bodies remains somewhat invisible to us. Intent upon our own sayings and doings, we fail to notice the continuously changing background circumstances 'calling out' our actions from us, or, the 'shaping' influences they exert upon us as we act 'into' them: concerned, for instance, with formulating a question to a speaker according to our own, self- conscious aims, we fail to notice the fleeting, peculiar, momentary influences that made us feel the urge to question what they were saying in the first place, or, what determines how we uniquely enunciate our words in its utterance.

It is in these transitory dialogical or interactive moments - when second person 'you's' respond to what first person 'I's' are doing - that second persons 'show' their understandings to first persons in their practical responses to them; that is, whatever their meaning in theory, the meaning of a person's action or utterance in practice, is a matter of how those who are its recipients respond to it. It is the special, uniquely creative nature of this form of 'active, responsive understanding,' as Bakhtin (1986, p.68) calls it - to contrast it with the 'passive understanding that, so to speak, only duplicates [a speaker's] own idea in someone else's head' (Bakhtin, 1986, p.69) - that I want to explore. It is these living, responsive, background reactions that we are failing to see for what they are, and it is to their nature that, through certain, new relational forms of talk, I want to draw our attention.

I like your pic! lol about time check out this video on the holographic universe The Holographic Universe - YouTube round and round these cycles go not actually getting anywhere

[masonic3]

I like your pic! lol about time check out this video on the holographic universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5us8isW7M round and round these cycles go not actually getting anywhere

thanks I tried to make him look like a alien..... good thread!!

[cleft_asunder]

based on my understanding, it goes back to shortly before the big bang.

there is a book still in print called "dear god, what is happening to us?", by lynn grabhorn; another called "planet two". as i've posted elsewhere, there aren't many writers claiming that the univerve/matrix was NOT created by the infinite. one is lynn grabhorn; another is david icke.

so it's an interesting read. it's one of the best interpretions of the lucifer experiment i've ever read. that's right, experiment. i would suggest anyone who can't quite plumb the depths of the betrayal read this book.

p.s. lynn grabhorn checked out of 3d about 2 years ago; it came to me one day in meditaiton she's already on planet two. so who knows?

I would strongly like to read Lynn's book. Is there a .pdf of it anywhere? I'm just really sick of buying and waiting for things to arrive. I have so many things I NEED right now, that spending money is a bad idea.

[seamus]

See the "Please Everyone Read this book" thread I started in the Awakening Section. There are torrent and direct download links for the PDF I scanned myself. sorry about the lines :o Lynn said at the end of the book that she wanted people to use any means possible to get the info out. I highly recommend buying and reading the physical book, but e-books do in a pinch.

s


I would strongly like to read Lynn's book. Is there a .pdf of it anywhere? I'm just really sick of buying and waiting for things to arrive. I have so many things I NEED right now, that spending money is a bad idea.