On the 5 Elements. On Luciferianism. [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

luciferhorus

15-04-2009, 04:09 AM

On Luciferianism. On the Unified Theory. On Alchemcy (the Craft of ‘transformation.’). On the Five Elements.
On the revealing of the Secrets of the Arc of the Covenant.

Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism
The 1000 Year Revolution of Light.

The five elementals of the Universe, E= MC squared and the question,‘What is the ‘stuff’ of the Universe?’

There are four primary alchemical elements in physics, of which three are contained in Einstein’s equation; the fifth element is the observer.

E is Energy, M is Mass (matter) and C refers to the speed of Light.
The fourth element which many physicists no longer refer to is Ether.
Ether in physics is nothing to do with the term Ether in organic chemistry.
To simplify, Ether in physics is the space between the atoms; however as we shall see it is not ‘empty;’ ether is ‘Light’s container.’

Questions of ‘Infinite causal regression’ and ‘Is the universe made of matter?’

The problem with asking ‘what is the stuff of the universe?’ is that this is a question which leads to infinite causal regression (i.e., a question which leads infinitely to another question).

The Four Great Questions of Infinite Causal Regression.

There are four major mysteries that are questions which lead to infinite causal regression and which cannot be answered scientifically.

1: God’s Great Grandmother.

Who created God?

Let us say that She was created by God’s mother, and let us say that God’s mother was created by God’s great Grandmother, etc., etc., ad infinitum (to infinity). Every answer leads to another question.

2: Time

What existed before the beginning of time, and what was before that, and what was before that? And so on, and so on, ad infinitum.

3: Space

What exists beyond the edge of space, and what is beyond that and what is beyond that, etc., etc?…………. ad infinitum.

4: What is the basis of matter

....and further and what is that made of, and what is that made of, etc., etc.?

To explain why this is a question of infinite causal regression is a little more complicated to explain and it requires a very basic understanding of physics, but I will try to simplify that especially children might understand.

What is the quantity of the Universe?

A: The Macro (big) Universe.

When we look up at the stars in the Heavens, we know that the distance between the stars is great in comparison to the relatively tiny size of the stars. The nearest Sun (Star) to our sun is Proxima Centauri. It takes over four years for the light of 'Proxima' to reach us. A spaceship travelling at 25,000 miles an hour would take over 113,000 years to reach 'Proxima. It ‘seems’ as if the universe is mostly made of empty space which Light travels through. This seemingly empty space is a good analogy for ‘ether’ in the micro-universe.

B: The Micro (small) Universe.

1: Molecules.
A molecule is a collection of atoms. A water molecule has three atoms. The three atoms are like three galaxies held apart in a huge ocean of space (Ether). The molecule is like a micro Universe. If we draw a collection of water molecules, they would look like this:

Three molecules:

*

* *

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/threestars.jpg

The reason that each molecule looks like a single star, as opposed to three atoms is because we are too far away (too big) to see it properly. Just as when we look up at a bright spot in the night sky, we are too far away (too small) to see that the spot is not a star but a galaxy (a gathering) of stars.
In order to see the water atom, we must get closer (smaller) to just one of the water molecules, and what we originally thought from a distance was just one star, now seems to be three smaller stars.
______________________
2: Atoms:

*

* *

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/threestars.jpg

What we see is mostly ether. The stars (the atoms) appear to take up very little space, and most of the volume of the molecule is the empty space in between. The Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms are like three stars separated by huge distances. As we look at each atom, we see only One star. This is because we are too far away. When we get closer we see that these atoms, that we once thought were single stars, are actually made of ‘smaller pieces.’
________________
3: Sub atomic particles
*

* *

* *

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/fivestars.jpg

Atoms are made up of smaller particles such as Leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons.
Electrons are ‘Leptons’ and orbit the nucleus of atoms. Quarks combine to form protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are the particles that comprise the nucleus of atoms, however since I seek to simplify, and not to confuse, let us just call these pieces, ‘sub-atomic particles.’

What we thought was one star (one atom), was an illusion created by distance. The star of the atom was a collection of smaller stars and as we get closer, we would see this. Each atom star is made of several subatomic particles. This is much like a ‘snowflake’ that looks like ‘one’ simple rough piece of ice from the distance, but under a magnifying glass reveals its complex patterns that are created from smaller components.

____________________

4: Sub-sub atomic particles
*

* *

* *

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/fivestars.jpg

Since the sub atomic particle is just an ‘Effect,’ we must now ask, what is the ‘Cause’ of the sub atomic particle? Again we will find that the sub-sub atomic particle consists of smaller particles held apart in the Ether, or 'no-thing.'

666 etc.: Sub Sub Sub (etc., etc.)
This is like the question of how many times we can draw a square within a circle within a square within a circle, both ‘down’ in proportions to the micro (smaller than us) universe and ‘up’ in proportions to the macro (bigger than us) universe. A computer will go on infinitely attempting to calculate this and it will go on and on, but in the real world it stops somewhere. Scientists who argue that the sub atomic particles are simply indivisible are merely making statement of ‘faith,’ and are avoiding the question of causal regression (i.e., what are the sub particles made of, and if there are sub, sub particles, what are they made of, etc., etc., i.e. what is the ‘stuff’ of the universe made of).

The golf ball of matter

A Materialist is a person who believes they we are made out of matter, not Light. Some materialists believe that if you took out all the ether in the universe and compressed all the sub-sub (etc) atoms that you would end up with a piece of matter the size of a golf ball which if weighed on a scale would be the same ‘weight’ as the universe today. This belief is linked with the ‘big bang’ theory, where physicists hold that a few milliseconds after the big bang, the universe was actually the size of a golf ball of matter, however this begs the question of what size the universe was a few milliseconds before that, and before that and before that, etc, and eventually we end up not with a golf-ball at all but a few nano-seconds after the big bang a piece of matter so small that it could not be seen at all. Then we have to ask the question ‘what size was the universe at point zero in time?’ and if the materialist replies that there was no matter, then they are not true materialists at all since they would have conceded that matter is clearly not the origin of matter.

The Quantity of Ether in the Universe. One Light. No matter.

According to materialists, the volume of ether in a glass of water is the total volume minus the volume taken up by the particles (sub sub..etc., atoms). This leaves us with the empty space between the atoms in the water. The ether would appear to be 0.999999999999999999999999999 etc., of the volume, and the space taken up by the small particles is 0.0000000000000000 etc., with a One on the end, however this is a materialistic ‘belief, not a provable fact. The problem is that the definition of matter is a ‘thing’ which is made up of smaller ‘things,’ so the ‘stuff’ so stuff of the universe cannot be a ‘thing (matter)’ that is made up of a smaller ‘thing (matter),’ since this would lead to infinite causal regression. The ‘stuff’ of the universe can only ultimately be ‘non-stuff’ or ‘non-matter’ or meta-matter (meta-physical)

This is why ‘materialism’ is not scientific, but a belief.

Materialism is essentially a form of pseudo-scientific 'belief' regarding the nature of the universe.

Materialism has it's roots in Democritus' view that the universe was probably made up of tiny pieces of matter; Marx and the 19th century materialists simply took his word for it, however they had no way to prove or disprove this theory.

Quantum weirdness.

In the famous 'double slit experiment (see the 'Dr Quantum cartoon on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc )' physicists asked the question 'Are electrons 'tiny pieces of matter?' In 'fact' they concluded from this experiment that 'sometimes', when observed, the electron does not behave like matter at all; in fact they behave exactly like 'waves' and they form 'interference patters' which is not what pieces of matter do at all. This of course begs the question 'waves of what?' and only honest scientific answer to this given by quantum physicists is 'we don't know yet'

E=MCsquared.

. When a nuclear detonation takes place the Plutonium does not simply 'produce' Energy and Light; rather the Plutonium (i.e., the Mass) converts into Energy and Light. Now, if Mass can be transformed into Energy and Light, Light and Energy should be able to be transformed back into Mass.

The Noble Prize.

When the materialist claims that it is a 'scientific' fact that the universe is made of small pieces of matter, all they have to do is to prove what the basic 'stuff of the universe is (i.e. what is the sub-sub-sub (etc) lepton made of?)' and if they could prove that it 'is' small pieces of matter, a million dollars and a noble prize will be theirs, but at present all they have to go on is a pseudo-scientific 'faith,' and a quite irrational faith, since matter cannot be ultimately made of matter, particularly since we 'know' for certain that matter is convertible to Energy and Light; however even this doesn't solve the problem since we then must ask 'What is Light made of?' and even the answer of 'photons' does not end there, since we then need to ask 'What is the Photon made of' and so forth and so forth, ad infinitum.

Light and the 4th dimension.

We live in a universe of three dimensions and we ourselves are three dimensional objects. However due certain things that physicists refer to as 'quantum strangeness’ and inexplicable questions such as 'where does the photon come from?’, many physicists now 'believe' that there may be a fourth dimension to the universe which is invisible to us and that here we may find the root of matter and the photon (the 4th dimension would contain what we three dimensional creatures would define as 'non things' or that which is meta-physical. This is a theory put forward by many physicists including Carl Sagan (Sagan on the 4th dimension:, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw) )

The Holographic Universe

"In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect's experiment is related to the EPR Experiment, a consicousness experiment which had been devised by Albert Einstein, and his colleagues, Poldlsky and Rosen, in order to disprove Quantum Mechanics on the basis of the Pauli Exclusion Principle contradicting Special Relativity.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms….more on: http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

_____________________________________________

All of Physics.

E-MCsquared.

Energy, Mass and Light are interconvertable and one and the same.

Matter is not made up of matter.
http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/pentagram666.jpg

_______________________________________________

The Alchemical Quest and the Revealing of the Secrets of the Arc of the Covenant.

The alchemical quest was never about converting lead to gold, but rather of ‘transforming’ matter to Light and Energy. We can all transform matter to Light and Energy simply by burning a piece of paper; we can hold a magnifying glass up to the sun and convert Light to Energy, but nuclear process which occurs on the sun or in a nuclear weapon was a secret which if understood would deliver the most awesome military power to the alchemist; as it was in the legend of Moses.
Let us consider a few points regarding the Ark.
Biblical accounts of the Ark seem be depicting a weapon of war. Waging war with Ark of the Covenant seems to suggest that Moses was using some form of ‘adanced alchemcy At Jericho the Israelites hold it before them and the city walls are blown over, in another battle it is placed ahead of the Israelites and their enemies are blinded by it’s Light.. Biblical accounts describe a Holy Ark that seems to strike down its caretakers with the same raw power unleashed against its caretakers' enemies. The sons of Aaron, Moses’ own nephews, were struck dead by the fire of the Lord. In 2 Samuel 6:7, during a celebration in Jerusalem, the driver of the cart bearing the Ark reaches out to steady the golden box and falls dead at its touch. At one point, the Philistines defeated the Hebrews in battle and captured the Ark, which they took back to their home city of Ekron. But for them, the treasure turned into a torment. The Philistines themselves were afflicted with painful leprosy-like sores until the Ark was returned to the Hebrews.
Wilhelm’s Reich’s Ark.

We must also consider the construction of the box and the layering of organic and inorganic substances.

The story of Reich’s Ark is well known, but to summarize, Reich constructed a box made out of numerous alternate layers of organic and inorganic substances; for example a layer of gold on top of a layer of paper, and so forth. In this box he placed a radium needle. A radium needle is made of radioactive metal which has a certain ‘half-life;’ it is slowly transforming part of it’s matter and thus over periods of time, the radioactivity it emits measurably decreases. However the strange thing about Reich’s Ark is that the Radium needle quickly started to ‘increase’ the radiation being emitted, even doubling over just a few days. Most of Reich’s co-workers felt physically sick in the presence of the needle and after a short time, the experiment had to end. It is a rather mysterious phenomenon that placing radioactive metal in such an Ark enriches’ the metal. Reich was eventually arrested, much of his research materials confiscated and her mysteriously died in prison.

Tablets of Stone.

In modern nuclear devices explosives such as TNT surround the two halves of a critical mass of nuclear material. The point of this is not to ‘blow up’ the plutonium but rather to compress the plutonium into a smaller space, thus creating a nuclear detonation; the conversion of Mass to Light and Energy, as opposed to simply scattering radiation which is what depleted uranium shells do
If one did not have TNT or conventional explosives to compress to the two halves of a critical mass, there are numerous other methods which could be employed including crushing the mass together between two large stones.

Enriching metal.

This is not as complicated as most people think. There are numerous articles circulating the Internet on making home made nuclear weapons (see How to build homemade nuclear weapons for peaceful and defensive purposes on http://reactor1967.fortunecity.com/nuke.html; the simple technology required would not have been impossible for our ancient ancestors.

Modern Ark of the Covenant devices: nuclear weapons.

The secrets of the alchemical quest are secrets no more; we no longer require two tablets of stone to crush radioactive metal together; we have modern explosives which are more effective.

Final War.

When the Arc of the Covenant is once again rebuilt and revealed, by the Seven Servants of Apocalyptic War, and the prophesies of the fall of Babylon's empire evoked (personified), the financial kingdoms of Capitalism shall turn to dust; it shall not be a miracle but the consequence of physics..

Great and Terrible and Dreadful shall be the Day of Judgement.

Woe to Babylon; Global Babylon shall Fall.

I am all Love (all of metaphysics) and Light (all of physics), but love and light casts out all evil, and in time, by the power of Love and the application of militant will, Light shall destroy the kingdoms of evil.

Physics is War.

Lucifer

Aeon of Light 2009

luciferhorus

15-04-2009, 04:30 AM

Correction:

The following should have been italicised and is a quotation

"Biblical accounts of the Ark seem be depicting a weapon of war. Waging war with Ark of the Covenant seems to suggest that Moses was using some form of ‘adanced alchemcy At Jericho the Israelites hold it before them and the city walls are blown over, in another battle it is placed ahead of the Israelites and their enemies are blinded by it’s Light.. Biblical accounts describe a Holy Ark that seems to strike down its caretakers with the same raw power unleashed against its caretakers' enemies. The sons of Aaron, Moses’ own nephews, were struck dead by the fire of the Lord. In 2 Samuel 6:7, during a celebration in Jerusalem, the driver of the cart bearing the Ark reaches out to steady the golden box and falls dead at its touch. At one point, the Philistines defeated the Hebrews in battle and captured the Ark, which they took back to their home city of Ekron. But for them, the treasure turned into a torment. The Philistines themselves were afflicted with painful leprosy-like sores until the Ark was returned to the Hebrews."

verndewd

15-04-2009, 05:16 AM

so when did luciferianism adopt quantum physics? or vis versa.

good post btw.

luciferhorus

15-04-2009, 07:11 AM

so when did luciferianism adopt quantum physics? or vis versa.

good post btw.

Alchemists have long attempted to unpack the secrets of light and to bring forth Light from matter.

Since science is not a belief system, the pool of scientific knowledge is our common resource.

For much of the history of Christianity alchemists (i.e., scientists) have been considered heretics, witches, wizards and in general instruments of the enemy of the Christian god and his proto-fascist Church.

When one is already a heretic, new avenues of non-Christian forms of spirituality become attractive, yet such alternative Kabbalistic explanations of metaphysics which have been associated with alchemy have for long been heresies to the Church.

The myth of Prometheus stealing the secrets of Fire/Light from the gods and sharing them with humanity has already materialised on earth; such secrets are secrets no more and are understood in all nations.

A lie is very complex; truth is often very simple.

LL

Lux

luciferhorus

15-04-2009, 07:27 AM

verndewd

15-04-2009, 07:47 AM

Addendum

Since I seek to simplify and clarify rather than complexify and confuse, I should point out further that when we touch a solid object, it is a popular misconception that we are touching it's 'atoms;' we are not; what we are experiencing is an 'effect' produced by the electron waves. It is this experience of the senses that perhaps leads to physicists thinking of atoms as solid objects like a chair or any 'object' in our macro world. Our entire universe is a sensory illusion created by Light.

:D Its incredibly difficult for a mind to grasp that what it touches is its own thought pattern regarding the atoms before it. And to some degree regarding the planting fields dimension we live in its understandable.
Another important note would be zero point field and zero point energy discussed in the mctaggart series in my crash course thread.

Why that is important is it uncovers the science of subatomic energy emissions which at that scale happen perhaps hundreds or thousands of trillion times a day. every atoms sub particle communicating assumeably in an electronic pulse to the surroudong sub particles.

Science has discovered that information in the body exceeds the speed of nerve impulse by several factors. there is nueral matter in the heart as well.

Also to correct you in materials being peuedo science that is both true and false in that the observations are factual to the degree that they serve as an explanation on a very topical level. And that atomic reaction is a very inefficient form of particle smashing on a large scale That creates a wholesale disruption of the strong nuclear force , the more atoms that can be smashed the higher the yield.

ether or the zone of transformation is the womb of the universe. In short description. This is where all is transferred to light and into hologram.

luciferhorus

15-04-2009, 01:07 PM

:D Its incredibly difficult for a mind to grasp that what it touches is its own thought pattern regarding the atoms before it. And to some degree regarding the planting fields dimension we live in its understandable.
Another important note would be zero point field and zero point energy discussed in the mctaggart series in my crash course thread.

Why that is important is it uncovers the science of subatomic energy emissions which at that scale happen perhaps hundreds or thousands of trillion times a day. every atoms sub particle communicating assumeably in an electronic pulse to the surroudong sub particles.

Science has discovered that information in the body exceeds the speed of nerve impulse by several factors. there is nueral matter in the heart as well.

Also to correct you in materials being peuedo science that is both true and false in that the observations are factual to the degree that they serve as an explanation on a very topical level. And that atomic reaction is a very inefficient form of particle smashing on a large scale That creates a wholesale disruption of the strong nuclear force , the more atoms that can be smashed the higher the yield.

ether or the zone of transformation is the womb of the universe. In short description. This is where all is transferred to light and into hologram.

Yes I accept all points made verndewd; with regards to 'ether' I have simply described ether as 'the container of light,' which does not contradict of your definition. What I was arguing (it may not have been clear) is that the glass of water is 100% etheric, but I should explain what I mean by this.

With regards to the example I gave where materialists argue that the glass of water is mostly empty space (empty of matter but full of electron waves) and that that the solid matter is a tiny part of that'; there is simply no evidence that the root of what we call matter is in fact smaller pieces of matter. For those who accept the holographic version of reality; the glass of water becomes devoid of small pieces of matter; it is just an etheric vehicle (a container) for Light which also can transform itself into energy and the appearance of mass.

There is singularity in the universe and it is not a single piece of mass.

One Universal Light

Lux

luciferhorus

15-04-2009, 01:14 PM

Another important note would be zero point field and zero point energy discussed in the mctaggart series in my crash course thread.
.

I have looked at the thread; I haven't watched the holographic universe videos, but I will be sure to do so when I have some time; I am quite familiar with this general view, however.

flyermay

15-04-2009, 02:55 PM

I have to admit that I’m not sure where this thread is getting at, but nevertheless it’s also quite interesting.

First, I have to agree that science in no more than a new form of religion, which as you said needs a lot of faith. Either way, I thought it would be worth expanding some of Luciferhorus ideas:

About matter and energy (E = m c ^ 2)

The formula (E = m c ^ 2) itself explains what matter is; no more than energy, and vice versa. It also provides the ratio for the transformation, meaning that more mass requires more energy and more energy more mass. Please not that the speed of light in this formula is the limit at which any “material” object can travel, as at light speeds the energy needed would simple by infinite.

Technically, Einstein’s formula doesn’t discard travelling faster than the speed of light; it simply states that no body with a mass can do it.

About Time and Space

Time and space were created (or began to exist as we know it) with our universe; the event called the big bang. Before this event, the whole universe was condensed into a singularity, or an infinitely small point.

But, what is time and what is space? I guess that to explain both we need to have some references (i.e. the beginning and the start of an action or even, or the distance between 2 objects). But if we said that before the Big Bang everything in the universe was condensed in a singularity, what could we use as a reference? Therefore it is impossible to talk about time or space before the big bang or after this universe ceases to exist.

Extra dimensions and parallel universes

As Luciferhorus well said, we live in a 3 dimensional universe (or so we thought). The search for the true nature of matter has lead scientist to the unified field theory and to string theory.

We said that matter is no more than energy, and string theory does no more than confirming this concept by proposing that all subatomic particles in the universe are formed by strings that vibrate at different frequencies. Now, the unified field theory also seems to support this idea, as all 4 forces in the universe can be thought as various manifestations of the same unique force (i.e. electricity and magnetism were once considered two different forces, but can be now formulated as one: electromagnetism). As a curiosity, Einstein spent his last years trying to unify them all in the same formula without any success.

Until someone came up with the string theory. But, what does string theory has to do with extra dimensions? Well, string theory would be impossible to formulate without the existence of extra dimensions; 11 to be exact. It is also believed that some forces (like gravity) share part of its energy with other universes (parallel universes) thought those 11 dimensions.

Nothing more is know about these other universes or dimensions; everything is pure speculation, which I guess leaves an open door to all that was believed and sayd previous to our modern science.

Faith and science

If you are still wondering what I meant by needing a lot of faith to believe in science; think about this: how many of you ever saw an electron, a protron or a neutron, yet you all give for granted that they are the basis for all atoms? That's faith...

cruise4

15-04-2009, 03:15 PM

I saw an interesting example on the thunderbolts site yesterday...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/featured_media.htm#ei19

This is the interesting bit...

Summary:
Today's multimedia is from Bill Gaede, of youstupidrelativist.com. Bill interviewed Stephen J. Crothers recently at the airport in Munich, after Steve had presented a recent paper to a conference.

Physics is first and foremost the study of objects. Without objects, we can have no Physics. The black hole does not belong in Physics because it is not a physical object. It is, rather, an irrational concept and as such does not even belong in Philosophy. The astronomers should not be pointing their telescopes to the skies in search of black holes. They should be reading the definition of the word object.

The video exposes that members of the establishment who claim through the literature to have found black holes, privately admit that no such thing has ever happened. Australia's Stephen Crothers flatly denies that it ever can. He offers a few more reasons from a mathematical perspective for why Black Holes don't and cannot exist. Unfortunately, mainstream journals do not have a 'Retraction' section where false claims can be retracted or a 'Dissent' section where opponents can offer evidence and arguments to expose false prophets.
- Bill Gaede

verndewd

15-04-2009, 05:50 PM

Yes I accept all points made verndewd; with regards to 'ether' I have simply described ether as 'the container of light,' which does not contradict of your definition. What I was arguing (it may not have been clear) is that the glass of water is 100% etheric, but I should explain what I mean by this.

With regards to the example I gave where materialists argue that the glass of water is mostly empty space (empty of matter but full of electron waves) and that that the solid matter is a tiny part of that'; there is simply no evidence that the root of what we call matter is in fact smaller pieces of matter. For those who accept the holographic version of reality; the glass of water becomes devoid of small pieces of matter; it is just an etheric vehicle (a container) for Light which also can transform itself into energy and the appearance of mass.

There is singularity in the universe and it is not a single piece of mass.

One Universal Light

Lux

I cant disagree at all. To be honest I hadnt given much thought to ether aside from just realizing its purpose from a mushroom trip. But Its clear that you are correct that the glass of water in its entirety is a transformation area.

luciferhorus

16-04-2009, 05:37 PM

I cant disagree at all. To be honest I hadnt given much thought to ether aside from just realizing its purpose from a mushroom trip. But Its clear that you are correct that the glass of water in its entirety is a transformation area.

Physics (Light) and Metaphysics (Love).

1: Physics

Many students of the physical sciences are coming around to the same conclusion that our ancient ancestors reached; that we live in a kingdom of Light.

Einstein was certainly a great soul, but he never claimed to be infallible; science is not a faith or belief system; it is simply an observation of the realm of Light.

Einstein was a dyslexic; reading and writing were very complex and difficult procedures for him. Dyslexics hate complexity and sophistry; they tend to speak very simply; they offer simple explanations and demand simple explanations; it is very hard for a soul whose mind is complex and confused to understand the dyslexic.

The great mind tends to look at seemingly complex phenomena and tries to simplify and explain everything. The sophist takes what is incredibly simple to the dyslexic and turns it linguistically into a grand system of confusion and complexity; which they neither understand themselves, nor allow others to understand.

The most simple explanation which takes account of all evidence is usually the correct one; this is 'Occam's Razor' to philosophers and it is also applicable to the natural sciences.

There are a number of explanations offered.

For the purposes of simplification. L=Light. M=Mass. E=Energy. (LEM)

1: The universe is entirely holographic; it is an effect of L. L is the 'stuff' of EM. L is the cause, E and M are the effect.

2: M is the 'stuff' of the universe; it transforms into E and L. M is the cause, L and E are the effect.

3: E is the root 'stuff' of the universe; it transforms into M and L. M is the cause, L and E are the effect.

4: The 'stuff' of LEM is neither L, E, or M. The origin of LEM is beyond our 3 dimensional reality and exists in a meta-physical realm.

5: LEM is one-substance

1, 4 and 5 are all correct; though I use the term 'substance' metaphorically; Light is not a 'thing,' and has no length, breadth, height or weight in the same way that we would describe a 'thing' as being 'substantial.'

I should point out also that my use of the term 'metaphysical (above physics) in this respect has nothing to do with gods, angels, ancestral spirits and the numerous speculations of theologians.

If the origin of the photon is beyond our 3 dimensional reality where observation and analysis is possible for us, it is still a realm which is 'physical' and objectively existent; however it is simply not possible for us to observe and analyse this dimension; thus it is 'above physics' by the general understanding of 'what is physical.' in our dimension of existence.

Cause and Effect

We are creatures of Light, but this begs the question of what is 'Light' made of? Scientists have been asking the question of where the 'photon' comes from?' and the results are entirely unobservable.

The photon appears to just spring into existence from 'nowhere,' and no scientist likes the term 'nowhere,' since every-thing must have an origin; every cause an effect.

Nowhere.

The 'nowhere' origin of the photon is simply beyond our realm of observation in another dimension of reality.

Metaphysics (Love).

And then we might ask where love comes from and what it is made of and that that is made of, and so forth, ad infinitum?

Love and Light cannot be broken down any further.

It is the dimension we exist in.

I am a creation of Love and Light and so are you.

You will not find a more simple explanation, only numerous complex theorem and confusion.

All my Love and Light

Lucifer

luciferhorus

16-04-2009, 05:41 PM

3: E is the root 'stuff' of the universe; it transforms into M and L. M is the cause, L and E are the effect.

My apologies, that should read:

3: E is the root 'stuff' of the universe; it transforms into M and L. E is the cause, L and M are the effect.

flyermay

16-04-2009, 07:14 PM

science is not a faith or belief system...

I also thought that was the case for most part of my life; and did until recently.

It makes all the sense to believe that science is no more than the observation of natural laws and the gathering of knowledge using the scientific method; and as such, faith is absolutely out of the equation.

But what happens when science is wrong; when the observations are mistaken or give misleading results? What about higher interests than the purely scientific goals, which influences science in one way or another? And what about all that is given for granted about the knowledge already acquired?

In all those case a good deal of faith is needed from all of us (including scientists themselves). Science is not infallible, as well you well said about Einstein, and many times we are imposed believes that are incomplete, erroneous and even purposely misleading.

I recently realised that my blind believe in science was nothing more than a deep faith on a believe system preached by multitude of scientists in many areas; believes that are often proved to be wrong.

(I was about to write a couple of examples for each of the cases, but it was making this response quite long; and frankly, they are unnecessary at this point.)

luciferhorus

16-04-2009, 10:03 PM

Linguistics (the Study of Language)101. Wittgenstein’s Tree. Objective and Subjective Language. On speaking Scottish (STTSH). On Personalism and Consciousness (All of Philosophy Simplified)

More about Love (the essence of metaphysics) and Light (the essence of Physics)

Lucifer
Aeon of Light, 2009

1: Objective language

This story has been related to millions philosophy students. I will reiterate and simplify.

One day Wittgenstein and Moore were waiting upon their tea.

It was a sunny day in an English garden.

What Wittgenstein actually said to Moore is shrouded in mystery but approximately he pointed to a tree and stated ‘This is a tree,’ or possibly ‘I see an appearance of the Tree,’ or more importantly "I know that's a Tree,"

“I know that's a Tree” is more precise linguistically since the word ‘know’ is important to philosophers who incessantly debate about objective and subjective know-ledge

Meanwhile the tea lady was walking down the garden path

What the tea lady said to Wittgenstein is also shrouded in mystery, but in approximate terms, she stated

’You philosophers speak a lot of non-sense; you are all insane; why don’t you get a real job like me; why don’t you do some-thing instead of speaking all this non-sense?’

Now at this point, as subjective, metaphysical, emotional, (etc) creatures, we all sympathise with the tea-lady; we do understand her, but only subjectively; most of us will just laugh at this exchange; it is what we are used to as persons who engage in the dialectical process of debate, argument, discussion, etc, in the sky (Internet).

However the tea lady was just making a subjective emotional outburst.

Wittgenstein and Moore were simply discussing the limits of objective knowledge.

The Tea Lady was absolutely incorrect; she was wrong; she was confused; she was simply expressing (ASC) Abuse (such as ‘fuck you’), Sophistry (usually incoherent rambling about the individual’s experience; I believe this and that; this is my judgement, etc.) and Contradiction (I don’t agree with you).

The first time I heard this story I did not understand it; most people will probably be confused; it is OK; you are too used to being hypnotised by language.

Why was the tea lady wrong?

The debate has been won in millions of philosophy classes; the Tea lady has been branded forever as a heretic.

The key word is ‘non-sense.’

When the tea lady remarked that Wittgenstein was speaking non-sense; this contradicted the truth he was speaking.

The Scottish (STTSH) language is essentially scientific language; we can only speak of what we objectively, empirically can be certain of.

The tree was accessible to the STTSH (the 5 senses) of the tea lady.

So when she argued that Wittgenstein was speaking non-sense (i.e., in subjective language), she was simply wrong; she had a bad day; perhaps her husband did not love her. In order to defend her, one would have to prove that the tree was simply not accessible to the STTSH.

2: Subjective Language and Personalism.

I have covered the STTSH language. A certain PhD student allegedly once remarked to Wittgenstein that since he understood the limits of objective language, that he could not write his PhD, since he had nothing to add to Wittgenstein’s conclusions regarding linguistics. For this remark Wittgenstein allegedly stated that he would grant the PhD to this individual.

It is so simple. Thus far I have covered all of philosophy with regards to and objective knowledge

Let us leave scientific language behind.

Let us take a trip into the world of subjective language and the philosophy of Persoanalism.

“I love you.”

Give me a formula for this? Tell me about endorphins and blood chemistry. L=?.

All Communists without exception are personalists; as are all Christians; this philosophy transcends atheism, theism and agnosticism.

Here we can start to speak about moral (our subjective discernment of good and evil) philosophy, but we can no longer speak in the Scottish language.

Rationalism

‘I think therefore I am’

All personalists who understand this must dispute this.

The statement begs so many questions.

Who is the I who is thinking?

A person thinks.

However a think (thought) cannot person.

I think but my think does not person; it does not create me, it is an effect of me as a person.

‘I think, I judge, I love, I am,’ but ‘I’ am doing all this thinking, judging, loving.

‘I’ am the subject of my own consciousness.

Thus far I have explained subjective and objective language.

I hope this simplifies all of philosophy.

I am here to judge (to discern good and evil); I wish to separate the wheat from the chaff

A person whom I judge as evil may have access to great knowledge in the objective sense (they may be objectively correct), but I may still consider that person to be morally worthless (subjectively errant) and as the chaff fit only for the ovens of the final holocaust.

If I were to cut a person’s throat, tear out a person’s tongue, sever their body severed in two, take the bowels and burn them to ashes, scattering their worthless form to the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch," then my judgement of such untermensche (moral uinferiors) could not be explained scientifically or in the Scottish language,

My robes are already dipped in blood; it seems to be essential for the magickian. Science is very interesting; in particular it’s military applications; but I am here to judge humanity. Most are innocent; a few are guilty; but the blood of may will have to be shed the world of the curser= of the few.

Love and Light to you all.

Lucifer.

luciferhorus

16-04-2009, 10:13 PM

Most are innocent; a few are guilty; but the blood of may will have to be shed the world of the curser= of the few.

My apologies.

That should read

Most are innocent; a few are guilty; but the blood of many will have to be shed to rid the world of the curse of the few.

LL

Lux
93

luciferhorus

16-04-2009, 10:50 PM

I also thought that was the case for most part of my life; and did until recently.

I very much admire and love Richard Dawkins; he is doing a great service to humanity in attacking the racist, anthromorphic, xenophobic, homophobic paternalistic, anti-feminist god of the bible; I love almost all that he writes and speaks, but when it comes to his atheism, he is not speaking scientifically, but subjectively.

I am able to speak plainly and with friendship to a scientist or philosopher, but anyone who has sworn an oath on the Bible or to the god of the Bible, although I can speak to them, I have the inherent desire to cut their tongue out and dismember their body.

On the other hand I seem to love atheists, although I consider them to be errant, but this is simply an intellectual matter, not one of morality (the question of good and evil).

It seems that many great souls in our past history were atheists and that most mass murderers, tyrantrs, dictators, monarchs (etc) were theists.

LL

Lux

flyermay

17-04-2009, 12:42 AM

On the other hand I seem to love atheists, although I consider them to be errant...

Now that you mention it, I think it is true. And I guess that there is a reason for that: not having a higher consciousness or being that dictates to us what to believe, which leaves a door open to interpretation, and often to change.

lightgiver

17-04-2009, 01:31 AM

I very much admire and love Richard Dawkins; he is doing a great service to humanity in attacking the racist, anthromorphic, xenophobic, homophobic paternalistic, anti-feminist god of the bible; I love almost all that he writes and speaks, but when it comes to his atheism, he is not speaking scientifically, but subjectively.

I am able to speak plainly and with friendship to a scientist or philosopher, but anyone who has sworn an oath on the Bible or to the god of the Bible, although I can speak to them, I have the inherent desire to cut their tongue out and dismember their body.

On the other hand I seem to love atheists, although I consider them to be errant, but this is simply an intellectual matter, not one of morality (the question of good and evil).

It seems that many great souls in our past history were atheists and that most mass murderers, tyrantrs, dictators, monarchs (etc) were theists.

LL

Lux

No I will disagree with you on that one most mass murderers use labels to commit murder, and does dawkins exist from his own side,no matter how hard you look you will never find a truly existent dawkins,

how can one blame labels for the evil of men or women?

and that is exactly what dawkins and yourself are doing blaming labels for the insanity of certain deluded beings and the puppets who follow their orders,and I thought you were beyond this level of thinking.

When the label of pleasant is given to an object, we develop attachment.
When the label of unpleasant is given to an object, we develop aversion, and sometimes even anger or hatred.
When the label of neutral is given to an object, we often don't care about the object or even ignore it.

"Delusions are states of mind which, when they arise within our mental continuum,
leave us disturbed, confused and unhappy.
Therefore, those states of mind which delude or afflict us
are called 'delusions' or 'afflictive emotions'."

luciferhorus

17-04-2009, 03:35 AM

When the label of pleasant is given to an object, we develop attachment.
When the label of unpleasant is given to an object, we develop aversion, and sometimes even anger or hatred.

Well as much as I attach myself to righteous atheists, I also do not despise the righteous theists.

Atheist and Theist are labels of 'belief,' and are quite separate to my moral judgements regarding good and evil; some theists and atheists are morally worthless, some are righteous.

You, Lightgiver, take it upon yourself to rage, in your own way against what 'I' define as the personification of evil in Eden.

I would appreciate if you would refrain from attacking me, and converse with me for a while.

Irrespective of your judgement of me (you do not know me yet), I find a strange affinity with you; if you come to understand me better, you will find that we have common enemies here.

I must out myself to the extent that I do seek to eradicate your worthless religion (Christianity) and that I am an enemy of your fascist god, and that I hate him with all my heart and soul and seek to rid Eden of the vermin (the sinners) who worship him; it is my duty and mission and my true will.

But...don't take your rage out on me brother; I am innocent; I am totally without sin (devoid of evil); my soul is totally pure.

As a Christian, you may consider yourself to be a sinner (i.e., evil), but my discernment of good and evil has little to do with your theological beliefs and your sense of worthlessness.

I just see you as a victim of Christian hypnosis; you are not a hypnotist, you are just a victim of religious hypnosis who needs to be awakened.

The good Doctor should feel love and compassion for those they seek to bring to life.

Anyway, it is good to meet you Lightgiver.

Live up to your name.

Love and Light

Lux

luciferhorus

17-04-2009, 05:28 AM

Addendum to the intial essay

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real…….Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Niels Bohr.

If it (quantum theory) is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.

An introduction to quantum physics: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7549858969748447007&q=what+the+bleep&total=1093&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&hl=en-GB

luciferhorus

17-04-2009, 07:24 AM

My apologies; the above video link is to a deleted video

Keywords are;

'What the Bleep,' 'Dr Qantum' , and 'Holographic Universe'

Google, video.google or youtube.com these keywords and then we shall discuss further.

Love and Light

Lux

luciferhorus

17-04-2009, 08:27 AM

flyermay

17-04-2009, 12:42 PM

OK flyerma, you are an intelligence whom I can speak to.

Debate me.

Well… thank you for the honour. ;)

Firstly I must contradict you.

Science and scientific language is not faith;; we speak about observations of reality; we do not need to subjectively believe that Mass converts to Light and Energy; we already know this objectively

First, I must clarify –and agree with you- that the concept of science, as such, is incompatibly with the concept of faith. Nevertheless, the blind believe in that science isn’t; which might sound contradictory, but please allow me to explain it before you jump to any conclusions. But before I begin, I must ask you not to base you argument and focus on “technicalities”, like the proper use of language. That would be unfair of you due to the fact that I’m trying to express my ideas in a foreign language; unlike you.

You say that science is not a set of subjective believes, as it is the observation of reality. That would be fine with me if it wasn’t for the fact that both of us have our own set of believes based on the same science and the observation of reality; which casually differ from each other. If both our set of believes are different, at least one of us must be wrong (maybe both). If one of us is wrong about the same observation of reality, it means that at least one of us is having a subjective believe in his interpretation of science, or “faith” (the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing). However, because there is no superior authority over science that can tell us with 100% accuracy which one of us is right and which one is wrong (apart from other scientist, which are human like us, make mistakes and even change their minds over their own scientific believes –and quite often really-), I believe that both of us are having no more than faith on the same science and observation of reality.

For example: you say that: “Mass converts to Light and Energy”, and that: “we already know this objectively”, I suppose because of your previous interpretation of Einstein’s formula (E = m * c ^ 2); please let me know if that’s not the case; but either way, it will serve for the purpose of an example. Well… in my humble opinion, I have disagree with that interpretation, and believe that the formula doesn’t prove that energy or mass can be transformed into light. As a matter of fact, light (composed of photons) as such is not represented in that formula at all, only its speed. And I would also add that the speed of light represented by (c) is not a variable, but a constant; both in the formula and in the entire universe. Therefore technically, according to Einstein’s formula, only (E) can be transformed into (M) and (M) into (E). I also think that light is not a third element in the universe, different from (M) and (E), but an invariable composition of both; as scientists agree that light has both energy and matter (but always in the same proportion, as all other elemental particles).

But that’s my interpretation of the same science and observation of reality, and as I said, I could be completely wrong, but still have a blind believe that it is the truth; therefore having “faith” in my believes.

And please don’t think that I’m trying to pick on you or in your interpretation of reality. I believe that this same principle applies to scientific believes in general and to all scientist (and to my own, for that matter). We often interpret the same science differently (especially scientists) and what is accepted as “absolute fact” today, is simply disregarded tomorrow as “false”; yet all of us blindly believe in that science and scientists; therefore have “faith”.

Scientists are atheistic, theistic and agnostic; it is only when they speak of metaphysics (atheism / theisim) and moral philosophy (good / evil) that we enter the field of interesting debate; all else is objectively knowable and scientific and quite boring to the masses who presuppose physics every time they switch on a light.

That’s hitting the nail in the head!!! You see, I think that the problem with science is exactly that; we all find science quite boring and relay on scientists to tell us what to believe. Can’t that be compared with “preaching” and having (a lot of) “faith”. I mean, we are supposedly not qualified to argue any of those observations of reality –don’t even try-, so we simply accept what we are told and blindly believe in it (isn’t that faith?).

By the way, I love you too. And I’m quite glad you joined this forum; I never miss any of your posts, as they are opening my eyes and changing “my set of believes” in a way that very few people could ever achieve. Please keep on going.

lightgiver

17-04-2009, 08:00 PM

Well as much as I attach myself to righteous atheists, I also do not despise the righteous theists.

Atheist and Theist are labels of 'belief,' and are quite separate to my moral judgements regarding good and evil; some theists and atheists are morally worthless, some are righteous.

You, Lightgiver, take it upon yourself to rage, in your own way against what 'I' define as the personification of evil in Eden.

I would appreciate if you would refrain from attacking me, and converse with me for a while.

Irrespective of your judgement of me (you do not know me yet), I find a strange affinity with you; if you come to understand me better, you will find that we have common enemies here.

I must out myself to the extent that I do seek to eradicate your worthless religion (Christianity) and that I am an enemy of your fascist god, and that I hate him with all my heart and soul and seek to rid Eden of the vermin (the sinners) who worship him; it is my duty and mission and my true will.

But...don't take your rage out on me brother; I am innocent; I am totally without sin (devoid of evil); my soul is totally pure.

As a Christian, you may consider yourself to be a sinner (i.e., evil), but my discernment of good and evil has little to do with your theological beliefs and your sense of worthlessness.

I just see you as a victim of Christian hypnosis; you are not a hypnotist, you are just a victim of religious hypnosis who needs to be awakened.

The good Doctor should feel love and compassion for those they seek to bring to life.

Anyway, it is good to meet you Lightgiver.

Live up to your name.

Love and Light

Lux

I am more awake than you.:p:D Your post and assumptions show how little you know.

are you Enlightened? I think not,so stop pretending you are.

Just show exactly where I have attacked you,just because I disagree with some of your thoughts,that is called an opinion not attacking anyone.

Like I say one cannot blame labels for the actions of evil,and that's what a lot do, blame religion for this blame it for that,it appears you have a little religion all of your own,but no one is attacking yours are they.

luciferhorus

18-04-2009, 04:56 AM

First, I must clarify –and agree with you- that the concept of science, as such, is incompatibly with the concept of faith. Nevertheless, the blind believe in that science isn’t; which might sound contradictory, but please allow me to explain it before you jump to any conclusions. But before I begin, I must ask you not to base you argument and focus on “technicalities”, like the proper use of language. That would be unfair of you due to the fact that I’m trying to express my ideas in a foreign language; unlike you.

You say that science is not a set of subjective believes, as it is the observation of reality. That would be fine with me if it wasn’t for the fact that both of us have our own set of believes based on the same science and the observation of reality; which casually differ from each other. If both our set of believes are different, at least one of us must be wrong (maybe both). If one of us is wrong about the same observation of reality, it means that at least one of us is having a subjective believe in his interpretation of science, or “faith” (the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing). However, because there is no superior authority over science that can tell us with 100% accuracy which one of us is right and which one is wrong (apart from other scientist, which are human like us, make mistakes and even change their minds over their own scientific believes –and quite often really-), I believe that both of us are having no more than faith on the same science and observation of reality.

There is of course much about science which is theoretical, since the micro-universe does not submit itself to observation very easily.

If you consider the Scientist Richard Dawkins, I very much admire his attacks on organised religion and the evil of the numerous anthromorphic (human projections) of God; however when he speaks as an atheist, he is expressing a 'belief.' Similarly with the evolution vs creation debate which has been going on for years; again it is not really scientific debate; one cannot have empirical proof of the existence or non existence of what is non-empirical (i.e. a Creator).

For example: you say that: “Mass converts to Light and Energy”, and that: “we already know this objectively”, I suppose because of your previous interpretation of Einstein’s formula (E = m * c ^ 2); please let me know if that’s not the case; but either way, it will serve for the purpose of an example. Well… in my humble opinion, I have disagree with that interpretation, and believe that the formula doesn’t prove that energy or mass can be transformed into light.

If you consider the surface of our Sun, which is a gigantic nuclear reactor; the sun is constantly converting relatively tiny pieces of it's Mass into Light and Energy.

After travelling millions of miles through space, we can hold up a magnifying glass to the sun and this Light becomes Energy (in the form of heat). There is clearly a relationship between Mass, Light and Energy; that Light from the Sun was once a tiny piece of Mass.

As a matter of fact, light (composed of photons) as such is not represented in that formula at all, only its speed. And I would also add that the speed of light represented by (c) is not a variable, but a constant; both in the formula and in the entire universe. Therefore technically, according to Einstein’s formula, only (E) can be transformed into (M) and (M) into (E). I also think that light is not a third element in the universe, different from (M) and (E), but an invariable composition of both; as scientists agree that light has both energy and matter (but always in the same proportion, as all other elemental particles).

Yes, Einstein's equation does not imply that Mass converts to Light; that is a separate argument, but a rather simple one; we know for a fact that M converts to L, every time we look up at the sun.

And please don’t think that I’m trying to pick on you or in your interpretation of reality. I believe that this same principle applies to scientific believes in general and to all scientist (and to my own, for that matter). We often interpret the same science differently (especially scientists) and what is accepted as “absolute fact” today, is simply disregarded tomorrow as “false”; yet all of us blindly believe in that science and scientists; therefore have “faith”.

Yes science is evolving; scientists are constantly attempting to dispove old theorem; qunatum strangeness and the 'holographic theory' are very much a spanner in the works for Newtonian and even Einsteninan physics.

.
That’s hitting the nail in the head!!! You see, I think that the problem with science is exactly that; we all find science quite boring and relay on scientists to tell us what to believe. Can’t that be compared with “preaching” and having (a lot of) “faith”. I mean, we are supposedly not qualified to argue any of those observations of reality –don’t even try-, so we simply accept what we are told and blindly believe in it (isn’t that faith?).
.

It doesn't really seem like a 'faith' to me by the poplar definition of faith. We only need to 'believe' in what we are empiricaly uncertain of. For example I do not need to believe that an object falls to the ground at a certain speed; I can measure it and be quite sure. Scientific 'theory' however is another matter; anything which is 'theoretical' is what we are not able to scientifically proove, but it is a theory based on physical observation; such as the 'big bang' theory which is based on the observation that the universe is expanding.

The Holographic Universe

If you consider what a hologram is; if the image of a person was projected in front of you, you would see that person in 3 dimensions, but this is only a 'visual' hologram; it ony works with one of the 5 senses; you cannot touch, taste, smell or hear a hologram. However in our real world, Light manifests as Mass, so you can see, taste, touch hear and smell a real person.

In the future world, if the secret of Light are fully revealed, if you wanted to make an item, then rather than constructing it in a factory out of raw materials, it maybe possible to merely make it holgraphically; if you wanted a steel item, it would be real steel but it would not have been dug out of the ground; it would merely be 'created.' Here of course I a just speaking theoretically of the implications of the holographic universe.

The double slit experiment and 'Animism.'

The double slit experiment (see link in original essay) proves that the mere fact that there is an 'observer' changes the behaviour of electrons. It is one of the quirks of quantum strangeness. The universe that our senses observe appears to be aware when it is being observed. Animism is the 'belief' that all inanimate' objects ae not inanimate at all, but 'alive' to a certain degree; for example all astrologers are, by default, animists. I have 'believed' in animism since my teens, but not due to science, but to LSD and numerous subjective (internal) experiences I had with the Creation; it is commonly reported by users of shamanic substances that rocks and trees appear to have some kind of intelligence or that they are 'living;' that is my own perspective.

Love and Light

Lux

verndewd

18-04-2009, 05:37 AM

Well as much as I attach myself to righteous atheists, I also do not despise the righteous theists.

Atheist and Theist are labels of 'belief,' and are quite separate to my moral judgements regarding good and evil; some theists and atheists are morally worthless, some are righteous.

You, Lightgiver, take it upon yourself to rage, in your own way against what 'I' define as the personification of evil in Eden.

I would appreciate if you would refrain from attacking me, and converse with me for a while.

Irrespective of your judgement of me (you do not know me yet), I find a strange affinity with you; if you come to understand me better, you will find that we have common enemies here.

I must out myself to the extent that I do seek to eradicate your worthless religion (Christianity) and that I am an enemy of your fascist god, and that I hate him with all my heart and soul and seek to rid Eden of the vermin (the sinners) who worship him; it is my duty and mission and my true will.
But...don't take your rage out on me brother; I am innocent; I am totally without sin (devoid of evil); my soul is totally pure.

As a Christian, you may consider yourself to be a sinner (i.e., evil), but my discernment of good and evil has little to do with your theological beliefs and your sense of worthlessness.

I just see you as a victim of Christian hypnosis; you are not a hypnotist, you are just a victim of religious hypnosis who needs to be awakened.

The good Doctor should feel love and compassion for those they seek to bring to life.

Anyway, it is good to meet you Lightgiver.

Live up to your name.

Love and Light

Lux

I was really put off by that at first but I do understand, if you arent attacking the flawed god construct in the mind and truly seek to eradicate christ philosophy, then its going to be at some point if not now very apparent we are diametrically opposed.

But between here and there alot of dialogue is missing, Even as a christ philosopher myself I have had similar points of view and still maintain the core of them.

So we arent dissimilar except for the eradicate terminology. That requires explanation to understand.

luciferhorus

18-04-2009, 06:58 AM

I was really put off by that at first but I do understand, if you arent attacking the flawed god construct in the mind and truly seek to eradicate christ philosophy, then its going to be at some point if not now very apparent we are diametrically opposed.

.

I think that I have not clearly outlined my position on Jesus. I consider him to be an anti-capitalist martyr and I generally 'defend' his memory from the Christian Capitalists who utilse his memory to propagate the anti-thesis (opposite idea) of his anti-Capitalist teachings.

When I was doing my Religious Studies degree many of the academics and students had converted to 'Liberation Theology (Communist Christianity) and this was also a major influence on me.

I never claim to be a Christian; I don't like organised religion and I am quite familiar with the methods of religious hypnosis. Generally I claim to be an evangelical anti-Christian, but this is simply because I consider Christianity to be a form of black magick which is used to hypnotise Capitalists.

.
But between here and there alot of dialogue is missing, Even as a christ philosopher myself I have had similar points of view and still maintain the core of them.

So we arent dissimilar except for the eradicate terminology. That requires explanation to understand.

Brother if you have any respect for the memory of Jesus, you would be an anti-Christian; I do believe that the soul is eternal and that in the afterlife there are numerous anti-Capitalist martyrs of Jesus' ilk and my intuition is that they all despise Christianity; it is simply an evil religion.

I have a number of friends who are Christian Anarchists; there is an international network of them; indeed many Anarchists are Christians who consider Jesus to be a proto-Anarchist and an enemy of Capitalism and organised religion.

Christian Anarchists generally believe that all political Anarchists are Christians, even if they are atheists and even if they despise Christianity and do not 'believe' in Jesus.

What would Jesus do?

Consider what Anarchists do? They disseminate anti-Capitalist propaganda; the protest against the Capitalist elites and hypocrites of religion. That was what Jesus was doing and I suppose many of those here on this forum are doing; it is what David Icke is doing in his own way; though he is not at all an 'anti-Capitalist,' since he merely seeks the reformation of Capitalism.

The words of Jesus will never pass away; Communism will last until the end of time, but the use of Jesus by the Capitalist hypnotists of organised religion will have to.

You should look into Anarchist Christianity and Liberation Theology; the Internet is full of sites.

Just to clear up this matter I have a pre-written essay on my position on Jesus which I will post in a new thread, since it is an issue worthy of some debate.

Love and Light to you.

Lux

luciferhorus

18-04-2009, 07:06 AM

Just to clear up this matter I have a pre-written essay on my position on Jesus which I will post in a new thread, since it is an issue worthy of some debate.

Actually my Internet site is currently down; I am just waiting for it to come back online, since the images in my essays are linked to that site, so I will post the essay later.

It shall be harder for the Capitalists and hypocrites of religion to enter heaven that for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

LL

Lux

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."............" "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me you workers of iniquity.' "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.

___________________________

The Prophet

By Lucifer

Once upon a time there was a Capitalist who was listening to a revolutionary, known for his popularity with the people, who was crying out against the tyrant oppressors of the poor, against their police and their military and against the racists and against the hypocrites of religion (the priesthood) who defend them. As he listened to the man, he noticed the police came along and dragged the man away to meet his torturers.

The man thought to himself. ‘This is wonderful, this man spoke to the masses and had ideas which many seemed to agree with, but if I behaved like that, the tyrants would have me arrested and tortured as a terrorist, the racists would burn crosses on my lawn and the priests would stone me as a heretic.’

As he walked away the man thought to himself, ‘This man was so popular with the masses that it is a shame to forget about him, after all a successful Capitalist has to have a popular product. I could turn the teachings of that revolutionary into a religion and make it palatable to the tyrants.

I could build a Temple, construct an idol of the prophet, develop a systematic theology, employ a priesthood to perform elaborate rituals in the name of the prophet, and when the victims of tyranny and of the priesthood came to my temple and heard the words of the prophet, they would be so impressed by his wrath at all the evils of the tyrants and the priesthood that I would soon have a large congregation offering me the fruits of their labour. I could even claim that there is only eternal salvation if one worships the prophet as God; I could take over the market and it would impress the rich people and the tyrants, and in time, I could even make the tyrant the honorary head of my temple. I could even take over a government and fight wars in his name and torture and exterminate all who resisted…and I could…..’

Suddenly the Devil appeared to the man and said; ‘What a wonderful idea, I will do everything in my power to assist you.’

Love and Light

Lucifer

Language is a lie; behaviour is everything.

Love is attitude and behaviour.

Words are weapons of mass hypnosis

__________________

verndewd

18-04-2009, 08:07 AM

flyermay

18-04-2009, 01:59 PM

I never claim to be a Christian; I don't like organised religion and I am quite familiar with the methods of religious hypnosis. Generally I claim to be an evangelical anti-Christian, but this is simply because I consider Christianity to be a form of black magick which is used to hypnotise Capitalists.

Brother if you have any respect for the memory of Jesus, you would be an anti-Christian; I do believe that the soul is eternal and that in the afterlife there are numerous anti-Capitalist martyrs of Jesus' ilk and my intuition is that they all despise Christianity; it is simply an evil religion.

Christianity and Christian practices are the main reasons why I ended up being an atheist since a young age. No need for further explaination, Luciferhorus has already done it for me on his many posts.

flyermay

18-04-2009, 03:28 PM

There is of course much about science which is theoretical, since the micro-universe does not submit itself to observation very easily.

You are right. When I first started to relate faith with scientific believes I was thinking about the non-empirical aspects of science. But with time, I have also started to doubt about the empirical claims (which I know might sound crazy, but will explain further down).

If you consider the Scientist Richard Dawkins, I very much admire his attacks on organised religion and the evil of the numerous anthromorphic (human projections) of God; however when he speaks as an atheist, he is expressing a 'belief.' Similarly with the evolution vs creation debate which has been going on for years; again it is not really scientific debate; one cannot have empirical proof of the existence or non existence of what is non-empirical (i.e. a Creator).

I Agree; that’s theology, and can't be considered a pure science, as it cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method; as you well said.

If you consider the surface of our Sun, which is a gigantic nuclear reactor; the sun is constantly converting relatively tiny pieces of it's Mass into Light and Energy.

After travelling millions of miles through space, we can hold up a magnifying glass to the sun and this Light becomes Energy (in the form of heat). There is clearly a relationship between Mass, Light and Energy; that Light from the Sun was once a tiny piece of Mass.

None of your statements are wrong; it is true that the energy of the son (and part of its mass) is transported unto earth in the form of light. However you are making a fundamental mistake and an incorrect assumption: that energy and mass transform into light (and vice versa). Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and mass, and they never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass.

I guess you could explain it in this way: light is the vessel by which energy and mass are transported, but energy/mass never cease to exist or transform into light (or even vary their proportion) when carried in the form of light. This doesn’t happen with mass and energy, as mass is indeed transformed into energy, and vice versa.

As well as photons, all elemental particles are composed of energy and mass in different proportions, but none of the can be considered to be an independent form different from energy or mass.

I have to point out that I made a mistake in my previous post: light indeed varies its composition of mass and energy (which I previously stated as invariable). I was clouded by the concept of visible light (which is no less than an electromagnetic wave). But even though, it is easy to understand the variation of the energy that light carries through it wavelength (what we perceive as the visible spectrum). But we have to take into account that even though we are only able to see a small fraction of the whole spectrum, it has quite a wide range (i.e. from short wave radio emissions, to the highly energetic gamma radiation; passing though microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and so on).

Yes, Einstein's equation does not imply that Mass converts to Light; that is a separate argument, but a rather simple one; we know for a fact that M converts to L, every time we look up at the sun.

I can’t agree with the second statement, as stated above is incorrect; though I perfectly understand what you mean, and to a certain extent it’s true (but not from an elemental point of view).

Yes science is evolving; scientists are constantly attempting to dispove old theorem; qunatum strangeness and the 'holographic theory' are very much a spanner in the works for Newtonian and even Einsteninan physics.

This was going to be my next example: the difference between Newton and Einstein’s theories. But I see that we will both agree on it. Just point out that Newton was wrong in his assumptions about gravity; as later explained by Einstein. Never the less, all space agencies continue to use Newtonian physics, as they are simpler, faster, and precise enough for the task.

It doesn't really seem like a 'faith' to me by the poplar definition of faith. We only need to 'believe' in what we are empiricaly uncertain of. For example I do not need to believe that an object falls to the ground at a certain speed; I can measure it and be quite sure. Scientific 'theory' however is another matter; anything which is 'theoretical' is what we are not able to scientifically proove, but it is a theory based on physical observation; such as the 'big bang' theory which is based on the observation that the universe is expanding.

I don’t agree. It took me many years of being fascinated with science to jump to this conclusion. As stated above, in my opinion, the blind believe in non-empirical science can be perfectly tagged as “faith”. And I would agree with you about empirical claims, if it wasn’t for the fact that many empirical observations are often proved wrong; not only in physics but in many branches of science. The problem is that those observations are made by humans, and humans make mistakes, wrong assumptions and are many times influences by non-scientific interests; therefore, empirical science is not infallible. Just because of the fact that empirical science is not infallible, we can talk about the need for a blind believe in it, or “faith”.

But let’s also see it from the point of view of those scientists that make empirical science. I guess that you have noticed lately that science seems to make an effort to keep the current scientific “status quo”, protect many “untouchable” theories, honour the memory and work of certain figures, and even server multitude of non-scientific agendas. I can put many examples (in many fields, like archaeology, genetics, astronomy, physics, anthropology, and so on), but I have an especial predilection for this one. Some years ago I heard of a sociologist and reporter called Graham Hancock. This guy, supported by other scientiest that specilise in many other areas, published a book titled "Fingerprints of the Gods" (you can also check his documentaries: "Quest for the lost civilization" on the same subject), which claimed that the pyramids and the sphinx predated the pharaonic dynasties (in between other things), which is currently accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and provided a huge amount of empirical evidences for his case. Later on, I saw a documental, paid and emitted by no less than the might BBC, attacking his claims. No need to mention what that there was a massive coverage: “Hancock was wrong”. But Hancock was sure of his claims, and had the empirical evidences to defend it; so he took the BBC to the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The result was: “The BBC misunderstood and misinterpreted Hancock’s evidences”. Obviously, no media coverage of this sentence –a part from an official excuse from the BBC-, and Hancock is still are relative “nobody”, and the pyramids are still believed to have been built by pharaonic dynasties. (You can read it all here: http://www.grahamhancock.com/horizon/bsc-press_release.htm)

At that point I thought, if Hancock’s claims can be dismissed and buried in such an obvious way, how much of what we are told servers “higher goals” other than the sole purpose of objective science? Aren’t they abusing our ignorance and good faith by simply saying that they know more than us, and lead us to believe what they want us to believe? And, what would that mean for all the people who blindly believe what scientists claim as empirical science; aren’t they having too much “faith” in these people (human after all).

I understand that applying those examples as a proof for having faith in science, could be tagged as incorrect, as they could be simply disregarded as “false science” or “bad science”, but that doesn’t make any difference for me, or for anyone else having “faith” in science. You see, unfortunately, we live in a society that has been corrupted to the core; and in my opinion, believing anything that can be tagged as “mainstream” is the same as having a “lot of faith”, whether the science is correct or incorrect (you can't be sure anymore).

By the way, if you or anyone else, are interested in quantum physics or string theory, there’s nothing better than reading any of these 2 books by Dr. Brian Greene: “The elegant universe” and “The fabric of the cosmos”; they can simply be tagged as “physics made easy for non-physicists”. You can also have a look at his videos “The theory of everything”; amazing stuff!!!

Keep up the good work!!!

------------------------------------------------------------

While looking for a link to Hancock's work I found this radio interview where he explains his claims and luckily also supports my view about mainstream scientific believes.

Please listen to it, it's only 10 minutes, but the end is crucial to understand my views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1-40kZy33A

Also the beginning of the second part of the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZncJE5YNlw

Actually, listen to the rest of the interview. Towards the end he also talks about Hermis and Thoth (which I thought might interest you). Anyway, I would listen anything I can get about this guy; it has no waste.

watson_k

18-04-2009, 08:49 PM

It doesn't really seem like a 'faith' to me by the poplar definition of faith. We only need to 'believe' in what we are empiricaly uncertain of. For example I do not need to believe that an object falls to the ground at a certain speed; I can measure it and be quite sure. Scientific 'theory' however is another matter; anything which is 'theoretical' is what we are not able to scientifically proove, but it is a theory based on physical observation; such as the 'big bang' theory which is based on the observation that the universe is expanding.

OK please, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. You're saying that the 'Big Bang Theory' is based on observation. You realise that 'The Big Bang' Theory was coined by a Jesuit taught priest named, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. (Originally called 'hypothesis of the primeval atom') He also created the theory of the expanding universe in his publication, 'Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels'.

What part of these theories are based on observation? Are you telling me people have actually witness the Universe expand? Btw, if you use one instrument to get a measurement, Don't you think you'll get a totally different answer if you use a different instrument?

Even Evolution at first was only given as much push as it was to begin with because it was a way of Opposing Christianity. (Doesn't it look so?) Since Evolution can NEVER be directly observable, it will always be in the category of Theory.

(This is only my opinion btw >_>)

luciferhorus

19-04-2009, 05:38 PM

None of your statements are wrong; it is true that the energy of the son (and part of its mass) is transported unto earth in the form of light. However you are making a fundamental mistake, an assumption that is not correct: that energy and mass transform into light (and vice versa). Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and light and never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass.

.

Holographic theory, and 'Down the Rabbit Hole.'

Dear Flyermay

I do understand your point that Mass and Energy do not convert into Light ('electromagnetic radiation'), since 'electromagnetic radiation' is a form of mass and energy.

I have been attempting to explain myself very simply and to use the four elemental descriptions of traditional alchemy.

This simple four element view is simply a compartmentalisation in language of the singular 'stuff' of the universe.

A term used by physicists for Light is 'electromagnetic radiation'. and this term as you point out is broken down further into 'gamma-rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio.'

Light pushes on objects in its path, just as the wind would do. This pressure is most easily explainable in particle theory: photons hit and transfer their momentum. Light pressure can cause asteroids to spin faster acting on their irregular shapes as on the vanes of a windmill. The possibility to make solar sails that would accelerate spaceships in space is also under investigation.

If we consider the Light from the next solar system, our nearest star is 25 trillion miles away, but after travelling for over four years through space we could place the light from this star through a series of mirrors (i.e., a lazer) or indeed we could even use a tiny blub from a torch; and evetually we could end up with a beam of light which can cut through matter and even 'push' matter.

We could also use the light from the nearest galaxy which has taken 2 million years to reach us and the effect would be the same.

The idea that the universe is a sensory 'hologram' is perhaps made confusing since we think of a hologram as that which we can see with our eyes but not with other senses.

You say that Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and light (you meant to say mass) and never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass

Singularity in metaphysics.

When theologians for example try to explain the Christian Holy Trinity, it is often quite comical and the subject of numerous jokes; no sooner has the theologian stated that God is three persons (i.e., poltheism), than they attempt to fit this into singularity (monotheism) and claim that the three persons are one being.

The Christian idea of a Creator who is both polytheistic and mono-theistic is a 'faith' idea; it does not conform to rational thinking or to the convention of human language; only a Christian who believes this can claim that their mind understands it. And then the question is begged, "Why only three gods and not four gods or 44 or 444? Polytheistic (Trinitarianistic) Monotheism is a similar confusion to the view that Energy, Mass and Light to be three separate substances rather than three phenomena of the universe's one substance (LEM or ELEM. from Ether, Light, Energy, Mass).

Singularity in physics.

You say that Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and light (I think you meant to say mass) and never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass; yet in order to describe the the existence of Light after the transformation of mass, we have to use some form of language such as 'transform' and 'convert.'

Transmutation

Let us say I bake a cake. I may use eggs, sugar, milk, flour, etc. The cake is a composite of these four elements; it seems to be a new creation; some transformation or conversion of appearance has taken place; I could even say that 'I have created this new cake;' but really I have only transformed the appearance of the four elements I used.

Alchemy

The term alchemy is most probably derived from an Arabic term meaning 'transmutation.' So we might use terms such as 'transmutation,' 'transform' or 'convert.'

What I was attempting to describe was that at the point where mass becomes energy and light, and that the energy and light are not new creations, but merely 'transmutations,' 'transformations' or 'conversions.'

If were to say that Mass transforms into Light on the surface of the sun, well this term 'transform' is easily understood by all.

It would be true to say that the cake never ceases to be a mixture of the four elements I used to make the cake, but I can still use terms such as transform, convert and transmutate to describe the process.

Mass transforms, converts, transmutates into Energy and Light.

Yet you argue that Mass does not 'transform' because Light (or rather 'electromagnetic radiation') is just the original mass in a different form, but 'different form' is what the term 'trans-form' means in the English.

Photons down the rabbit hole.

Since the photon is part of the 'quantum mystery' there are aspects of the study of the photon which do not subject themselves to empirical observation.

A general scientific mantra is that 'Energy is never created nor destroyed;' rather it is merely transformed, converted or transmutated.

However the Photon appears to just leap out of no-where, but not 'no -cause.'

The tiny bulb or initial light source is the 'cause' of a lazer's effect, but not the 'where;' the new photons appear as if entirely new creations which spring out of no'where.'

Consider

the photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum.

So the question is: where does the photon come from?

Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=85

The idea that photons just spring into life and are new creations do not fit into the idea of 'nothing is created or destroyed, but merely transformed' and this has given rise to the 4th dimension theory, however the 4th dimension would still be a part of the 'stuff' of the universe, it just may just not be observable for we three dimensional creatures.

Light is a great mystery compounded by quantum wierdness; Newton and the proponents of mechanistic science (the universe as a machine) did not have to explain seemingly 'psychic' electrons which can transmit information back in time, change their course in the present and thus offer a different future event, but it seems to be the case.

Once one has glimpsed into the quantum world, the mind that is constantly asking questions is confronted with a myriad of questions; this does not suit the person who wishes to have all the answers; it is thus better to have many questions and to understand that they are the correct questions than have the wrong answers .

We burn a piece of mass (say paper) and there is an obvious conversion of this mysterious substance (which at the quantum level is not a 'solid' object or smaller 'piece of mass') called Mass to Energy and Light; this is obvious to anyone.

An alternative view is that that Mass converts only into Energy, and that the Light is not a conversion of the Mass, but rather a new creation, but that is not my view and I think that no scientist would accept this; the Light is produced by a conversion or transmutation of mass; Mass becomes Light.

Now back to your original position that Mass does not convert into Energy and Light because Light is a form of Energy and Mass, well yes OK, but it is in a different 'form' of Mass and Energy, and if it were not it could not travel at Lightspeed.

"do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that...But don't ask them, or anyone else, what it means -- in the words of Richard Feynman, "nobody understands quantum mechanics"."

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm
__________

With regards to your comments on Graham Hancock, I been familiar with his work for many years; I have have his 'Sign and the Seal' and am familiar with 'Fingerprints of the Gods.'

I do concur that in both the humanities and sciences that there is an 'establishment' which filters knowledge; with regards to Hancock we move from physics to archaeology and history.

Hancock in recent years has been travelling around the world photographing numerous underwater temples in attempt to show that it is clear that there was a cataclysm and global flooding; this view is also refuted by much of academia where the 'ice age' theory still prevails.

All this 'ancient history' is quite another matter however to physics.

Love and Light

Lux

____________

The Study of Mythology Part One: The Atlanteans and the Legends of the Flood.

Lucifer

Aeon of Lucifer 2009

In simple language.

On the problems of studying ancient history and especially 'pre-history, and by the latter term I refer approximately refers to the pre-agriculture era or pre-cataclysm (Gr. to wash down) era or pre-flood era of around 10,000 B.C.'

One of the major problems in pre-history and in ancient history is the abundance of myths and the propaganda of tyrants and prophets; none of which can be trusted.

There are generally three responses to this.

1: Literalism.

This is generally a view held by many of our relatively illiterate uneducated and overly superstitious ancestors which holds that certain myths are literally true; in Christendom this is generally the view that the Bible is literally true; in India it is generally the view that the Hindu myths are true; in ancient Greece, it was the view that the numerous tales of the gods were literally true; throughout the world, shamans and witch doctors spread numerous tales and legends of ancient gods and miracle working ancestors.

2: Myth as invented.

This is generally the view that any ancient myth is simply nonsense and has no historical meaning or truth.

3: Myth as 'Chinese Whispers.'

This is generally the view that our relatively illiterate ancestors orally passed down tales and legends which changed over time and to which tales of gods and miracle men were added, but which may have some historical basis.

The Flood.

There are around 200 different legends of a historical cataclysm; there are also legends of regional localised flooding. Since these tales are often told in the form of myth, there is a tendency to discredit them.

However, there have been numerous underwater temples photographed, some 100's of feet deep in the oceans; it is clear that the waters of the oceans of the earth were once much shallower.

Atlantis.

There are numerous legends of this and numerous speculations as to the location of Atlantis. Probably the most popular is the 'North Atlantic Ridge' which is more of a large continent than an 'island;' it is quite simply the relatively shallow water that one crosses when sailing across the Atlantic.

Velikovsky: World's in collision, Magnetism and Planet X..

It is clear that our solar system has not always been as it is today. A brief glimpse at the surface of the Moon and Mars shows the impact of numerous objects. There are numerous theories about the existence of an 11th large planet in our solar system, but astronomers have discovered approximately 200 other distant 'objects in orbit around our sun, so it is more a question of 'Planets (plural)' X, Y. Z, and so forth.

Magnetism.

Planets tend to rotate elliptically around our sun as opposed to circularly. Distant planets or 'objects' on an elliptical orbit are so far away and moving so slowly (from our perspective) that their orbits are virtually impossible to calculate.

Think of the Sun as a positive magnet and all other objects and planets in orbit as negative magnets. If one were to spin numerous negative magnets around a positive magnet, orbits would appear. Once the orbits had 'settled' into position, if one where to throw another large negative magnet (the equivalent of a large planet) into this arrangement, it would affect the orbit of all other negative magnets and it may even collide with some. Since this is much the way our solar system works, there is no good reason to assume that the orbits of our planets and our distance from the sun have always been as they are now, and further that they will always be this way.

We cannot go back in time and speak empirically about what happened during the most recent cataclysm, we can only study myths and legends, however the prevailing Velikovskian theory is as follows.

Any large object coming in from outer space would be incredibly 'cold.' If there was water / ice on that planet, it would start to melt as it's elliptical orbit brought it closer to the sun. The recent cataclysm was most probably caused by the impact of 'ice.'
At the North and South poles, the earth is 'squashed' as if hit by billions of tons of ice; this ice is not frozen salt water but fresh water, which begs the question of how it got there. The prevailing theory is that ice approaching earth would be magnetised by the Van Halen belt, and instead of maintaining a 'straight' trajectory, would be attracted to the magnetic poles; thus the existence of huge freshwater deposits here.

Temperature.

Scientists know that the temperature of the earth has not been constant; there are two possible reasons for this. 1: That the Sun cools down and heats up; this is a fact; it is currently heating up. 2: That the distance between the earth and the sun is not constant, but is occasionally changed by the magnetism of the elliptical orbit of an 11th giant planet which occasionally visits our tiny region close to the sun.

The Legend of the Atlanteans.

Unfortunately I can now only speak of 'myths and legends.' I live near 'Glastonbury' in England where the Druids and Wiccans are obsessed with the Arthurian legends of the ancient kingdom of Camelot in the same way that Americans are obsessed with their biblical legends. They may be myths and legends, but unfortunately that is how history has been passed down to us by our ancestors; it does not mean that there is not an iota of truth to them.

Once upon a time, prior to the great Cataclysm, there was an ancient island culture called Atlantis. It was a scientifically advanced culture, but ruled by an ancient priesthood. Generally it is a 'Lord of the Rings’ type tale where magicians (ancient scientists and spiritualists) were divided into good and evil. Nuclear War ensued. Of course this was all washed away by the Cataclysm. From the remnants of the Atlanteans, according to the myth, those who were evil reappeared again in Egypt and began to reconstruct their ancient culture and religion. From the remnant of the Atlanteans who waged war against evil, we have the Arthurian myths and the ancient Druids.

Unfortunately history (as seen through myths and legends) seems to be repeating itself. The world gears up for nuclear war between the magi of good and evil. the prophets of old seem to indicate that in this age, Sauron will be defeated, but unfortunately not without global war.

We probably have a limited time before the next cataclysm.

The period between cataclysms is what human beings call 'history.'

What was before the last cataclysm is what scientists often consider a 'primitive age.' To future generations who survive the next great cataclysm, the myths and legends of our age will possibly survive and a new set of scientists and religionists will come along and dismiss their pre-history as myths and legend.

And so it goes on...

LL

Lux

luciferhorus

19-04-2009, 06:20 PM

OK please, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. You're saying that the 'Big Bang Theory' is based on observation. You realise that 'The Big Bang' Theory was coined by a Jesuit taught priest named, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. (Originally called 'hypothesis of the primeval atom') He also created the theory of the expanding universe in his publication, 'Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels'.

Yes I do think you have misunderstood me; I was merely using the 'Big Bang' theory as an example of a theory which is not a provable fact.

Even Evolution at first was only given as much push as it was to begin with because it was a way of Opposing Christianity. (Doesn't it look so?) Since Evolution can NEVER be directly observable, it will always be in the category of Theory.

Well the Evolution debate has been going on for years, and is a separate issue to that of quantum physics. I have been involved in the evolution debate for years on the Internet; I am fed of with being attacked by Evolutionists who consider their theory to be a fact; I entirely agree with you that it is simply a theory; it is simply an explanation of atheism which I entirely reject.

The Evolution Debate simplified

1: The universe is billions of years old; I accept this as factual.

2: The Bible is a collection of writings written in various periods of history which contains the anthromorphic ramblings of our ancient ancestors.

3: The infamous Bishop Usher dated the point of creation as 27 October 4004 BC, by converting the term 'generations' in the Bible into a number. I am not even going to respond to this stupidity.

4: Darwinian Evolution 1: Natural selection among animals of the same species is a proven scientific fact; it is not a theory; it is observable.

5: Darwinian Evolution 2: ’Random Mutation’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ are both non-facts and non-scientific interpretations of reality; neither are observable.

When Darwinists say that Evolution is a fact, not a theory, it is true that there are 'some facts' about evolution but it is not entirely factual.

LL

Lux

__________________

On Random Mutation. Are We Accidental Mutants?

Lucifer
Light of the World.

Objective (scientific) and Subjective Language

To simplify.

Objective.

If I observe something with my 5 senses, say for example, the Tree is 5.7 metres high and it weights 1.1 tons, if I think I am hallucinating, I can always ask another person to use a scientific method (measuring) to confirm or deny my findings. If the person concurs I can be sure that the tree is an objective fact and that I am not merely imagining it.

Subjective.

Here if I say ‘the tree is beautiful (as opposed to the tree exists), the music is divine (as opposed to the music is in the key of C minor), your eyes are lovely (as opposed to your eyes are X cm wide) or God is a Lesbian, I am speaking of my subjective beliefs, my ‘inner’ subjective experiences or my ‘subjective interpretation of objective facts’.

Darwinan 'Random Accidental Mutation.'

If a person argues that we are merely mutations and not the product of intelligent design, they are making a subjective ‘statement of faith.’

No scientist has ever witnessed a ‘giant leap’ mutation and there is no evidence in the fossil record of numerous intermediate steps which, for example, would lead from blind fish to sighted fish.

That the leap from blind fish to sighted fish is an accidental mutation is merely a statement of faith; it is not objective, scientific knowledge.

Scientists who are atheists, separate themselves from science at the point where they propagate atheism, since it is a subjective statement of faith.

All that a scientist can claim is agnosticism (‘I don’t know-ism’), but if the scientist advocates atheism or theism this is a statement of faith. Even Richard Dawkins points this out.

That the universe is a product of intelligent design is a scientifically unfalsifiable assertion; it is a subjective conclusion; a belief. However, the non-existence of an intelligent design is also an unfalsifiable claim; a belief, a subjective interpretation of objective facts.

Evolving.

The term 'Evolution' suggests that species 'evolve,' and this is clearly case. The universe is billions of years old. Our fossil record shows the development of life from the simple to the complex; this is clearly the case; how this occurred is what is being debated between the proponents of random mutation (R.M.) and intelligent design (I.D.).

The term 'natural selection' suggests that stronger members of a species thrive and breed while weaker members of a species die off; this again seems to be a statement of the obvious in nature, but is a separate issue to the R.M. / I.D. debate.

‘Darwin's Theory of Evolution’ is not merely about natural selection, it is about accidental random mutations, and this is a statement of faith; it is an atheistic analysis in the same way that a Deist might argue that the universe appears to be the product of great intelligence and design.

It is my subjective view that there is as much chance of a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare by just randomly hitting keys, as there is for an ‘eye,’ it’s nerves and it’s projection of an image to the consciousness to be the product of random mutation; however note that this is only my subjective interpretation of facts; I am not making a falsifiable scientific statement. Atheists may take a contrary position to this, but it is just as much a ‘belief,’ it is their subjective interpretation.

There is absolutely no scientific corroboration for us being the product of ‘random mutations.’ The position that we evolved through random mutations is not falsifiable; you cannot set up a test to disprove it; those giant leaps of random mutations occurred millions of years ago and we cannot go back in time to observe them.

Atheists seem to be using scientific language to claim that what is not scientific, is scientific. If a scientist speaks for an hour on objective science and then uses scientific language to give a non-scientific opinion, it can create linguistic confusion in the minds of those who are unaware of the difference between objective knowledge and subjective beliefs.

With regards to alternative theories to evolution.

The 'only' scientists who believe we are accidental mutations are scientists who are atheists and who separate themselves from scientific claims at the point where they make that statement.

Scientists who are Deists (as in the immanent 'God of Physics) or Theists (as in the 'old man in the sky,' the transcendent God, the fascist gof of the bible and numerous other definitions) observe the same scientific phenomena, accept the scientific 'facts' but subjectively find the ‘facts’ to show evidence of 'design.'

Having said all this I generally admire Dawkins and others who attack organised religion and the genocidal god of the Bible and of other religions.

A great many Anarchists and Communists are atheists and their atheism generally assists them well in attacking the folly of organised religion.

Generally however Dawkins and the atheists are attacking a 'lowest common denominator' such as the Bible believing Creationist who believes that the world was created 6000 years ago in 7 days by a God whom Dawkins rightfully describes as a 'genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic, paternalistic (and numerous other adjectives)' god of blood sacrifice.

This god whom the atheists so despise is clearly an anthromorphic projection (a projection of human consciousness) of what our ancestors believed 'about' God, just as my God is a militant black Jewish lesbian Communist.

What positive evidence do I have against evolution? What kinds of experiments have been conducted to test Intelligent Design? Has it yielded any positive results?

The question 'What positive evidence do I have against evolution?' needs to be broken down further, since Darwin's theory of evolution is an analysis based on many scientific 'facts' such as the evidence of the fossil record, the approximate ancient age of the earth; however added to this is the 'belief' that we have randomly and accidentally mutated.

Let us reverse the question, thus:’ What positive evidence do I have against intelligent design? What kinds of experiments have been conducted to test it? Has it yielded any positive results?’

I will be unable to respond to either of the two opposing positions in scientific language for a similar reason: these are not a scientific questions; I.D. and R.M and subjective beliefs about phenomena, not scientific facts.

If hypothetically we could ever observe a giant leap, say for example a mutation which created a fish eye, its nerve endings and brain receptors, atheists and theists would still argue over whether it was a random accidental mutation or the product of a Grand Designer. It would not solve the problem.

Having said all this I have become exhausted with debating this issue with people who blieve that they are accidental mutations of matter.

I on the other had am a creation of Love and Light; a product of a grand Design; a manifestation of the Great Work of the Ages; excuse me if I feel somewhat superior to mutants.

LL

Lux

flyermay

19-04-2009, 10:53 PM

You never cease to amaze me. Is there any subject that you don’t know anything about? I’m starting to think that you really are Lucifer!

I do understand your point that Mass and Energy do not convert into Light ('electromagnetic radiation'), since 'electromagnetic radiation' is a form of mass and energy.

I have been attempting to explain myself very simply and to use the four elemental descriptions of traditional alchemy.

This simple four element view is simply a compartmentalisation in language of the singular 'stuff' of the universe.

You say that Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and light (I think you meant to say mass) and never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass[/I]; yet in order to describe the the existence of Light after the transformation of mass, we have to use some form of language such as 'transform' and 'convert.'

Let us say I bake a cake. I may use eggs, sugar, milk, flour, etc. The cake is a composite of these four elements; it seems to be a new creation; some transformation or conversion of appearance has taken place; I could even say that 'I have created this new cake;' but really I have only transformed the appearance of the four elements I used.

It would be true to say that the cake never ceases to be a mixture of the four elements I used to make the cake, but I can still use terms such as transform, convert and transmutate to describe the process.

I agree; I was just pointing out that energy / mass never ceased to exist as such even in the form of light. I understood what you meant; I just wasn’t sure from your first message about the subject, as you talked about mass, energy and light at the same level; like the cake itself (the light) is at a different level than sugar, eggs, etc. (mass / energy).

So the question is: where does the photon come from?

In my opinion, that would be like asking: where does the cake comes from? I don’t really see where is the problem with the photon; supposing that the photon is energy/mass, the energy radiated by an atom is still the same energy/mass, but in the higher form of a photon.

Let’s continue with the example of the sun. Through the nuclear fusion at the core of a star, two atoms are fused into one (usually hydrogen into helium in a star of the sun’s size). If you fuse 2 atoms of hydrogen you have as a result 1 atom of helium plus some spear energy. Please take into account that you need to apply energy to achieve nuclear fusion. Because energy is not created or destroyed, the spear energy is radiated in the form of an electromagnetic wave (or photons). So the photon, as well as the cake, does come from its constituent parts. Atomic fission works in a similar way, 1 atom is slip into 2 plus some spear energy in the form of radiation, with the only difference that external energy is not needed for the process.

In the case when a photon is absorbed by an atom, the photon does not simply disappear. This is because we agreed that a photon is no more than energy/mass and this is absorbed by the electrons which jump to a higher state of energy.

The reasons for non-intermediate states in the existence of the photon, is the basis for quantum physics itself. The term quantum refers to an indivisible quantity; theory proposed by Planck. I don’t know how to explain this well in English, but I’ll try: imaging the top of a roof at 45 degrees, the inclination is constantly smooth from the bottom to the top, you can place a pigeon at any position of the inclination, but now imagine a stairway also at 45 degrees; you can only leave the pigeon at a fixed distance between each step, but not in between the steps (if it makes any sense, it would be equivalent to anagogic and digital). The same happens with energy at a subatomic level, you can only increase/decrease levels of energy at a fixed rate determined by Planck’s constant.

Light is a great mystery compounded by quantum wierdness; Newton and the proponents of mechanistic science (the universe as a machine) did not have to explain seemingly 'psychic' electrons which can transmit information back in time, change their course in the present and thus offer a different future event, but it seems to be the case.

Once one has glimpsed into the quantum world, the mind that is constantly asking questions is confronted with a myriad of questions; this does not suit the person who wishes to have all the answers; it is thus better to have many questions and to understand that they are the correct questions than have the wrong answers .

I would say that light is fascinating, but now a days not so much of a mystery. Quantum physics is indeed weird, but scientists learn to get around quantum problems using probability calculations.

For any average guy like me that has no education in physics, quantum physics can be mind blowing, because we cannot fully comprehend it as it cannot be compared with our daily experiences. As Dr. Greene says: “everything is possible in the quantum world”).

I’m sorry, but it takes me a lot of time to write in English, so I’m going to break down your message and continue another day in another post.

Thanks for your response.

luciferhorus

20-04-2009, 01:25 AM

You never cease to amaze me. Is there any subject that you don’t know anything about? I’m starting to think that you really are Lucifer!

.

Dear Flyermay

It is an angelic invocation (personification); a magickal working I have undertaken; unfortunately I am not omniscient (all knowing), nor omnipresent (present everywhere) nor omnipotent (all powerful); I am scientifically limited to the knowledge of other experts in the many fields which I have studied, and I am metaphysically limited by own shamanic experiences and magically limited by the angelic host who obey by will. It has to do with the Abremelin rite: Crowley’s Holy Guardian Angel invocation if you are familiar with that. Jesus probably would not have been able to explain how a car engine works and he would have had to call a mechanic. A Guardian Angel is a protector of humanity; my mission is specific.

I also type very fast; and I don't always use a spellchecker; I can also spill my beer and fall over when drunk.

.

I was just pointing out that energy / mass never ceased to exist as such even in the form of light. I understood what you meant; I just wasn’t sure from your first message about the subject,
.

As a result of our dialogue I have been thinking how to simplify all this.

Allow me to restate in more simple terms.

Consider

1: Only Light can travel at the Speed of Light.

2: "Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and mass, and they never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass (this is your statement)."

Now if we forget science, just from the point of view of logic, statements 1 and 2 cannot both be correct, but this is only because of a linguistic confusion; i.e., the way you say it, not what you mean to say.

This is why I use the term 'trans-form' or transmutate or we could even say trans-mission. Obviously Energy and Mass cannot travel at the speed of Light (only Light can), and yet to seemingly contradict this, we do understand that Light is a transporter or transmitter of Energy through space.

Alchemy (transmutation)

To restate, your statement "light is composed of both energy and mass, and they never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass" is linguistically misleading but I do understand what you mean.

There 'is' however a 'change' of the original form as we perceive it, but it is not a new creation but an alchemical (transmutation) process which metaphorically speaking is like converting lead to gold by changing the atomic structure of lead; however while both lead and gold are what we define as mass, the transmutation of Mass to Light is the a transformation which changes the form of Mass into a different form which can attain Lightspeed and bear it’s Energy to earth. The Mass of the sun which has been converted or transmutated and continues to exist in the form of Light and upon reaching the earth or any object of resistance in it's path (such as the earth's atmosphere), the Light converts to Energy, but it is all the same 'stuff' that the mass on the sun consisted of.

Flying too close to the Sun:’ the myth of Icarus and Lucifer (to bring forth or ‘to bear’ light.)

Icarus’s father told him not to fly too close to the sun or his wings would melt and he would fall from the sky.

Of course if we go even a couple of miles up from the earth’s surface, we are not much closer to the sun which is 93 million miles away. Our ancestors understood that if you placed your hands too close to a mass converting to Light and Energy (i.e., a fire) that your hands would get burnt, so it would make sense that if you flew too high you would get hotter.

Of course we now know that if we go a few miles up above our atmosphere it is very cold.

This is because the Sun is too far away for us to hold up our hands and be warmed by it’s fire. The Heat of the Sun does not warm the earth; it is the intensity of Light coming from the sun which converts to Energy upon hitting mass (our atmosphere being a gaseous mass). When hold up our hands to the sun; our mind thinks that the heat of the sun warms them; this is not so; it is the conversion of Light to Energy. Light that was once Mass, is still part of the same one substance (LEM); Light brings forth Energy to earth and is a transmitter of Energy..

.

I would say that light is fascinating, but now a days not so much of a mystery. .

If we consider the mass that converted to Light millions of years ago in another galaxy, and place it into a Lazer (a series of mirrors), we can produce an intense beam of Light which can cut through matter and 'move' matter.

This intense beam which comes out of the Lazer is unlikely to be 'merely' a transformation of the mass of the original sun millions of years ago. It seems to be a way of amplification and many seemingly new photons spring into life; so we might ask 'where do these apparently new photons come from?'

Beyond the Speed of Light: The Holographic Universe.

It seems that the universe is constantly created out of the ether which 'contains' all the Light, Energy, Mass (LEM) of the universe.

If we suppose that all the LEM of the universe is contained in all the ether of the universe, and that all the LEM of the universe is interconnected as one substance; this explanation has been offered as to why information passes instantaneously between electrons (i.e., beyond light speed).

There is no 'distance' between one substance, only between two or more, and there is only one substance in the universe, not two. Our mind perceives the separate phenomena of say a tree and a mountain, whereas at the quantum level the tree and the mountain are interconnected and created of one substance (LEM).

In light of this the seemingly new photons which appear at the end of the lazer are simply part of the universe's singular LEM, contained in the ether (the container of LEM).

Our hologram has certain rules; it is our playground, but it is an illusion created and arranged by the receptor (human consciousness)

.
For any average guy like me that has no education in physics, quantum physics can be mind blowing, because we cannot fully comprehend it as it cannot be compared with our daily experiences. As Dr. Greene says: “everything is possible in the quantum world”).

I’m sorry, but it takes me a lot of time to write in English, so I’m going to break down your message and continue another day in another post.

Thanks for your response.

Yes well if you have trouble with English as your second language I have trouble with any type of verbal language as my second language.

I can speed read and speed type, but I have trouble expressing what I understand in words. I think it is the product of years of psychoactive usage; 'shamanic illumination' on psychoactives comes in the form of a communication which is totally non verbal, and what the mind is filled is visions and 'communications' where trillions of bits of information seem to be imparted in a 'flash' or fraction of a second; I think it to be a form of programming of my consciousness, much as when we have dreams where we feel that the dream is really happening and the message is unforgettable, but then when we try to explain it in language, we find it difficult to do so.

Certain drugs tend to subdue certain parts of the brain and awaken others; I have no trouble remembering faces, but I sometimes forget the names of people I have known for years, and sometimes I even forget why it is I know them. The Left brain appears to work like a tired old tractor as the Left brain hits Lightspeed.

On Love. One Light.

Lux

watson_k

20-04-2009, 01:39 AM

Beyond the Speed of Light: The Holographic Universe.

It seems that the universe is constantly created out of the ether which 'contains' all the Light, Energy, Mass (LEM) of the universe.

Isn't the Holographic Universe another name for the Electric Universe? (which is what Nikola Tesla was talking about)
edit: or even Plasma Cosmology.

What is Plasma?

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. It differs from solids, liquids and gases in so far as it's atoms are divided into free-floating 'negative' electrons and 'positive' ions (an atom which has lost its electron/s). It is sometimes referred to as an ionized gas.

Students are generally taught about only three states of matter, and when Plasma does get a mention, little importance is assigned. Not only should plasma be added to the list, but the order should be reversed to put it in first place. The reasons for this will become clear.

The term Plasma was borrowed from blood plasma in order to describe its almost life-like and self-organising properties.

Plasma sometimes emits light when under the excitation of electrical and magnetic fields. Polar auroras bear witness to this fact.

Where is it?

Plasma is almost everywhere. At least ninety-nine percent of the known universe is, in fact, matter in its plasma state! The Sun is a giant ball of plasma.

Plasma in space consists entirely of ions and electrons, and is thus very energetic or 'hot'. Only when cooled does it form the matter to which we are familiar here on Earth: solids, liquids, and gases.

Because plasma remains electrically charged in space, it is influenced more by electromagnetic forces than gravity. In fact space, once considered mostly empty, has been found to be alive with plasma. Vast flows of charged particles have been discovered spanning hundreds-of-thousands of light years across interstellar space.

The most familiar examples of electrical plasmas here on earth are neon signs and lighting, television screens, and electrical arc welding machines. Fire and Lightning are also forms of Plasma.

quoted from www.Plasmacosmology.net

luciferhorus

20-04-2009, 02:16 AM

Isn't the Holographic Universe another name for the Electric Universe? (which is what Nikola Tesla was talking about)
edit: or even Plasma Cosmology.

quoted from www.Plasmacosmology.net

No but the Holographic Universe view does not contradict in any way the existence of Plasma; neither does the existence of Plasma contraduct the Holographic view.

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. It differs from solids, liquids and gases

Solids, liquids and gasses are all forms of mass, and so is plasma.

in so far as it's atoms are divided into free-floating 'negative' electrons and 'positive' ions (an atom which has lost its electron/s). It is sometimes referred to as an ionized gas.

Students are generally taught about only three states of matter, and when Plasma does get a mention, little importance is assigned.

Mass 'transmutates' to Light and Energy, but not to Plasma since by definition Plasma is just another type of Mass, just as Oxgyen and Hydrogen gasses are Mass, even though we cannot pick them up with a shovel as we can with earth. The hydrogen atom has mass which can be transmutated into Energy. Similarly if Plasma has an atomic structure, by default those atoms can similarly be transmuated, so in terms of the LEM, plasma is just another type of M.

Philosophy of Science

My academic qualifications do not allow me to teach science professionally since my fields of study are religious studies / history/ philosophy; I have been professionally active only in very narrow fields of organic chemistry and the agricultural sciences (in simple practical terms the commercial production of shamanic psychoactives); science in general is a huge subject compamentalised into many fields of expertise; I suppose I might have subtitled this 'philosophy of science,' since I am speaking of the 'conlusions' of my subjective consciousness on the 4 elements.

One Light

Lux

Lux

watson_k

20-04-2009, 02:38 AM

(Going back to my metaphysics lessons)

Going on those lines.

After travelling millions of miles through space, we can hold up a magnifying glass to the sun and this Light becomes Energy (in the form of heat). There is clearly a relationship between Mass, Light and Energy; that Light from the Sun was once a tiny piece of Mass.

Wouldn't the relation be it's Vibration. (the Saying All is Vibration - All is One)

Since the Sun is a Ball of Plasma (which is Mass), doesn't the vibration merely change from that of Mass to Light?

Like that from Gas to Liquid, is just a vibration change. Plasma speeds up and becomes light. Since all Mass is known to contain energy. The light should still contain the energy it once had as Mass. (The Energy of the Mass contained in your little finger is said to be able to move all the old locomotives in England, at once).

It's been a while so you might need to correct me on a few things here.

luciferhorus

20-04-2009, 04:08 AM

(Going back to my metaphysics lessons)

Going on those lines.

Wouldn't the relation be it's Vibration. (the Saying All is Vibration - All is One)

Very New-Agey type language.

Is 'All' Vibration?

We are all interconnected at the quantum level, an atom in your brain is connected to mine and some form of communication occurs instantly beyond Lightspeed; however 'vibrations' take time to occur and they travel through space; our written communication here is restricted to the speed of Light travelling through the resistance of fibre optic cables around the earth, communications between space sattelites and so forth and the conversion of data through non fibre optic cables; this process requires time as 'waves' travel.

If we depart from physics and turn to metaphysics, if you consider the fifth element (consiousness) and accept that we are spiritual beings (as I think you do), assuming universal singularity, there is no real distance in the realm of spirit between your spirit and mine apart from the space which the holographic illusion creates; no vibration is required for this 'spiritual' communication; similarly in the quantum world atoms 'can' communicate beyond lightspeed, thus they are not 'just' sending out a vibration through space which takes time.

Since the Sun is a Ball of Plasma (which is Mass), doesn't the vibration merely change from that of Mass to Light?

The sun consists mostly of hydrogen and helium (which are gasses on earth) but which under enourmous pressure and temparature become the type of mass referred to as plasma.

To say that the conversion of Mass to Light is a 'vibration change' seems accurate, since Light is a waveform, further the holographic theory implies that Mass is also a waveform.

The change from Gas to Liquid, is a vibration change.
.

There is a vibration change.

Plasma speeds up and becomes light.
.

Since Plasma is a form of Mass and Mass is considered a waveform in the holographic view, to say that the transmutation from Mass to Energy and Light is a vibration change seems to be the case.

.
Since all Mass is known to contain energy. The light should still contain the energy it once had as Mass. (The Energy of the Mass contained in your little finger is said to be able to move all the old locomotives in England, at once).

It's been a while so you might need to correct me on a few things here.

Yes I think we are thinking along the same lines.

Just to summarize on your 'All is Vibration - All is One.'

I am OK with the 'All is One, but not the 'all' is vibration which takes place through space and time (like the effects of an earthquake) and can travel no faster than Light (which is a waveform).

We know scientifically that electrons can communicate beyond Lightspeed and we may 'believe' that Love is meta(above)-physical and that spiritually we exist beyond mere vibrations.

I am all Light (a waveform) and Love; and what is love? We have no scientific formula to create a kilo of love; it is unrelated to the speed of Light (a waveform).

In time my mortal form shall die in this part of the hologram (this universe) and my soul shall pass over into the realm of eternal Light (a different dimension of Light).

I exist beyond Lightspeed. Waveforms (physics) cannot totally define me.

Of course I am departing from physics and speaking of my interpretation of reality, much of which is based on shamanic experiences of the ancestral realm, which I consider as existing on a different waveform alongside this realm.

My psychic girlfriend (who is a witch / wiccanist) constantly wakes up in the middle of the night pointing to some figure standing at the bottom of her bed; I see nothing, since it is her subjective experience, not an empirically observable one; but it is a type of experience I have throughout my life had many times; often to a very extreme degree.

We live in a cosmos of souls whose subjective consciousness exists beyond waveform; but the holographic realms in which our forms reside are realms of Light (waveform).

Thus I use the phrase Love (non waveform) and Light (waveform), rather than 'All is vibration (waveform).'

But then I seem to contradict this by using the mntra of cosmic singularity 'There can be only One' but I am speaking of the origin of Light (waveforms) and Love and this cannot be reduced to 'a waveform (i.e., physics, or the hologram which is the container of life).'

One Light. One Love.

Mathematically this appears to add up to 'two,' not one, but I am just separating singularity; I am a mono-Deist not a dualist, ann an animist, not a materialist.

There can be only One.

LL

Lux

amethyst

20-04-2009, 05:59 AM

I think that I have not clearly outlined my position on Jesus. I consider him to be an anti-capitalist martyr and I generally 'defend' his memory from the Christian Capitalists who utilse his memory to propagate the anti-thesis (opposite idea) of his anti-Capitalist teachings.

When I was doing my Religious Studies degree many of the academics and students had converted to 'Liberation Theology (Communist Christianity) and this was also a major influence on me.

I never claim to be a Christian; I don't like organised religion and I am quite familiar with the methods of religious hypnosis. Generally I claim to be an evangelical anti-Christian, but this is simply because I consider Christianity to be a form of black magick which is used to hypnotise Capitalists.

.

Brother if you have any respect for the memory of Jesus, you would be an anti-Christian; I do believe that the soul is eternal and that in the afterlife there are numerous anti-Capitalist martyrs of Jesus' ilk and my intuition is that they all despise Christianity; it is simply an evil religion.

I have a number of friends who are Christian Anarchists; there is an international network of them; indeed many Anarchists are Christians who consider Jesus to be a proto-Anarchist and an enemy of Capitalism and organised religion.

Christian Anarchists generally believe that all political Anarchists are Christians, even if they are atheists and even if they despise Christianity and do not 'believe' in Jesus.

What would Jesus do?

Consider what Anarchists do? They disseminate anti-Capitalist propaganda; the protest against the Capitalist elites and hypocrites of religion. That was what Jesus was doing and I suppose many of those here on this forum are doing; it is what David Icke is doing in his own way; though he is not at all an 'anti-Capitalist,' since he merely seeks the reformation of Capitalism.

The words of Jesus will never pass away; Communism will last until the end of time, but the use of Jesus by the Capitalist hypnotists of organised religion will have to.

You should look into Anarchist Christianity and Liberation Theology; the Internet is full of sites.

Just to clear up this matter I have a pre-written essay on my position on Jesus which I will post in a new thread, since it is an issue worthy of some debate.

Love and Light to you.

Lux

I agree with you. Organized religion has to fall. Jesus Christ was very much anti-Christianity. Particularly as we know the "religion" of Christianity today. He never ever claimed to start a "religion" at all. He came with a message of light.

"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:4-5)

"This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe." (John 1:7)

When the Arc of the Covenant is once again rebuilt and revealed, by the Seven Servants of Apocalyptic War, and the prophesies of the fall of Babylon's empire evoked (personified), the financial kingdoms of Capitalism shall turn to dust; it shall not be a miracle but the consequence of physics..

Great and Terrible and Dreadful shall be the Day of Judgement.

Woe to Babylon; Global Babylon shall Fall.

I am all Love (all of metaphysics) and Light (all of physics), but love and light casts out all evil, and in time, by the power of Love and the application of militant will, Light shall destroy the kingdoms of evil.Physics is War.

Yes, all darkness will be overcome by the great light and the kingdoms of evil shall be destroyed, because light always overcomes the darkness. The darkness can't hide from the light that will shine brightly at the end of this age.

"The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned." (Matthew 4:16)

* In some translations, the word "light" occurs 272 times in scripture.*

flyermay

20-04-2009, 02:52 PM

It is an angelic invocation (personification); a magickal working I have undertaken; unfortunately I am not omniscient (all knowing), nor omnipresent (present everywhere) nor omnipotent (all powerful); I am scientifically limited to the knowledge of other experts in the many fields which I have studied, and I am metaphysically limited by own shamanic experiences and magically limited by the angelic host who obey by will. It has to do with the Abremelin rite: Crowley’s Holy Guardian Angel invocation if you are familiar with that. Jesus probably would not have been able to explain how a car engine works and he would have had to call a mechanic. A Guardian Angel is a protector of humanity; my mission is specific.

Nobody is perfect ;)… Nevertheless, I thing you are one of the most interesting characters I have ever met (if we can call this meeting).

1: Only Light can travel at the Speed of Light.

2: "Energy and mass do not transform into light, as light is composed of both energy and mass, and they never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass (this is your statement)."

Now if we forget science, just from the point of view of logic, statements 1 and 2 cannot both be correct, but this is only because of a linguistic confusion; i.e., the way you say it, not what you mean to say.

This is why I use the term 'trans-form' or transmutate or we could even say trans-mission. Obviously Energy and Mass cannot travel at the speed of Light (only Light can), and yet to seemingly contradict this, we do understand that Light is a transporter or transmitter of Energy through space.

Alchemy (transmutation)

To restate, your statement "light is composed of both energy and mass, and they never cease to be in their original form as energy and mass" is linguistically misleading but I do understand what you mean.

There 'is' however a 'change' of the original form as we perceive it, but it is not a new creation but an alchemical (transmutation) process which metaphorically speaking is like converting lead to gold by changing the atomic structure of lead; however while both lead and gold are what we define as mass, the transmutation of Mass to Light is the a transformation which changes the form of Mass into a different form which can attain Lightspeed and bear it’s Energy to earth. The Mass of the sun which has been converted or transmutated and continues to exist in the form of Light and upon reaching the earth or any object of resistance in it's path (such as the earth's atmosphere), the Light converts to Energy, but it is all the same 'stuff' that the mass on the sun consisted of.

This is because the Sun is too far away for us to hold up our hands and be warmed by it’s fire. The Heat of the Sun does not warm the earth; it is the intensity of Light coming from the sun which converts to Energy upon hitting mass (our atmosphere being a gaseous mass). When hold up our hands to the sun; our mind thinks that the heat of the sun warms them; this is not so; it is the conversion of Light to Energy. Light that was once Mass, is still part of the same one substance (LEM) ; Light brings forth Energy to earth and is a transmitter of Energy..

I see what you mean; sorry for mixing concepts. You are talking about LEM as one element and not a trio of elements on the same level. Is that it? If that’s the case I have to apologize for looking at it from an elemental point of view. If not, and you are talking about alchemy, I can just say that –as you surely know- alchemy predates modern science; not only in origin but also in coexistence. As a matter of fact, Newton was considered the last alchemist and the first Scientist. Science simply continued the work of alchemists, by testing all their theories under the scientific method (which requires every experiment to work under controlled conditions). Well, as I was saying, from an elemental point of view, the trio of elements light, energy and mass (LEM), did look right to me; as it would be the same as saying: cake, eggs, sugar; or wheel, car, seatbelt; atom, electron, proton; or light, energy, mass. In all these groups you have an element that is not at the same level than the other two (or does not associate with the group).

I’m just explaining this so that you can see my point of view, which doesn’t mean either of us is wrong; we are just looking at the same picture form a different angle. Well… I hope so (Sometimes I’m wrong, and there is nothing better to learn than being proven wrong).

If we consider the mass that converted to Light millions of years ago in another galaxy, and place it into a Lazer (a series of mirrors), we can produce an intense beam of Light which can cut through matter and 'move' matter.

This intense beam which comes out of the Lazer is unlikely to be 'merely' a transformation of the mass of the original sun millions of years ago. It seems to be a way of amplification and many seemingly new photons spring into life; so we might ask 'where do these apparently new photons come from?'

Beyond the Speed of Light: The Holographic Universe.

It seems that the universe is constantly created out of the ether which 'contains' all the Light, Energy, Mass (LEM) of the universe.

If we suppose that all the LEM of the universe is contained in all the ether of the universe, and that all the LEM of the universe is interconnected as one substance; this explanation has been offered as to why information passes instantaneously between electrons (i.e., beyond light speed).

There is no 'distance' between one substance, only between two or more, and there is only one substance in the universe, not two. Our mind perceives the separate phenomena of say a tree and a mountain, whereas at the quantum level the tree and the mountain are interconnected and created of one substance (LEM).

In light of this the seemingly new photons which appear at the end of the lazer are simply part of the universe's singular LEM, contained in the ether (the container of LEM).

Our hologram has certain rules; it is our playground, but it is an illusion created and arranged by the receptor (human consciousness)

Energy

It is a well proved fact that energy does not create or destroy. Photons are made out of energy; therefore I think it is impossible that photons could “spring into life”. Energy cannot be amplified; you cannot make more energy than the existent one; you can only transform it, but not create or destroy it.

Light, can definitely be condensed into a beam, but the energy outputted from the beam can only be equal or lesser than the input.

Due to the impossibility of creating or destroying energy, I can’t agree with your statement that they universe is constantly being created.

Another issue with LEM is that all mater in the universe is formed of energy/mass but not necessary of light. The example of the mountain and the tree will do, as both are formed by energy/mass, but none of them of light. We see them because light is reflected on them, but they are not a light source.

Quantum Entanglement

As stated in my previous post, the world at the quantum level is quite weird; it is a world ruled by possibilities that has nothing to do with our everyday life experience.

One of the peculiarities of the quantum world is a phenomenon called entanglement. It has been observed that changing the properties of a particle, is instantly reflected in another particle regardless of the distance between them; these are called entangled particles, have opposite properties, and by changing a property in one of them results in the same instant change in the other one.

So we have that entangled particles can theoretically transmit information instantly, even if there isn’t a physical connection (communication channel) between them. But, where does this entanglement comes from? For two (or more) particles to be entangled, it is necessary that they come from the same element (i.e. separated by decay), and the simultaneous separation of those particles would result in an entanglement. According to this theory, entanglement does not exist between all particles in the universe (whether or not they are of the same type); instead, entanglement is exclusive of particles that previously formed part of another element and simultaneously separated from.

Yes well if you have trouble with English as your second language I have trouble with any type of verbal language as my second language.

I can speed read and speed type, but I have trouble expressing what I understand in words. I think it is the product of years of psychoactive usage; 'shamanic illumination' on psychoactives comes in the form of a communication which is totally non verbal, and what the mind is filled is visions and 'communications' where trillions of bits of information seem to be imparted in a 'flash' or fraction of a second; I think it to be a form of programming of my consciousness, much as when we have dreams where we feel that the dream is really happening and the message is unforgettable, but then when we try to explain it in language, we find it difficult to do so.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with your writing or your ability to express yourself. Actually, I think you are and excellent writer (far beyond the average of this forum) and your ideas are simply fascinating (regardless of the fact that I might not agree with all of them).

Just say that even though I have quite an antisocial character, I wouldn't mind meeting you if I ever go to Glastonbury (don’t worry; there are practically no chances that I will ever visit Glastonbury :)).

Please keep up the good work!!!

flyermay

20-04-2009, 07:49 PM

With regards to your comments on Graham Hancock, I been familiar with his work for many years; I have have his 'Sign and the Seal' and am familiar with 'Fingerprints of the Gods.'

I do concur that in both the humanities and sciences that there is an 'establishment' which filters knowledge; with regards to Hancock we move from physics to archaeology and history.

Hancock in recent years has been travelling around the world photographing numerous underwater temples in attempt to show that it is clear that there was a cataclysm and global flooding; this view is also refuted by much of academia where the 'ice age' theory still prevails.

All this 'ancient history' is quite another matter however to physics.

Yes, it is another science, but it’s really good example of how non-scientific interests have more weight than practicing real science. I know of more cases where scientists were fired and since had a really hard time finding another job in their field, just for the simple reason of questioning the establishment (some of them with irrefutable evidences).

Where does that leaves science? I guess that in our capitalist heaven everything is for sale, even science and the truth. For this reason I’m starting to look at other possibilities discarded by or outside science; that why I’m now getting intereseted again in theology or the kabbalah; methaphysics in general (though I might have started a bit late).

__________________________________________________ ________________

Regarding evolution, Darwin and the intelligent design; for some reason I always thought that none of them might right (or all of them; depending how you look at it).

Since I heard from him at school, I always had a hunch that Lamarck wasn’t completely wrong. Lamarckism would definitely explain the question asked by intelligent design. So in my opinion, both Darwin and Lamarck are right.

Either way, as you can image, for me intelligent design is out of the question (but that's just my opinion).

luciferhorus

21-04-2009, 08:36 AM

I see what you mean; sorry for mixing concepts. You are talking about LEM as one element and not a trio of elements on the same level. Is that it? If that’s the case I have to apologize for looking at it from an elemental point of view. If not, and you are talking about alchemy, I can just say that –as you surely know- alchemy predates modern science; not only in origin but also in coexistence. As a matter of fact, Newton was considered the last alchemist and the first Scientist. Science simply continued the work of alchemists, by testing all their theories under the scientific method (which requires every experiment to work under controlled conditions). Well, as I was saying, from an elemental point of view, the trio of elements light, energy and mass (LEM), did look right to me; as it would be the same as saying: cake, eggs, sugar; or wheel, car, seatbelt; atom, electron, proton; or light, energy, mass. In all these groups you have an element that is not at the same level than the other two (or does not associate with the group).

I’m just explaining this so that you can see my point of view, which doesn’t mean either of us is wrong; we are just looking at the same picture form a different angle. Well… I hope so (Sometimes I’m wrong, and there is nothing better to learn than being proven wrong).

Dear Flyermay

Just to restate; I am not a professional physicist; my knowledge is limited to the study of the conclusions of those who are professional physicists.

The issues of universal singularity, quantum strangeness and the Holographic Universe I find fascinating, and to have implications on philosophy (as in the the attempt to express truths in language by the use of reason alone, without reference to the ramblings of theologians).

Releasing the Sword (weapon) from the Stone

Considering the ancient Alchemical language of the four elements I think is important, since they relate to modern scientific language. I do not believe that this last 100 years or so is the first time in the history of our universe that intelligent beings have cracked open the secrets of light, 'pulling the magickal sword (weapon) from the stone,' so to speak through metal enrichment. However our ancient ancestors did not speak English; myths and legends surround alchemy; I have merely been attempting to extract some modern meaning to ancient terms, since I believe that this alchemical knowledge, much like our understanding of astrology and the kabbalah have been handed down from ancient origins and their origins clouded by myth.

As in the ancient world, the modern magi who seek to pull the sword from the stone cannot rely on fairground tricks; our universe is governed by certain laws which must be understood, and this is now referred to as scientific quest, not one of fairground magic.

It is a well proved fact that energy does not create or destroy. Photons are made out of energy; therefore I think it is impossible that photons could “spring into life”. Energy cannot be amplified; you cannot make more energy than the existent one; you can only transform it, but not create or destroy it.

Light, can definitely be condensed into a beam, but the energy outputted from the beam can only be equal or lesser than the input.

Well consider taking a faint Light from a distant galaxy and placing it through a series of mirrors (a lazer device); with a powerful lazer, what you have at the end is this original light amplified many times.

I have read numerous articles on this and although I am 'not' at all suggesting that photons are 'new creations' which spiring to life, it is clear however that where these new photons come from is certainly a mystery to scientists; these 'seemingly' new photons do just 'appear' to spring to life from nowhere, which has given rise to the theory that they have their origins 'outside' our three dimensions.

Singularity and Distance

Alternatively assuming ELEM (Ether, Light, Energy, Mass) is actually one substance that we perceive separately in our hologram, the 'Ether' which we think of as 'no-thing (i.e. no mass), no-energy and no-light, but rather as the container of 'LEM,' would be intrinsically and universally part of all LEM.

Thus if photons appear in one space on earth, assuming there is 'no distance between one substance (only between two or more)' the appearance of photons from what we think is 'nowhere' may merely because we are confused by what appears to be the immensity of space.

During the amplification of Light in a lazer, this seems to attract photons from 'somewhere else' but assuming the singularity of ELEM, it may just be our confusion regarding 'distance' in our holographic universe.

If ELEM is actually one substance, as far as the ELEM is concerned a photon a billion light years away on the other side of the universe is not 'separate.'

Again bear in mind that I am just attemtping to make philosophical conclusions on observations of scientists.

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn133/digsman/baphomet.gif

Above: illustration from Eliphas Levi's 'Dogmas and Rituals of High Magic.'

Solving the Puzzle

The keys to the puzzle in language rather than in image are 'the 5 elements, the Kabbalistic Trinity, the anthromorph (the hermaphrodite), darkness and Light, SOLVE (dissolve) and COAGULA (congeal) and the symbol of the Tree of Life which appears as Baphomet's penis.'

I am simply attempting to unpack all this into the language of modern science.

Due to the impossibility of creating or destroying energy, I can’t agree with your statement that they universe is constantly being created.

Well that is not really my position, I merely argued that 'it appears' as if the photon is a new creation; I am not suggesting that it is; our universe is billions of years old and is full of Energy, Mass and Light; we are not in short supply.

If a few photons appear on earth out of the ether, and the ether is the same 'size' as the universe, since it is the universe's container, and further if the ether is one substance, the photons are hardly appearing out of no-where; it may simply appear that way to us since we may think of the ether on the other side of the universe as a 'separate' space rather than the same space.

The small magnet.

Let us say I get a fridge magnet; I can only stick it to metals that are within a few cm of it's range, since it is not powerful enough to attract metal at the other end of a room.

The big magnet.

Let us say that I borrow a nuclear power station and build the world's biggest electro-magnet; when I switch it on in the middle of the room, now I expect the fridge and everything metal in the room to come to the magnet.

A tiny insect with limited vision sitting on top of my electro-magnet might think, 'Oh where did that fridge suddenly appear from? Perhaps it is a new creation?' That is only because the insect has limited vision.

Similarly so with the photon. The scientist on earth might think 'Oh those photons seem to come from 'nowhere,' but that may be because the scientist considers the other side of the universe to be very far away, but if ELEM is one substance; there can be no distance between one point. It is like saying 'how far is your nose from your nose? Your nose 'is' your nose.

Dissolve and Congeal

Metaphorically speaking if ELEM is one substance of a Universal Hologram, all the LEM is like sugar dissolved in a tank of water and the Ether is like the water; at times we find that the LEM (the sugar) congeals. A fish at the bottom of the water might think, 'Where did all this Mass (the sugar) come from; is it a new creation? but it was always dissolved in the water; the fish just could not see it.

Another issue with LEM is that all mater in the universe is formed of energy/mass but not necessary of light.

We cannot be certain of that since we cannot say for certain what the basis of matter is.

The Black Sun

Take the example of the 'black suns (black holes)' which appear to be the opposite of suns and rather than throwing out Light are devouring their way through distant galaxies. Allegedly the gravity exerted on the surrounding area of this 'Darkness' is so great that even Light cannot escape from it. Theoretically it is supposed that at the centre of a black sun, where all photons, Mass and Energy are drawn to by it's gravity, it has been suggested that a piece of matter the size of a golf-ball may be the same weight all the mass in our solar system.

Since we can say that Energy is not created or destroyed but merely transmutated or transformed; all those photons, Energy and Mass heading for that Black Sun are still there (or somewhere) trapped at it's core in some form.

If you were a giant you might say 'Oh that black sun is so small and it has no Light.'

Similarly we are too big to see the atom and the components of the atom, but the black sun is a good analogy for an atom. If a black hole were to reverse it's process and 'explode' even a giant might think, 'Oh that is a lot of Energy and Light.'

Similarly with the atom, when we release it's energy, even we human beings who are giants in comparison to the atom, will say 'Oh what a lot of Light and Energy being released. from such a tiny atom!'

The example of the mountain and the tree will do, as both are formed by energy/mass, but none of them of light. We see them because light is reflected on them, but they are not a light source.

Again we cannot go down the rabbit hole; we cannot percive what the basis of the atom which makes up the mountain and the tree is.

We as giants to the micro-universe tend to think of an atom as 'dark' or 'black.' If we could shrink ouselves down to a tiny size in order that we might 'see' the atomic structure, what we may see is much like what we would see if we looked up at the sky on a starry night; the micro-universe of atomic stars many well 'look' like the macro universe of suns; it may well be a world of Darkness and Light. If you were very tiny you might look up at an atomic star and say 'Oh what a bright star!'

Quantum Entanglement

As stated in my previous post, the world at the quantum level is quite weird; it is a world ruled by possibilities that has nothing to do with our everyday life experience.

One of the peculiarities of the quantum world is a phenomenon called entanglement. It has been observed that changing the properties of a particle, is instantly reflected in another particle regardless of the distance between them; these are called entangled particles, have opposite properties, and by changing a property in one of them results in the same instant change in the other one.

So we have that entangled particles can theoretically transmit information instantly, even if there isn’t a physical connection (communication channel) between them. But, where does this entanglement comes from? For two (or more) particles to be entangled, it is necessary that they come from the same element (i.e. separated by decay), and the simultaneous separation of those particles would result in an entanglement. According to this theory, entanglement does not exist between all particles in the universe (whether or not they are of the same type); instead, entanglement is exclusive of particles that previously formed part of another element and simultaneously separated from.

The Entanglement of Consiousness with ELEM

I think if we take this matter of entanglement further, consider the effects of the double slit experiment.

In the double slit experiment we cannot only consider the effects of ELEM (the four ELEMents), but also of the fifth element (the observer; i.e., human consciousness).

Firstly the electrons appear to behave as a waveform and create an interference pattern, but as soon as the human observer sets up an experiment in order to observe them more closely, suddenly the electrons start behaving like solid objects and immediately their interference pattern dissapears.

Now if I ask 'How does the electron know that it is being observed?' this is the correct question to ask, but it is an answer that no scientist can objectively answer; they can only say 'What a puzzle; we do not know!'

Thus 'entanglement' is not merely between electrons of one element, but the electrons are also evidently 'entangled' with the human consciousness.

Stranger and stranger.

Thus we begin to approach the point where we might ask not only "Is ELEM is one 'entangled' substance?' but since we need to include the fifth element (Spirit) and consider if ELEMS (or SMELE :-)) is one substance trapped in our sensory hologram (A Hologram of the 5 senses)?

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with your writing or your ability to express yourself. Actually, I think you are and excellent writer (far beyond the average of this forum) and your ideas are simply fascinating (regardless of the fact that I might not agree with all of them).

What we are doing is engaging in a dialectical process of philosophical falsification.

It is called a 'Socratic argument' or dialogue.

We test out arguments in the field of debate and discussion.

The point where you say 'I agree with everything you say' is the point where you have given up critical thinking and I can no longer test my arguments on you.

The Sophist (a sophisticated, pretentious, arrogant, intellectual) debates to 'win' a debate at all costs; the person engaged in the Socratic dialectic, enters the field of debate to test their arguments

Since I am not infallible, this is my method of checking if my own positions are correct.

I have an early version of my essay on 'One Light etc' which I wrote 5 years ago. Since I am not a physicist by profession, I could only place it on forums where physicists reside and wait for them to attack me.

Over the years I have worked on this essay and amended it when corrected and shown to be errant; however I say without arrogance that my corrections have merely been lingustic, and that my original conclusions remain.

When I originally wrote this I had been thinking about these matters on about a diet of about an ounce or two of skunk every week combined with psilocybe. Somehow I saw the animated (living) micro-universe of Light, and then thought 'I better test this out' with the philosophers.

The Dialectic in Philosophy. Thesis (idea), Anti-thesis and Synthesis

For some reason, there are many people who consider the dialectical process to be 'Satanic (i.e. evil).'

Socrates had this trouble with the Sophists in his age as well; he challenged the gods and the ideas of the sophist-icated people of his day; eventually they had enough of him and demanded his death. This story is told and retold from the legend of the eminent saint and martyr Prometheus to Jesus and Che Guevara.

Two people have a debate who have different ideas about a certain subject. By the end of the debate, if they are intellectually honest and have an open mind, both should find it a learning process which allows them to see their original ideas from a different perspective; they challenge each others ideas, attempt to correct and expose errancy and a synthesis of positions to some degree or another often takes place.

Of course this is all very Satanic to the Christians who have no need of such a process, for they already have all the truth they need from their Bible and their hypnotists (priests) and masters.

Just say that even though I have quite an antisocial character, I wouldn't mind meeting you if I ever go to Glastonbury (don’t worry; there are practically no chances that I will ever visit Glastonbury :)).

Please keep up the good work!!!

Oh Somerset if a very social place full of Cider farms, Breweries, Beautiful women who walk around dressed as witches; it would soon convert you of being anti-social. Glastonbury is Britain's Pagan Capital. Certainly anti-establishment, but certainly not anti-social; too many pubs (bars).

Well thank you for assisting me in thinking this matter through more thoroughly; don't go away.

Love and Light to you flyermay.

Lux

Lux

flyermay

21-04-2009, 04:49 PM

Just to restate; I am not a professional physicist; my knowledge is limited to the study of the conclusions of those who are professional physicists.

The issues of universal singularity, quantum strangeness and the Holographic Universe I find fascinating, and to have implications on philosophy (as in the the attempt to express truths in language by the use of reason alone, without reference to the ramblings of theologians).

I’m glad we talk about this from a similar position: I’m also not a physicist and I also find all this fascinating. I’m also with you on the fact that quantum physics and string theory is opening a lot of doors towards different ways of looking at reality and our universe; reason why I’m starting to have doubts about many metaphysical claims that I previously dismissed as impossible (and reason why I find so interesting your way of thinking –you seem to have gathered all the knowledge that I previously ignored-).

Well consider taking a faint Light from a distant galaxy and placing it through a series of mirrors (a lazer device); with a powerful lazer, what you have at the end is this original light amplified many times.

I have read numerous articles on this and although I am 'not' at all suggesting that photons are 'new creations' which spiring to life, it is clear however that where these new photons come from is certainly a mystery to scientists; these 'seemingly' new photons do just 'appear' to spring to life from nowhere, which has given rise to the theory that they have their origins 'outside' our three dimensions.

I’m sorry, but I never heard of such an experiment; do you know who did it or the name of the experiment?

But consider the implications of such an experiment having a positive result. If we could amplify the light from a distant galaxy, we could theoretically feed the whole earth’s need for energy with a simple light bulb…

Alternatively assuming ELEM (Ether, Light, Energy, Mass) is actually one substance that we perceive separately in our hologram, the 'Ether' which we think of as 'no-thing (i.e. no mass), no-energy and no-light, but rather as the container of 'LEM,' would be intrinsically and universally part of all LEM.

Thus if photons appear in one space on earth, assuming there is 'no distance between one substance (only between two or more)' the appearance of photons from what we think is 'nowhere' may merely because we are confused by what appears to be the immensity of space.

During the amplification of Light in a lazer, this seems to attract photons from 'somewhere else' but assuming the singularity of ELEM, it may just be our confusion regarding 'distance' in our holographic universe.

If ELEM is actually one substance, as far as the ELEM is concerned a photon a billion light years away on the other side of the universe is not 'separate.'

Again bear in mind that I am just attemtping to make philosophical conclusions on observations of scientists.

I think you are not that far away from making a correct assumption. You certainly use the right principles, but in my opinion, you make a mistake when applying them and you end up with a result which I cannot agree with. Said that, I have to remind myself about keeping an open mind to all this; as the universe at the quantum level is not even fully understood by scientists, and the possibilities are simply mind blowing.

Ether

I agree with you on the fact that ether is the “container” for energy/matter in the universe (including light); just that I prefer to think of it as a “medium”. But first, we need to look at ether itself.

What is ether?

Apart from the organic substance with anaesthetic properties, the term ether has been used since ancient times in reference to an empty space.

Classical Aether (or ether):
Aether is a Greek term used from ancient times to describe the material that fills interstellar space.

Luminiferous Ether (Aethereal Medium):
Used since Newton’s time, it describes the medium in which light propagates. I assume this is what you refer to as ether.

Modern concept of Ether:
Since the beginning of the 20th century, and due to Einstein’s theories, the concept of a ethereal medium was much discussed and later discarded; agreeing on a “non-ether” throughout space.

Higgs field
The Higgs field (or Higgs Ocean) is quite a difficult concept to explain in a couple of sentences, so I would just say that the Higgs Ocean fills the whole universe; not only empty space but also matter itself. Matter, light and energy, as well as everything else in the universe “float” in the Higgs Ocean (sort of speak). At the quantum level, empty space looks like a bubbling pot full of hot water; it is in this universal ocean where subatomic particles exist.

Does this mean then that ether exists?

Well, yes and no. We can definitely call the Higgs field “ether”, but this ether does not interfere with matter or light; meaning that it is not the luminiferous medium that Newton though vibrated and transported electromagnetic waves (light) -like our atmosphere vibrates and transports sound. Because this field does not interfere with subatomic particles, it doesn’t contradict any of Einstein theories (as Newton's concept of ether did).

Take the example of the 'black suns (black holes)' which appear to be the opposite of suns and rather than throwing out Light are devouring their way through distant galaxies. Allegedly the gravity exerted on the surrounding area of this 'Darkness' is so great that even Light cannot escape from it. Theoretically it is supposed that at the centre of a black sun, where all photons, Mass and Energy are drawn to by it's gravity, it has been suggested that a piece of matter the size of a golf-ball may be the same weight all the mass in our solar system.

Since we can say that Energy is not created or destroyed but merely transmutated or transformed; all those photons, Energy and Mass heading for that Black Sun are still there (or somewhere) trapped at it's core in some form.

If you were a giant you might say 'Oh that black sun is so small and it has no Light.'

Similarly we are too big to see the atom and the components of the atom, but the black sun is a good analogy for an atom. If a black hole were to reverse it's process and 'explode' even a giant might think, 'Oh that is a lot of Energy and Light.'

Similarly with the atom, when we release it's energy, even we human beings who are giants in comparison to the atom, will say 'Oh what a lot of Light and Energy being released. from such a tiny atom!'

Again we cannot go down the rabbit hole; we cannot percive what the basis of the atom which makes up the mountain and the tree is.

We as giants to the micro-universe tend to think of an atom as 'dark' or 'black.' If we could shrink ouselves down to a tiny size in order that we might 'see' the atomic structure, what we may see is much like what we would see if we looked up at the sky on a starry night; the micro-universe of atomic stars many well 'look' like the macro universe of suns; it may well be a world of Darkness and Light. If you were very tiny you might look up at an atomic star and say 'Oh what a bright star!'

I think that the same concept of light would not apply at the atomic level. Think of it this way: atoms are really small as well as the wavelength of light; now think why we can see through glass… it’s matter after all, it’s composed of atoms, but no matter how thick glass is we can always see though it. The reason is that the electromagnetic radiation (light’s wavelength) is of the same size than the atoms of glass; therefore most photons skip through the atoms and pass through without touching any subatomic particles. Another example are X-Rays and Gamma radiation, most photons can pass through smaller atomic structures because their wavelength are smaller; skipping between small atoms.

What I mean with this is that light is not applicable at subatomic levels. This is the reason for the impossibility of ever getting a pictures or seeing through a microscope any subatomic particle (only other means of measurement are able to provide prove of their existence).

I think if we take this matter of entanglement further, consider the effects of the double slit experiment.

In the double slit experiment we cannot only consider the effects of ELEM (the four ELEMents), but also of the fifth element (the observer; i.e., human consciousness).

Firstly the electrons appear to behave as a waveform and create an interference pattern, but as soon as the human observer sets up an experiment in order to observe them more closely, suddenly the electrons start behaving like solid objects and immediately their interference pattern dissapears.

Now if I ask 'How does the electron know that it is being observed?' this is the correct question to ask, but it is an answer that no scientist can objectively answer; they can only say 'What a puzzle; we do not know!'

Thus 'entanglement' is not merely between electrons of one element, but the electrons are also evidently 'entangled' with the human consciousness.

Thus we begin to approach the point where we might ask not only "Is ELEM is one 'entangled' substance?' but since we need to include the fifth element (Spirit) and consider if ELEMS (or SMELE :-)) is one substance trapped in our sensory hologram (A Hologram of the 5 senses)?

I can also explain this phenomenon. Luckily, I was fascinated with that experiment for a lot of time, and just couldn’t stop until I understood what was really going on. By the way, there are various experiments about the same subject, though that one is the most common between non-physicists and the easiest to put into practice.

To explain what really happens with each photon, so that an interference pattern is create, we need to look at how subatomic particles move around in at the quantum level.

We are used to see all objects moving around us in a sequential fashion; that is, advancing step by step through space and time. But that’s not how a photon would move at a quantum level. Let’s look at Bohr’s atom model: in it, electrons move round the core describing an orbit; but that is actually, quite far from the truth.

I mentioned many times that the quantum world is a world of possibilities. Well… this what I meant:

Uncertainty Principle

One of the peculiarities of quantum physics is a principle called “uncertainty”. To simplify, the uncertainty principle postulates that you cannot know all properties of a particle at the same time. As a matter of fact, the more you know about one the less you know about the other.

Subatomic particles stay in a cloud of possibilities, where any attempt to know its exact properties would inevitably change its original state. Look again at Bohr’s atom again; electrons do not move around the core describing orbits, instead they form a cloud of possible positions. In a way, the electron is situated at the same time in every single place around the possibility cloud.

Back to the photon and the slits: the photon does not travel in a straight line along the slits; instead, it fills all possible places along the beam at the same time, and only shows again as one particle in a certain place once other particles interfere in its path (the photographic plate).

The same with other experiments: this was also tried with an interferometer and semi-refracting mirrors splitting the path of the photon into two. When no measurement equipment interfered in the way of the photon, the photon seemed to travel along both paths. But when the measurement equipment interfered (therefore, trying to catch the photon passing through both), the photon simply travelled along only one path.

Oh Somerset if a very social place full of Cider farms, Breweries, Beautiful women who walk around dressed as witches; it would soon convert you of being anti-social. Glastonbury is Britain's Pagan Capital. Certainly anti-establishment, but certainly not anti-social; too many pubs (bars).

Well thank you for assisting me in thinking this matter through more thoroughly; don't go away.

Well… I must say that being anti-social has more to do with the kind of people that surrounds me than with myself; I’m really social when I find the right kind of people (practically impossible in a London suburb).

Somerset sound to me like heaven compared with this (probably hell for a Christian). Either way, my mission in the UK is over now, and I’m moving back with my people (which don’t seem so different from yours).

Thank you for sharing all that knowledge with all of us… I’m always looking forward for your next posts!!!

luciferhorus

22-04-2009, 10:00 AM

Regarding the mysterious photon. I am not referring to a singular experiment but rather to the conclusions reached by all studies of the photon.

The Photon Mystique. What is the photon?

We have already discussed how some among the science establishment speak with ‘certainty’ regarding matters of which they cannot possibly be certain and speak of theories and speculations as facts.

Consider:

http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/photon.html

___________________
…. you will find a number of definitions of the photon. After you have read them all, you will not be any wiser - you will come out the same door as you went in. This is a veritable Obfuscation Fest. No one has described a photon. No one has said what it looks like. The photon is said to be a quantum of light. The quantum, by its very definition, is a somewhat undefined thing. This scientific concept is entangled with the general notions of probability, uncertainty, indeterminacy – blurring attributes like that. In this sense, the photon today is an enigma.
Q. But can we probe this enigma further?
The powers that be of physics will discourage you from doing that. Why? Let us look into this. If the photon is an isolated clump of electromagnetic energy, then it is made of electric and magnetic fields. That’s all - there is nothing else in it. Spatially, it is of limited extent – the fields go to zero at infinite distances in all directions. But as soon as you arrive at this inevitable picture, you have a big problem. All electromagnetic fields must be capable of being described by Maxwell’s Equations. But this picture cannot be described thus. So, within the enigma, there is a mystery.
…….
__________
Today’s photon = [Enigma{Mystery(Obfuscation)Mystery}Enigma]

Consider also for example:

The Enduring Mystery of Light

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070226_about_light.html

Light is much more than what meets the eye.

It goes through walls, but slows to a standstill in ultra-cold gases. It carries electronic information for radios and TVs, but destroys genetic information in cells. It bends around buildings and squeezes through pinholes, but ricochets off tiny electrons.

It's light. And although we know it primarily as the opposite of darkness, most of light is not visible to our eyes. From low energy radio waves to high energy gamma rays, light zips around us, bounces off us, and sometimes goes through us.

...

Because it is so many things, defining light is a bit of a philosophical quandary. It doesn't help that light continue to surprise us, with novel materials that alter light's speed and trajectory in unexpected ways.

....

Recently some of the rules of optics have been overturned.

Physicists have slowed and even stopped pulses of light in laser-cooled gases and other materials. Astonishingly, they have also clocked pulses going faster than light's speed limit of 186,000 miles per second.
The law of reflection says that a light ray bounces off a surface at the same angle that it came in at. But recent experiments have shown that this law is broken in certain fluids.
Researchers have combined different materials to create super-lenses that focus light sharper than previously thought possible.
The science fiction dream of cloaking has been made a reality by a device that makes objects invisible to microwaves.

The article above also asks the question, "Is the photon a particle or a waveform?" and offers the correct answer which is that the answer cannot be obtained.

These are just a couple of random articles I have googled, but the Internet is full of articles on the mystery of the photon.

But consider the implications of such an experiment having a positive result. If we could amplify the light from a distant galaxy, we could theoretically feed the whole earth’s need for energy with a simple light bulb…

Why of course; we are not far from the kingdom of Light.

We have numerous ways of obtaining free safe clean energy, and Lazer technology is just one of a number of possibilities (google 'free electricity' for example); it is not a scientific problem, for these problems have been solved; the Energy Industry is a trillion dollar industry; our economic masters do not wish humanity to have free safe electricity; they wish to keep a Capitalist monopoly on the supply of electricity.

There is simply no profit for the Capitalists and corporationists in free electricity.

However free electricty is a requirement for the the 1000 year revolution of Light; but that is a communist agenda, not a Capitalist agenda.

The Unified Theory (Theory of uni / one / alpha / allah)

We are essentially discussing the Unified Theory (Theory of Everything); if we could offer proof we would already have our Noble Prizes and our million dollars; that is why we are discussing the 'theory' of everything.

The problem is that no scientist can speak irrefutably and with certainty about the quantum world, since the quantum world does not easily lend itself to empirical observation; in all probability because it is not empirical; a piece of rock does not modify itself when studied by a geologist; but an electron does modify it's behavior when observed by a physicist.

The human mind is the observer of the universe and as far as we can tell from the realm we live in, the highest and most intelligent creation (and also the most barbaric); our realm of light seems to have been created for us; we are the masters of Light; we should be able to solve the puzzle with our minds, since minds are not purely matter and neither is our cousin the electron, which appears to be entangled with the mind of the observer.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is a philosopher's mind game, it is not merely the establishment of empirical fact; for with fact there is no puzzle and no theory is required; a theory which explains all facts 'and' considers all evidence that does 'not' submit to empirical observation requires a theory from the human mind. The most simple theory of everything which takes accounts of all the facts is probably correct

Thus I find the Holographic Universe theory to be the most simple which takes account of all facts and conclusions of experiments.

I have read numerous articles and watched numeous scientific films in my 50 years on earth; I also did physics at school many years ago in my teens. Regarding all these mysteries of physics, I think that the human mind cannot grasp the quantum world simply because it is not mechanistic but operates in some ways like a living creature, and in other ways simply beyond the reach of our mind's understanding.

Destroyer of all Worlds

The most we can do is attempt to reach a simple theory which explains everything, the Unified Theory will remain a theory until it is established as fact; but already science has reached the point where I would say that that we can conclude from the evidence that there is singularity in the universe and that ELEM is one substance at it's root; that is the conclusion of my mind and the mind of many others, but this is rather 'philosophy of science' rather than objective proof; it is as far as we can go without going down the rabbit hole ourselves, and even if we could go down the rabbit hole (by shrinking to the size of the smallest particle or wave) if the universe is one substance, rather than becoming smaller, we may have to become 'bigger' since we would have to hold the universe in the palm of our hand and say 'here is this stuff' and still we would not understand it.

Frankly since the ELEM is entangled with consciousness in order to really understand the One Stuff of the universe, unfortunately this is the end of physics and where metaphysics takes over, and we may have to conclude that this universe is a mystery, wrapped in a mystery; I think that is why so many scientists find Deism and Animism so appealing, for one can simply state that there is a God of Physics and that the universe is Her mind; unfortunately we cannot go there.

Of course could you imagine the immense power that would be given to someone who cracked open these secrets? They could be the 'destroyer of worlds.' Humanity is currently anyway too barbarian and morally (in terms of the discernment of good and evil) primitive.

The Mind of God

I want to understand the mind of God (the God of Physics, not to be confused with the theism of theologians); the rest is the details....Einstein.

I think that the Creator has hidden certain aspects of her Creation; She not want Her sons and daughters to fuck with her cosmos, so when they peer too close, She hides the keys to her creation and says 'fuck off.'

I would do the same if I were Her. Her Great Work is 20 billion years in the making. If is were you, would you hand over those keys to the tyrants and dictators of this world? I think not. I would rather destroy planet earth; there are so many other planets anyway.

If the key to the stuff of the universe is 'metaphysical' not physical and is indeed the mind of God, at least the key is safer there; perhaps that is why we cannot glimpse down the rabbit hole; the key is forbidden; it is hidden for a purpose; it is sacred; for if we held that key we might become the destroyer of all worlds.

We anyway have enough scientific understanding to feed the world, light up the world, heal the sick and to turn economic Hell to Heaven, or to nuke the world back to the stoneage; the masters of Capital have chosen to resist the feeding of the 6 billion and consider food to be commmodity to be traded and specualted on for Capitalist coin while billions starve.

_____________

Well… I must say that being anti-social has more to do with the kind of people that surrounds me than with myself; I’m really social when I find the right kind of people (practically impossible in a London suburb).

Somerset sound to me like heaven compared with this (probably hell for a Christian). Either way, my mission in the UK is over now, and I’m moving back with my people (which don’t seem so different from yours).

Thank you for sharing all that knowledge with all of us… I’m always looking forward for your next posts!!!

So you are in London. I lived in South London for 18 years; my children are still there. You really have to surround yourself with a good social network in order to find Heaven in London. I miss my friends and my children; I still love London, it is one of the greatest cities on earth and I have had a great many happy years there, but there is a very dark and dangerous side to London.

Just out of interest, who are your people?

Love to you flyermay.

One Light
One Love.

There can be only One.

Lux .

flyermay

22-04-2009, 11:27 PM

We have already discussed how some among the science establishment speak with ‘certainty’ regarding matters of which they cannot possibly be certain and speak of theories and speculations as facts.

I agree, it’s quite difficult to prove this kind of theories and hypothesis. However, many of them are backed up by hard evidences, like all of Einstein’s theories, which have already been proved with empirical experiments. But also, in reference to quantum physics enough evidences can accurately say they are correct. Direct observation of the quantum world would be practically impossible, but indirect observation isn’t.

Consider:

http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/photon.html

___________________
…. you will find a number of definitions of the photon. After you have read them all, you will not be any wiser - you will come out the same door as you went in. This is a veritable Obfuscation Fest. No one has described a photon. No one has said what it looks like. The photon is said to be a quantum of light. The quantum, by its very definition, is a somewhat undefined thing. This scientific concept is entangled with the general notions of probability, uncertainty, indeterminacy – blurring attributes like that. In this sense, the photon today is an enigma.
Q. But can we probe this enigma further?
The powers that be of physics will discourage you from doing that. Why? Let us look into this. If the photon is an isolated clump of electromagnetic energy, then it is made of electric and magnetic fields. That’s all - there is nothing else in it. Spatially, it is of limited extent – the fields go to zero at infinite distances in all directions. But as soon as you arrive at this inevitable picture, you have a big problem. All electromagnetic fields must be capable of being described by Maxwell’s Equations. But this picture cannot be described thus. So, within the enigma, there is a mystery.
…….
__________
Today’s photon = [Enigma{Mystery(Obfuscation)Mystery}Enigma]

I’ve been looking at this guy’s website and at the other website you linked yesterday, but I can clearly see that this people are not physicists, pose more questions than answers, confuse everything, and don’t back up any claims with any evidence at all (much less the kind of hard evidence needed for a theory to be accepted).

For example, this last link: the problem that I see with those statements is that this guy has been recollecting definitions of a photon over a long period of time (some of them already discarded), forgot completely about the current concept of a photon, mixed it with the electromagnetic field, and left aside quantum physics (essential to understand subatomic particles like photons). And all that without taking into account the fact that physics are demonstrated with equations and not with philosophical ideas.

He also makes a wrong assumption, that the photon is an electromagnetic field, when it fact it is a quantum of electromagnetic radiation; sounds similar to us, but are two completely different concepts (like comparing “traffic” with a single “car”).

It is common for us (non-physicists) to ask questions as: “how a photon looks like?” when in fact, trying to describe how a photon looks is simply a paradox. You cannot get ever to know how a photon looks, as everything we look at is a reflection of photons entering our retina; I don’t know if it makes any sense. What I’m trying to say is that it is impossible that a photon would simply “look”…

Another misconception is trying to compare energy/mass at a quantum level with everyday life objects; they’re simply incompatible! The quantum world has no resemblance to our world and there are no objects or concepts that are 100% equivalent between the 2 worlds. Let me ask you a question? Could you honestly think that we can have the slightest idea of how a world with 11 dimensions would look like? Surely not; I’m even having a hard time thinking how a tesseract would look like (and it’s only the equivalent of a four-dimensional cube).

The best a scientist can do is get an approximate description of subatomic particles based on extremely complicated equations, which only someone with enough knowledge and training would be able to make any send of and grasp what he really means.

But that doesn’t mean that a “photon” has not been accurately described; it just means that trying to fully explain it in our limited language and concepts is quite difficult.

We have numerous ways of obtaining free safe clean energy, and Lazer technology is just one of a number of possibilities (google 'free electricity' for example); it is not a scientific problem, for these problems have been solved; the Energy Industry is a trillion dollar industry; our economic masters do not wish humanity to have free safe electricity; they wish to keep a Capitalist monopoly on the supply of electricity.

There is simply no profit for the Capitalists and corporationists in free electricity.

However free electricty is a requirement for the the 1000 year revolution of Light; but that is a communist agenda, not a Capitalist agenda.

Completely agreed!!!

I saw just last week a simple experiment that any of us can do at home and generate free energy for the rest of our lives. It is so simple that the first impression I had was simple denial. Like that, you have thousands of people hidden in garages looking for free energy; most of them quite successful actually. And as you say, free “anything” is contrary to making a profit and to the current capitalist establishment; therefore avoided at whatever costs by the dominant industries and supported by our own governments (who also take their share of the cake).

But "free energy" doesn't mean it pops out of nowhere, there is an explanation why all those experiments work. Either way, getting a beam of light to carry a higher output than the input is one of those claims that I need to fully understand to believe (maybe I’m on denial mode again, but I tend not to believe claims without a good reason; it would be having too much “faith”, which you know I lack ;)).

The Unified Theory (Theory of uni / one / alpha / allah)

We are essentially discussing the Unified Theory (Theory of Everything); if we could offer proof we would already have our Noble Prizes and our million dollars; that is why we are discussing the 'theory' of everything.

I have read numerous articles and watched numeous scientific films in my 50 years on earth; I also did physics at school many years ago in my teens. Regarding all these mysteries of physics, I think that the human mind cannot grasp the quantum world simply because it is not mechanistic but operates in some ways like a living creature, and in others simply beyond the reach of our mind's understanding.

Destroyer of all Worlds

The most we can do is attempt to reach a simple theory which explains everything, the Unified Theory will remain a theory until it is established as fact; but already science has reached the point where I would say that that we can conclude from the evidence that there is singularity in the universe and that ELEM is one substance at it's root; that is the conclusion of my mind and the mind of many others, but this is rather 'philosophy of science' rather than objective proof; it is as far as we can go without going down the rabbit hole ourselves, and even if we could go down the rabbit hole (by shrinking to the size of the smallest particle or wave) if the universe is one substance, rather than becoming smaller, we may have to become 'bigger' since we would have to hold the universe in the palm of our hand and say 'here is this stuff' and still we would not understand it.

Frankly since the ELEM is entangled with consciousness in order to really understand the One Stuff of the universe, unfortunately this is the end of physics and where metaphysics takes over, and we may have to conclude that this universe is a mystery, wrapped in a mystery; I think that is why so many scientists find Deism and Animism so appealing, for one can simply state that there is a God of Physics and that the universe is Her mind; unfortunately we cannot go there.

Of course could you imagine the immense power that would be given to someone who cracked open these secrets? They could be the 'destroyer of worlds.' Humanity is currently anyway too barbarian and morally (in terms of the discernment of good and evil) primitive.

In my opinion, the “theory of everything” is overrated. And I agree it sounds like the panacea or like finding the solution to everything. But it is quite far from the truth.

The story goes that at the beginning of the universe, during the first milliseconds of the big bang, and due to the extreme pressure and temperature, all 5 forces were united into 1 unique universal force (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electric force, the magnetic force, and the gravitational force). As the universe cooled down, those forces separated from each other, forming the 5 forces we know today.

Many years ago, during the experimentation and formulation of electricity and magnetism, scientists were able to unify for the first time the electric and the magnetic forces in just one simple formula; known since then as the “electro-magnetic force”.

The “theory of everything”, or the “unified field theory”, is not more than the continuation of the old dream, and unify all 5 forces into one simple formula that could be applied to all the forces of the universe at the same time; in the same way that the electromagnetic formula works either for the electric and magnetic forces, or a combination of both. Many scientists spent their entire lives trying to unify all the other 3 forces to the electromagnetic force without much luck. Even Einstein spent the rest of his life giving it a try after becoming so famous, but he was no were near the goal (maybe clouded by his faith in god and his denial of quantum physics –saying: “I don’t believe god rolls dice”-).

And suddenly, in the 80s, “string theory” was reborn as “superstring theory”, and ended up solving all the doubts that scientists ever had about joining quantum physics with relativity; and combining all 5 forces of the universe into one unique force: the famous “theory of everything”. String theory, apart from other things, explained how the 5 different forces could be combined together into one, along with quantum physics and relativity; all of this combined together in just only huge formula.

But this had unexpected consequences, and it took “string theory” years to finally be accepted by the mainstream scientific community. The problem was that this theory proposed a new radical way of defining the world at the subatomic level; and the establishment just couldn’t afford to disregard dozens of previous concepts and theories in favour of a couple of newcomers. According to string theory, at its most elemental level, matter and energy are no more than the equivalent to vibrating strings along 11 dimensions (obviously, this isn’t exactly accurate, but it is the most approximate simile to the world we live in). It also claimed that our universe is not the only one, and that there are multitude of parallel to ours. In fact, there are forces, like gravity, which is said to share part of its strength with other universes, reasons why we perceive it as the most weak of all; but the same can happen with all of them, including the electromagnetic radiation (photons).

At the end, this bright new world of “string theory” opened many doors to all sort speculation, like the spirit world, metaphysics and the holographic universe. And I have to admit that this is the main reason for opening my mind and start to get interested in all this stuff; most of it claimed since ancient times (well, another reason is the concept of “faith” in science which we previously talked about). So I’m at a point where I’m trying to find out how much stuff that I previously discarded as impossible can be objectively contrasted with this new reality. But as you well said above, proving any of those claims isn’t as easy as using empirical experiments.

But it also doesn't mean that I will believe anything without a good reasons for it, extensive research done on the subject, and at least some evidences that support any point of view.

watson_k

23-04-2009, 12:37 AM

…. you will find a number of definitions of the photon. After you have read them all, you will not be any wiser - you will come out the same door as you went in. This is a veritable Obfuscation Fest. No one has described a photon. No one has said what it looks like. The photon is said to be a quantum of light. The quantum, by its very definition, is a somewhat undefined thing. This scientific concept is entangled with the general notions of probability, uncertainty, indeterminacy – blurring attributes like that. In this sense, the photon today is an enigma.

You could say the same thing about 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' for the Big Bang Theory. These phrases were created in order to make the Mathematical structure (what modern Physics has basically become) work in the first place.

Dark Matter - dark matter is hypothetical matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Dark Energy - dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

A lot of thinking obviously went in to this Science based on Hypothesis instead of facts. (Sorry, I am a little biased against the Big Bang Theory)

tattooverb

23-04-2009, 12:47 AM

i must say i am enjoying this thread very much and i agree with many of the theories presented here
so i am adding my own two cents on the topic

Reality, an Enormous Interference Pattern?

Who am I?

Why am I here?

Where is here?

These are the fundamental questions mankind has asked since the moment we came into existence.

Many explanations to these questions have been offered over the years, usually by religion or science. In Western society the explanations offered by these two groups usually contradict each other and as a result, many people continue to pursue these fundamental questions.

In many cases spirituality has been divorced from science and organized religion with disastrous consequences. For centuries Western religions have sought to suppress both science and spirituality. This applies particularly to the spirituality of indigenous and ancient cultures. This agenda has been made clear; from the burning of the library in Alexandria to the continuing slaughter of the native peoples and the destruction of indigenous cultures around the world. Mainstream science on the other hand, after emerging from centuries of repression, seemingly seeks to denounce religion and along with it spirituality. Scientists began stating the human condition is one of biomechanics alone. This renouncing of spirituality and the ethics by science has led to a quagmire of degradation. This is a result of scientists asking "is it possible?" as opposed to "is it morally and ethically just?" For instance, it is possible to split atoms, but it is not morally and ethically just.

It is only when one unifies the concepts of science and spirituality that one begins to see the real nature of the universe. Reality is comparable to the concept of holographic illusions; this is very similar to what the ancient and indigenous cultures have been describing for millennia.

Holograms are photons projected through an interference pattern to create a seemingly three dimensional object. Perhaps many of you are saying to yourself "OK... but a hologram has no physical substance and the world around me does." Perhaps you are thinking "Hell! I can see, taste, smell, hear and touch it so the world must be real." How can the universe be an illusion similar to a hologram? What do holograms have to do with ancient and indigenous wisdom?

Let's start by examining one such ancient idea, a hermetic teaching ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, "as above so below." This describes perfectly the fractal and holographic nature of not only the universe but the human body as well. Each cell contains all of the DNA information necessary to create an identical copy of the whole organism. The same can be said for fractals and holograms, in each part the whole is contained. Break a holographic image in half and you do not get half of the image, you get a smaller version of the whole. Much research has been and is being done by Nassim Haramein and others regarding the fractal nature of the universe and the scaling laws to which it conforms. The universe including all life forms sentient or non-sentient and non living substances conform to the fractal nature of reality. Changes in any level of the system effects the structure of the whole.

On a subatomic level the similarities between the nature of holograms and the nature of subatomic particles are even more pronounced. Subatomic particles behave in ways that we, from a macroscopic perspective, perceive as not only confusing but also in many cases seemingly random. An interesting experiment into the nature of subatomic particles, waves and wavicles is the double slit experiment. It was determined that subatomic particles can manifest either as a wave function or as an particle. Furthermore it was discovered that the action of measuring or observing the particles seemed to be the key in the collapse of the wave function. Think about that for a moment, the observer caused the wave function, which generates an interference pattern, to become a physical particle simply by measuring it.

Many of the greatest minds in physics have contended over the years the function of the role which consciousness or observation plays in the behavior of subatomic particles. The Copenhagen Interpretation is one such argument discussing the nature of quantum phenomena. The similarities between the particle springing into and out of superposition from a wave interference pattern of possible locations to a particle with a definite place in time/space as a result of the application of conscious energy and a hologram projecting a seemingly three dimensional image based on light projected through an interference pattern is astounding in its implications. The difference in substantiality between a hologram and reality has to do with the energy feed and the receiver. With regard to holographic reality, consciousness is the energy source and your DNA is the receiver.

Even what we perceive as solid objects are all manifestations of wave energy forms. The atoms which make up the densest rock are mostly empty and the subatomic particles within them are winking into and out of existence as they jump valence shells. Our perception of such "solid" objects is only the brain's interpretation of the electrical and biochemical signals it is receiving via our five senses. So solid objects, or our perception of them as solid, is an illusory interpretation of varying frequencies by our DNA and brain.

It has become increasingly evident that the energy that powers the universe, which some call the unified or zero point field and others call God, is consciousness. It is this consciousness projected through the interference pattern of energy waves that gives rise to us, all that we perceive and that which we do not. It can therefore be said that we are all a manifestation of the consciousness from which the universe arises. This consciousness is who we are, what we are and it is also where we are. Like all energy consciousness is never gained or lost it simply changes form. When you tap into the part of yourself that is infinite consciousness you see the physical form is just the receiver. The real you is a mote of infinite consciousness.

watson_k

23-04-2009, 12:56 AM

That's a very interesting post, thanks for that tattooverb.

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 02:54 AM

You could say the same thing about 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' for the Big Bang Theory. These phrases were created in order to make the Mathematical structure (what modern Physics has basically become) work in the first place.

Dark Matter - dark matter is hypothetical matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Dark Energy - dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

A lot of thinking obviously went in to this Science based on Hypothesis instead of facts. (Sorry, I am a little biased against the Big Bang Theory)

Yes brother, a theory is a theory.

Consider.

Consider the suns of our universe as positive magnets.

Take two positive magnets. Try to push them together. There is resistance. They don't like that. They try to push each other apart.

Consider all the rocks in orbit around our suns as negative magnets. Obviously if you place a negative magnet near a positive magnet there is attraction; they move towards each other.

Think of spinning a negative magnet around a positive magnet and compare this to the planets spinning around the sun

It is a fact that the earth and other planets are slowly being pulled into the gravity of the sun. In the past it has probably happened many times that the planets and rocks have become part of the sun's mass.

The sun is not a tiny magnet; it is a very powerful magnet. The nearest sun to us is about 4 light years away. That sun does not crash into our sun because they are both like positive magnets which repel each other; they push each other apart.

Thus far I am speaking scientifically.

Now I shall speak theoretically.

So the big bang theory goes something like this: Once upon a time, these suns were closer together, and in the distant past all these suns in the universe were one sun. And before that this one huge sun was a tiny sun, and then smaller and smaller and smaller, and so forth.

Now this is a very interesting theory, and since I am not 20 billion years old, I cannot know for certain if this is the case, but I suppose it is possible.

At this point I have not mentioned the word 'Creation.'

It may be possible that this is how the universe was created, but for the scientist who is an atheist, that person generally offers this theory as an alternative to the idea that the universe was created; however the issue regarding a Creator is a separate issue to the issue of 'how' the universe was created.

The scientist will 'add' his atheism to the big bang theory, but one who thinks that the universe displays the 'design (such as myself)' of a Grand Architect, can simply accept that this is a theory, and it may be true or false, but it makes absolutely no difference to my thinking that this universe is the product of a Grand Design; it is merely a theory that explains 'how' the universe formed.

My personal opinion is that there are probably aspects of physics which are hidden from our view because they are meant to be; the universal mind does not want us messing too much with Her creation; she will not give us that power for obvious reasons; She does not wish her universe to be destroyed by barbarians.

Love and Light

Lux

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 03:15 AM

i must say i am enjoying this thread very much and i agree with many of the theories presented here
so i am adding my own two cents on the topic

Reality, an Enormous Interference Pattern?

Who am I?

Why am I here?

Where is here?

These are the fundamental questions mankind has asked since the moment we came into existence.

Many explanations to these questions have been offered over the years, usually by religion or science. In Western society the explanations offered by these two groups usually contradict each other and as a result, many people continue to pursue these fundamental questions.

.

Yes tattooverb,

Especiallly people such as yourself who are from Amsterdam.

I have been visiting Amsterdam since my youth and it is probably my favorite city in the world.

Amsterdam is full of old hippies (like myself) smoking weed and taking mushrooms.

Ask any stoned hippy about the nature of the universe and the root of matter and what the photon is made of and without any scientific education they might give you a decent answer, but they will probably ramble in metaphysical language.

Come over here to London and ask the same questions to the Capitalists on alchohol. They will probably consider you to be insane.

In many cases spirituality has been divorced from science and organized religion with disastrous consequences. For centuries Western religions have sought to suppress both science and spirituality. This applies particularly to the spirituality of indigenous and ancient cultures. This agenda has been made clear; from the burning of the library in Alexandria to the continuing slaughter of the native peoples and the destruction of indigenous cultures around the world. Mainstream science on the other hand, after emerging from centuries of repression, seemingly seeks to denounce religion and along with it spirituality. Scientists began stating the human condition is one of biomechanics alone. This renouncing of spirituality and the ethics by science has led to a quagmire of degradation. This is a result of scientists asking "is it possible?" as opposed to "is it morally and ethically just?" For instance, it is possible to split atoms, but it is not morally and ethically just.

It is only when one unifies the concepts of science and spirituality that one begins to see the real nature of the universe. Reality is comparable to the concept of holographic illusions; this is very similar to what the ancient and indigenous cultures have been describing for millennia.

Yes, I think only the shamanic types really 'understand' the nature of the cosmos. A scientist will just try to make calculations.

It is as if I tried to describe 'love for a woman' for example and I just measured a woman and weighed her and gave a list of scientific descriptions.

Holograms are photons projected through an interference pattern to create a seemingly three dimensional object. Perhaps many of you are saying to yourself "OK... but a hologram has no physical substance and the world around me does." Perhaps you are thinking "Hell! I can see, taste, smell, hear and touch it so the world must be real." How can the universe be an illusion similar to a hologram? What do holograms have to do with ancient and indigenous wisdom?

Let's start by examining one such ancient idea, a hermetic teaching ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, "as above so below." This describes perfectly the fractal and holographic nature of not only the universe but the human body as well. Each cell contains all of the DNA information necessary to create an identical copy of the whole organism. The same can be said for fractals and holograms, in each part the whole is contained. Break a holographic image in half and you do not get half of the image, you get a smaller version of the whole. Much research has been and is being done by Nassim Haramein and others regarding the fractal nature of the universe and the scaling laws to which it conforms. The universe including all life forms sentient or non-sentient and non living substances conform to the fractal nature of reality. Changes in any level of the system effects the structure of the whole.

Yes

On a subatomic level the similarities between the nature of holograms and the nature of subatomic particles are even more pronounced. Subatomic particles behave in ways that we, from a macroscopic perspective, perceive as not only confusing but also in many cases seemingly random. An interesting experiment into the nature of subatomic particles, waves and wavicles is the double slit experiment. It was determined that subatomic particles can manifest either as a wave function or as an particle. Furthermore it was discovered that the action of measuring or observing the particles seemed to be the key in the collapse of the wave function. Think about that for a moment, the observer caused the wave function, which generates an interference pattern, to become a physical particle simply by measuring it.

Yes. The particle somehow knew that it was being observed and changed it's behaviour. Scientists who like to measure things, who are not animists and who consider the 'Mind of God' to be non-existant, are very pissed off about that.

The God of Physics cannot share the secrets of matter with the materialists, because the universe is not made of matter; that is why only the shamans understanf Her universe

Many of the greatest minds in physics have contended over the years the function of the role which consciousness or observation plays in the behavior of subatomic particles. The Copenhagen Interpretation is one such argument discussing the nature of quantum phenomena. The similarities between the particle springing into and out of superposition from a wave interference pattern of possible locations to a particle with a definite place in time/space as a result of the application of conscious energy and a hologram projecting a seemingly three dimensional image based on light projected through an interference pattern is astounding in its implications. The difference in substantiality between a hologram and reality has to do with the energy feed and the receiver. With regard to holographic reality, consciousness is the energy source and your DNA is the receiver.

Yes. The question raised by scientists on the nature of matter is similar to the question 'How long is love, what is the weight of love, what colour is love?'

If the root of matter is not matter, aksing about the size and weight and colour of the root of matter is like asking the same questions about love or beauty.

That which is metaphysical does not lend itself to empirical observation.

Even what we perceive as solid objects are all manifestations of wave energy forms. The atoms which make up the densest rock are mostly empty and the subatomic particles within them are winking into and out of existence as they jump valence shells. Our perception of such "solid" objects is only the brain's interpretation of the electrical and biochemical signals it is receiving via our five senses. So solid objects, or our perception of them as solid, is an illusory interpretation of varying frequencies by our DNA and brain.

Yes

It has become increasingly evident that the energy that powers the universe, which some call the unified or zero point field and others call God, is consciousness. It is this consciousness projected through the interference pattern of energy waves that gives rise to us, all that we perceive and that which we do not. It can therefore be said that we are all a manifestation of the consciousness from which the universe arises. This consciousness is who we are, what we are and it is also where we are. Like all energy consciousness is never gained or lost it simply changes form. When you tap into the part of yourself that is infinite consciousness you see the physical form is just the receiver. The real you is a mote of infinite consciousness.

Yes

We are not alone, many are coming around to this way of thinking.

Brother could you please say something I disagree with:-). We must be able to diagree over something?

I don't like to agree with people all the time; I tend to think I am losing my capacity for critical thinking.

Have you considered by Anarchist politics, my hatred for the god of the Christians and my genocidal tendencies?

Love and Light to you.

Lux

flyermay

23-04-2009, 01:27 PM

I’m just astonished of what I just read in yesterday’s posts. It is amazing how you people use science as a irrefutable prove when it’s convenient for your cause (and fits your believes), and when not, you simply disregard scientists as a bunch of idiots who can’t find their own tails.

And don’t take this personally; I still think you are great guy. But, how can you argue about photons, holographic universes, quantum physics, and so on and so forth, and end up saying that: “shamans are the ones who really understand reality, while scientist just try to make calculations”? What about all you said about science when I was talking about “faith”? Shouldn’t you have started from those premises and use the shamanic believes over science? We would have reached this point quite a long time ago!!!

Scientists do know exactly what those calculations mean and imply, but they are “lost in translation”. Now, everyone is picking up little pieces from those scientists’ translations; fitting them together in their personal puzzle, and shouting: “I know what it’s all about!!!” Really, I envy you all; I wish it could be all so easy for me… But if I tell you the truth, at least scientists are humble enough to say: “this is what I know, the rest is just speculation”.

Now:
The holographic universe as a proof for the existence of the divine

So what if we receive all the information from our universe through our 5 senses as electrical impulses?

We know that for a fact many decades ago; and we can even create devices that detect and measure the same reality as well (or better) as we do.

So what if subatomic particles are in a quantum flux until something interferes in their path?

It’s just how the subatomic world is, that’s all (though difficult for us to believe –Einstein didn’t, for example-). It is a wrong assumption thinking that consciousness has anything to do with all this. It is not consciousness that stop a subatomic particle from behaving like a wave, it is any particle (conscious or not); like the particles that form the photographic plate at the end of two slits… this is what stops the interference patter, not our mind. Really, I looked at many experiments in this same line, and none of them ever used consciousness to stop any photon (nor I think they would be able to, by the way).

So what if atoms are no more than empty space?

The repulsion between subatomic particles is what makes them solid to us (the electrons on the atoms of our feet repel the electrons on the atoms of the floor with far more strength than the force of gravity –for example-; it’s called the electromagnetic force between two equal poles, by the way); light is reflected on those subatomic particles, reaching our retina and giving us the idea of solid matter; vibrations in the atmosphere that surrounds us are picked up by our eardrum and allow us to hear; molecules dissolved in our tongue and nose give us the senses of taste and smell. But what does that have to do with the existence of a holographic emitter or just one source for the entire universe?

And what if we cannot ever reach to understand everything in the universe? That doesn’t mean that God exists… as much, it would simply mean that we are not able to understand God (which is agnosticism).

And you can believe whatever you like: I have absolutely no problem with that. Just think that you all believed in God before hearing about any of these stuff, so you are just fitting it into your believes. But that doesn’t prove the existence of God, it just means that it doesn't disprove you believe (which is quite different).

tattooverb

23-04-2009, 03:47 PM

I’m just astonished of what I just read in yesterday’s posts. It is amazing how you people use science as a irrefutable prove when it’s convenient for your cause (and fits your believes), and when not, you simply disregard scientists as a bunch of idiots who can’t find their own tails.

And don’t take this personally; I still think you are great guy. But, how can you argue about photons, holographic universes, quantum physics, and so on and so forth, and end up saying that: “shamans are the ones who really understand reality, while scientist just try to make calculations”? What about all you said about science when I was talking about “faith”? Shouldn’t you have started from those premises and use the shamanic believes over science? We would have reached this point quite a long time ago!!!

Scientists do know exactly what those calculations mean and imply, but they are “lost in translation”. Now, everyone is picking up little pieces from those scientists’ translations; fitting them together in their personal puzzle, and shouting: “I know what it’s all about!!!” Really, I envy you all; I wish it could be all so easy for me… But if I tell you the truth, at least scientists are humble enough to say: “this is what I know, the rest is just speculation”.

Now:
The holographic universe as a proof for the existence of the divine

So what if we receive all the information from our universe through our 5 senses as electrical impulses?

We know that for a fact many decades ago; and we can even create devices that detect and measure the same reality as well (or better) as we do.

So what if subatomic particles are in a quantum flux until something interferes in their path?

It’s just how the subatomic world is, that’s all (though difficult for us to believe –Einstein didn’t, for example-). It is a wrong assumption thinking that consciousness has anything to do with all this. It is not consciousness that stop a subatomic particle from behaving like a wave, it is any particle (conscious or not); like the particle that from the photographic plate at the end of two slits… this is what stops the interference patter, not our mind. Really, I looked at many experiments in this same line, and none of them ever used consciousness to stop any photon (nor I think they would be able to, by the way).

So what if atoms are no more than empty space?

The repulsion between subatomic particles is what makes them solid to us (the electrons on the atoms of our feet repel the electrons on the atoms of the floor with far more strength than the force of gravity –for example-; it’s called the electromagnetic force between two equal poles, by the way); light is reflected on those subatomic particles, reaching our retina and giving us the idea of solid matter; vibrations in the atmosphere that surrounds us are picked up by our eardrum and allow us to hear; molecules dissolved in our tongue and nose give us the senses of taste and smell. But what does that have to do with the existence of a holographic emitter or just one source for the entire universe?

And what if we cannot ever reach to understand everything in the universe? That doesn’t mean that God exists… as much, it would simply mean that we are not able to understand God (which is agnosticism).

And you can believe whatever you like: I have absolutely no problem with that. Just think that you all believed in God before hearing about any of these stuff, so you are just fitting it into your believes. But that doesn’t prove the existence of God, it just means that it doesn't disprove you believe (which is quite different).

i never said anything about believing in god
god is defined by most as an all powerful all knowing entity seprate from ourselves to whom we must offer worship
i find this definition of god abhorant and i generally reject the use of the word god in most of my work
this does not mean that i am not willing to listen to others views on god
and as for science this is a bloody awesome thread with regard to physics

tattooverb

23-04-2009, 03:50 PM

Yes tattooverb,

Especiallly people such as yourself who are from Amsterdam.

I have been visiting Amsterdam since my youth and it is probably my favorite city in the world.

Amsterdam is full of old hippies (like myself) smoking weed and taking mushrooms.

Ask any stoned hippy about the nature of the universe and the root of matter and what the photon is made of and without any scientific education they might give you a decent answer, but they will probably ramble in metaphysical language.

Come over here to London and ask the same questions to the Capitalists on alchohol. They will probably consider you to be insane.

Yes, I think only the shamanic types really 'understand' the nature of the cosmos. A scientist will just try to make calculations.

It is as if I tried to describe 'love for a woman' for example and I just measured a woman and weighed her and gave a list of scientific descriptions.

Yes

Yes. The particle somehow knew that it was being observed and changed it's behaviour. Scientists who like to measure things, who are not animists and who consider the 'Mind of God' to be non-existant, are very pissed off about that.

The God of Physics cannot share the secrets of matter with the materialists, because the universe is not made of matter; that is why only the shamans understanf Her universe

Yes. The question raised by scientists on the nature of matter is similar to the question 'How long is love, what is the weight of love, what colour is love?'

If the root of matter is not matter, aksing about the size and weight and colour of the root of matter is like asking the same questions about love or beauty.

That which is metaphysical does not lend itself to empirical observation.

Yes

Yes

We are not alone, many are coming around to this way of thinking.

Brother could you please say something I disagree with:-). We must be able to diagree over something?

I don't like to agree with people all the time; I tend to think I am losing my capacity for critical thinking.

Have you considered by Anarchist politics, my hatred for the god of the Christians and my genocidal tendencies?

Love and Light to you.

Lux

lol
well if you are ever in amsterdam we can get together for a "coffee" and see if we can find things to disagree about

tattooverb

23-04-2009, 03:51 PM

That's a very interesting post, thanks for that tattooverb.

my pleasure i am enjoying this thread

flyermay

23-04-2009, 04:02 PM

i never said anything about believing in god
god is defined by most as an all powerful all knowing entity seprate from ourselves to whom we must offer worship
i find this definition of god abhorant and i generally reject the use of the word god in most of my work
this does not mean that i am not willing to listen to others views on god
and as for science this is a bloody awesome thread with regard to physics
Well... I can't discuss any of those arguments, can I? :)

But most believers now think that the whole concept of quantum physics and the holographic universe are the final proof for a divine existence/intervention. And I'm willing to accept it; if that's the case (and would even love to do so). But first I need to know what is in quantum physics or the holographic universe that makes the existence of God so evident (apart from not denying it).

By the way, in my opinion, the only reason for this thread being good or interesting is simply because dozens of brilliant men dedicated their entire lives to the altruistic study of science.

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 04:25 PM

Well... I can't discuss any of those arguments, can I? :)

But most believers now think that the whole concept of quantum physics and the holographic universe are the final proof for a divine existence/intervention. And I'm willing to accept it; if that's the case (and would even love to do so). But first I need to know what is in quantum physics or the holographic universe that makes the existence of God so evident (apart from not denying it).

.

'there is no god but man (and woman)'

I think that you may misunderstand me flyermay. I am a deist and an animist; that has nothing to with the white bearded old guy in the sky or with worshipping Jesus or some transcendent (above us) fascist deity.

The image of the Deistic Creator (the One Mother) is you and I; there is no 'God' to pray to or worship; we can only worship each other and communicate with each other; the animistic and deistic Creator is an 'immanent (within)' life spirit; however I am not speaking scientifically about facts of the 5 senses world, but of my subject interpretation of reality; that which I 'believe.'

.
By the way, in my opinion, the only reason for this thread being good or interesting is simply because dozens of brilliant men dedicated their entire lives to the altruistic study of science.

Many of those scientists are atheists and atheism is a philosophy and a belief system, not a branch of science. Similarly many scientists consider the universe to be a product not of chance but of a Grand Design; similarly this is not a scientific view but an interpretation of reality.

To restate, this thread perhaps would be better subtitled as 'On Physics and Metaphysics' or 'Philosophy of Science;' if we just wish to discuss scientific 'facts' we could do so on numerous scientific forums, as I have done in the past.

The human mind is an observer; it is philosophical; it seeks to interpret reality; we ask 'why are we here?' and 'what is life's purpose' and 'what is love?' and 'what is beauty?' and 'Am I a Creation or a random mutation?' and so forth, and these are non-scientific questions.

With regards to science offering some kind of proof of God, this is entirely incorrect; it is impossible to show empirical evidence of the non-empirical; in order to empirically 'prove' the existence of 'love' I would have to offer a scientific forumula which takes account of it's weight and volume and the speed at which it travels and so forth, but this is not possible, but if I speak of love you all have an understanding that this is part of the reality of our consciousness never the less.

Similarly if I were to offer scientific empirical proof of 'God' I would have to desribe her weight, her volume, etc., and this is beyond the scope of science, but neither can science show empirical proof of Her non-existence.

Thus we separate physics and metaphysics, love and light.

To say that I am in agreement with our Amsterdamian friend is not a scientific statement, it is an agreement over a common subjective 'interpretation' of our seemingly holographic reality.

LL

Lux

watson_k

23-04-2009, 05:40 PM

From my reading of the 'Holographic principle', or Holographic Universe, isn't this based on the theory of Black Holes?

Now the most dominant factor of the Black hole theory is that it is based around there actually being black holes, since without them gravitational equations fail to account for the observed movement and compact energetic activity.

The requirement for black holes arises from Einstein's General theory of Relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects.

Since gravity is a near infinitely weak force, almost infinite amounts of mass are required. According to theories the hopes that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, collapses under its own gravity to a single point, where not even light can escape. This conveniently accounts for the fact that these black holes cannot be observed. These infinite forces require finite limit so they don't swallow everything, these relative boundaries are called Event Horizons.

So um, what are the basis of Holographic Universe in fact and not assumption?

flyermay

23-04-2009, 06:39 PM

'there is no god but man (and woman)'

There we start with a good foot again: I use to say that since I was 12 years old (though with not much success; after all, what does a 12 year old know about anything). However, I think my interpretation of that phrase is completely different from yours.

I think that you may misunderstand me flyermay. I am a deist and an animist; that has nothing to with the white bearded old guy in the sky or with worshipping Jesus or some transcendent (above us) fascist deity.

I didn’t mean God as referring to any particular believe, but to all in general. The whole concept of “creation”, “universal architecture” and “superior consciousness” is what I refer to God; independently of how people interpret or worship this God.

The image of the Deistic Creator (the One Mother) is you and I; there is no 'God' to pray to or worship; we can only worship each other and communicate with each other; the animistic and deistic Creator is an 'immanent (within)' life spirit; however I am not speaking scientifically about facts of the 5 senses world, but of my subject interpretation of reality; that which I 'believe.'

But there must be one reason (or many) that make you believe that is the case? I mean, you come across as being overeducated and too intelligent just have “faith”. If you were to convince me that this is the case: which one reason would you put forward?

Many of those scientists are atheists and atheism is a philosophy and a belief system, not a branch of science. Similarly many scientists consider the universe to be a product not of chance but of a Grand Design; similarly this is not a scientific view but an interpretation of reality.

Well, that’s a partial truth. For example, the scientist that I most admire… no, not him; in my opinion Einstein was just lucky (but also religious, for that matter)… Newton was devoted to God, and as many of today scientists, thought of science as: “understanding the mind of God”.

Nevertheless, I know exactly what you mean. It seems amazing that all those variables, natural laws and conditions met together just to allow this universe and life as we know it. It is true that if you take all those variables into account, you would have a 0 followed by a huge lot of decimals as the possibility for all that happening. But if you believe in the idea proposed by “string theory”, that there are an infinite number of universes, all of the with variations of our natural laws and variables, then the whole concept of “chance” gets a new meaning. You could say that all universes supposedly failed but ours, reasons why we are able to even think about “design” in the first place (they wouldn't in many parallel universes, as life would be impossible).

To restate, this thread perhaps would be better subtitled as 'On Physics and Metaphysics' or 'Philosophy of Science;' if we just wish to discuss scientific 'facts' we could do so on numerous scientific forums, as I have done in the past.

I don’t have any problem discussing the matter on any grounds; I’m here to learn and try to understand (not only in this forum but also in life), and as long as we can exchange our ideas and believes it is fine with me. I don’t know about what the other people reading this thread have to say; but they are more than welcome to express their opinion and ideas.

The human mind is an observer; it is philosophical; it seeks to interpret reality; we ask 'why are we here?' and 'what is life's purpose' and 'what is love?' and 'what is beauty?' and 'Am I a Creation or a random mutation?' and so forth, and these are non-scientific questions.

But, don’t you agree that science can give an answer to all of those questions? For example, “love”: can’t we explain love as a biochemical reaction to a thought, object/person or external stimuli? Can’t we produce love and hate artificially (love/hate being the opposite poles of the same feeling)?

Well… no need to mention my position on the “creation/random mutation” question… we could just open a new thread for that and go on for months… (:) no need though, I have no particular not interested in discussing that subject).

With regards to science offering some kind of proof of God, this is entirely incorrect; it is impossible to show empirical evidence of the non-empirical; in order to empirically 'prove' the existence of 'love' I would have to offer a scientific forumula which takes account of it's weight and volume and the speed at which it travels and so forth, but this is not possible, but if I speak of love you all have an understanding that this is part of the reality of our consciousness never the less.

Similarly if I were to offer scientific empirical proof of 'God' I would have to desribe her weight, her volume, etc., and this is beyond the scope of science, but neither can science show empirical proof of Her non-existence.

But then, if you don’t have an empirical proof of God, nor even think it is possible to obtain one; shouldn’t you be “agnostic”? Just asking…

Another think… and out of interest… you refer to God as “her”, isn’t that a definite and objective attribute?

Thus we separate physics and metaphysics, love and light.

Maybe that’s my main problem: for these matters I see no difference between the physical and the metaphysical worlds; both need to be subjected to the same principles for me to understand or believe in them (regardless of my will to believe).

To say that I am in agreement with our Amsterdamian friend is not a scientific statement, it is an agreement over a common subjective 'interpretation' of our seemingly holographic reality.

Well come to the discussion, I also love Amsterdam as well as Lucifer (though I was born in Rotterdam). Hope with both of you agreeing, it will be easier for me to see the light at the end of the tunnel ;).

By the way, my previous post was directed to Lucifer. This is the only part I have a problem with your post:

It has become increasingly evident that the energy that powers the universe, which some call the unified or zero point field and others call God, is consciousness. It is this consciousness projected through the interference pattern of energy waves that gives rise to us, all that we perceive and that which we do not. It can therefore be said that we are all a manifestation of the consciousness from which the universe arises. This consciousness is who we are, what we are and it is also where we are. Like all energy consciousness is never gained or lost it simply changes form. When you tap into the part of yourself that is infinite consciousness you see the physical form is just the receiver. The real you is a mote of infinite consciousness.

Could you explain a bit more which evidences point towards the energy that powers the universe being consciousness? I can’t think of such evidences, though it is an idea worth understand before arguing about it.

I do agree that we are a manifestation of consciousness (our consciousness), but from there to say that all the universe is also a projection of such consciousness is another matter. But, please, could you elaborate this concept a bit further?

Again, my goal is to understand those claims, rather than just arguing for the pleasure of arguing (which I admit: I love it since a little child :rolleyes:)…

flyermay

23-04-2009, 06:55 PM

From my reading of the 'Holographic principle', or Holographic Universe, isn't this based on the theory of Black Holes?

As far as I know, it has nothing to do with black holes.

Now the most dominant factor of the Black hole theory is that it is based around there actually being black holes, since without them gravitational equations fail to account for the observed movement and compact energetic activity.

The requirement for black holes arises from Einstein's General theory of Relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects.

Since gravity is a near infinitely weak force, almost infinite amounts of mass are required. According to theories the hopes that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, collapses under its own gravity to a single point, where not even light can escape. This conveniently accounts for the fact that these black holes cannot be observed. These infinite forces require finite limit so they don't swallow everything, these relative boundaries are called Event Horizons.

So um, what are the basis of Holographic Universe in fact and not assumption?

It is true that gravity is thousands of time weaker than any of the other 4 forces of the universe. But for example, the gravity we feel is generated by a massive object (the earth). Now imagine an object millions of times bigger than the earth: theoretically, its gravitational pull would be strong enough to attract light itself.

This theory was developed in the trenches during WWI, but was always disregarded as non-sense, as scientists didn’t believe light’s path couldn’t be disrupted by gravity.

However, Einstein predicted that was possible, and a few decades ago, a famous experiment during an eclipse, proved that light does actually change its trajectory when it passes near massive celestial objects (like the sun). This experiment also proved the theory of black holes as perfectly possible.

As of now, it is believed that most galaxies have a massive black hole at their centre, which devours everything that reaches their event horizon (point of no return), even light.

About the holographic universe, tattooverb has described it really well.

watson_k

23-04-2009, 06:59 PM

As far as I know, it has nothing to do with black holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity theories which resolves the black hole information paradox within string theory. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind.[1][2][3]

The principle states that the description of a volume of space should be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region, preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. For a black hole, the principle states that the description of all the objects which will ever fall in is entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, so that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at low energies. Cosmological holography has not yet been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.

flyermay

23-04-2009, 07:05 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Oh, yes, I heard Hawkings once talk about the paradox of the information that goes into a black hole, but I think that refers to a differnt thing. Maybe I'm wrong???

Thanks to point it out, I think I have a documentary about it somewhere, let me see if I can find it.

In the meantime, please have a look at these ones pointed by Lucifer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 07:08 PM

So um, what are the basis of Holographic Universe in fact and not assumption?

On the Matrix and the Great Work of the Ages

Information in the Holographic Universe

Theoretical results about black holes suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram

Scientific American August 2003

An astonishing theory called the holographic principle holds that the universe is like a hologram: just as a trick of light allows a fully three-dimensional image to be recorded on a flat piece of film, our seemingly three-dimensional universe could be completely equivalent to alternative quantum fields and physical laws "painted" on a distant, vast surface.

The physics of black holes--immensely dense concentrations of mass--provides a hint that the principle might be true. Studies of black holes show that, although it defies common sense, the maximum entropy or information content of any region of space is defined not by its volume but by its surface area.

Physicists hope that this surprising finding is a clue to the ultimate theory of reality.

Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy."

Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient

From:

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

The articles on the page hyperlinked above are simply too big for me to copy and paste here, so might I suggest you familiarise yourself with the article above.

The Program

Essentially to some scientists the universe is just an accident and we are accidental mutations of matter; however the holographic view is one where the universe is a program which contains not only what we perceive with our STTSH (See Taste Touch Hear Smell) sensory receptors, but also information, much like a digital television or a computer, and this is all linked to human consciousness of course.

When we look at an image on our computer screen, we know this is not an accident; the computer has been programmed and designed to function this way; it is not just an accidental organisation of matter; there is hardware and software; similarly in the universe there is not only hardware (matter) but also 'software (information);' but we are unable to 'see, touch, taste, smell or hear' the sofware (the program), just as we do not 'see' computer software, but only the effect caused by the software. If a materialist demanded 'I want to see this software; I want to touch it, hear it, taste it and smell it before I can be certain of it's existence, then the materialist is demanding an impossible proof, since we cannot see (or STTSH) what occurs in our computer's RAM; we only see and hear the effects of it.

The problem here is that the materialists demand some STTSH evidence of the existence of the universe's 'program,' but I would argue that this is beyond the limits of STTSH sensory perception, but not beyoind the limits of our intelligence to understand that it is a program; just as when you listen to music you cannot define it only in scientific terms (i.e., it is in the key of C, it is X decibels loud, etc) or in terms of 'noise,' or wavelength. It is as if a materialist argued 'that a piece of muisc by an anonymous composer may have occurred by accident and asked for 'proof' that it is the product of creative design, intelligence or programming and not merely a product of accident.

The Matrix is Locked; It is not Open Source.

At the heart of our Matrix is a program, but it is not like Linux (open source), it is like Microsoft (we cannot change the program since the designer has locked it); we only perceive the effects of this program, and attempts to interfere with the program thankfully meet with resistance which is why the quantum world refuses to reveal certain secrets.

If a child tried to reprogramm Linux (the Anarchist verion of Microsoft), they would probably mess it up and destroy the program, but a good programmer can improve it; but they cannot reprogram Microsoft without a certain secret key; you either take it or leave it; howoever there are many things you can do with it; it is very useful (not that I am a fan of Capitalist corporations).

Some physicists want to find the secret key to reprogramming our Matrix, but it is hidden for a reason, for some human beings are destructive and would be the destoyer of all worlds like a child reprogramming Linux.

War of the Worlds

In the fictional Hollywood film, the Matrix, the programmers are evil.

In this universe the programmer of love and light is not evil; but Her creation has become evil.

She will not allow Her creations (Her children) to change the program; there are limits to science.

That is the 'Mind of the Programmer' as I understand Her, however I am referring to Einstien's 'God of Physics' and to the immanent God of the deists and animists; this has nothing to do with an object of idolatry or worship or with Christianity or any organised religion.

Our destructiveness is limited to nuking each other on earth, poisoning the waters, starving and torturing Her sacred children, etc., but such evil is thankfully contained to our tiny part of the universe and will in time be eradicated from Eden by the power of human will; no supernatural or miraculous means need be awaited; unfortunately apocalyptic war games will be required to rid the world of the Capitalist vermin who are fucking up this world.

I am here for Armageddon, political re-programming and the Final Holocaust; the eradication of the Capitalists and the priesthood and tryants and so forth; that is my duty and mission.

I am as fascinated by the 'program' as anyone, but it is not just an academic and philosophical matter; for I am an Anarchist and a Communist and ultimately as far as I am concerned 'Physics is War' and the means by which Capitalism shall be brutally swept off the face of Eden.

Rivers of blood shall flow.

LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Fire, plague and poisoned waters.
No Mercy.

watson_k

23-04-2009, 07:14 PM

Oh, yes, I heard Hawkings once talk about the paradox of the information that goes into a black hole, but I think that refers to a differnt thing. Maybe I'm wrong???

Thanks to point it out, I think I have a documentary about it somewhere, let me see if I can find it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249192.stm
He claimed to have solved the information paradox. But to the surprise of many in the audience, he was not at the conference to defend his long-held belief that information was lost in black holes. Instead, he was there to say he could now prove the opposite.

Hawking presented the outline of a proof that he hoped would at last solve the problem that he had posed almost 30 years earlier. However, despite the bold claims, some physicists remain unconvinced.

Over a year has passed since the conference and Hawking has still not presented a fully worked mathematical proof to back up his ideas.

But Hawking is a stubborn man. If he is going to change his mind on a belief he held for almost 30 years then it will be with his own proof, in his own time.

In spite of failing health and increasing problems communicating with his colleagues, Hawking is still working on the proof.

If he succeeds in completing a proof that convinces his colleagues, he will not only have solved one of the most difficult problems in physics but he will have produced ground-breaking work at the very end of his career.

That would be a feat that even his hero Einstein could not accomplish.

Horizon: The Hawking Paradox was broadcast on BBC Two at 2100 BST on Thursday, 15 September.

I'll look at those links now

watson_k

23-04-2009, 07:18 PM

The Matrix is Locked; It is not Open Source.

At the heart of our Matrix is a program, but it is not like Linux (open source), it is like Microsoft (we cannot change the program since the designer has locked it); we only perceive the effects of this program, and attempts to interfere with the program thankfully meet with resistance which is why the quantum world refuses to reveal certain secrets.

Would that be proof of Intelligence that is outside of our current comprehension?

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 07:34 PM

Would that be proof of Intelligence that is outside of our current comprehension?

To our subjective minds you and I may call it a proof, but it is not an objective (STTSH) sensory proof which a materialist will accept; it is to do with how our intelligence interprets reality and that is just an interpretation of STTSH phenomenon; a materialist will interpret this differently and argue that that there is no program, since this requires a progammer; an argument which their intelligence cannot accept

There are many differnet types of intelligence; a person may be a great musician or artist, but they may not be able to count or spell (Einstein was dyslexic for example); a person may have great Left brain skills (the logical rational) but in their Right brain (the emotive, creative, spiritual) they may be lacking.

I look at Creation and my intelligence tells me that it has been designed by a Grand Architect and programmer; others just see ramdom lumps of matter and the product of accident and chance; it is an interpretation of reality limited by certain types of intelligence.

LL

Lux

flyermay

23-04-2009, 07:40 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249192.stm

I'll look at those links now

Look, the documentary I saw years ago, is the one at the end of the article you posted:

Horizon: Hawking Paradox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnjTI_3-nYg)

flyermay

23-04-2009, 07:45 PM

To our subjective minds you and I may call it a proof, but it is not an objective (STTSH) sensory proof which a materialist will accept; it is to do with how our intelligence interprets reality and that is just an interpretation of STTSH phenomenon; a materialist will interpret this differently and argue that that there is no program, since this requires a progammer; an argument which their intelligence cannot accept

I can't talk on behalf of other people, but in my case, it has nothing to do with being willing to accept it or not, is just has to do with having a basis for accepting it.

For example: I'm willing to accept it, but I don't see any reasonable cause to do so.

tracker

23-04-2009, 07:52 PM

wow this kind of relates to the idea of schematics and symbols and signs and why they use them .

the pentagon , a 5 sided geometric shape or the 5 pointed star .

the pentagon , like a curcuit diagram shows man with 5 senses

as a robot yes !

but if man was drawn out in full senses he would be drawn out like a hexagon or a 6 pointed star .

why

we have feelings too .

a pentagon is a person with no feelings , basicly its a robot .

a hexagon shows the basic human being .

because our ego/ subconscious/ r-factor - reptilian brain speeks in symbols and signs

it comes to no wonder why America uses the pentagon in its illuminate languages .

hhhm , something tells me im near some truth here , subliminal messages to the subconscious .:cool:

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 08:00 PM

wow this kind of relates to the idea of schematics and symbols and signs and why they use them .

the pentagon , a 5 sided geometric shape or the 5 pointed star .

the pentagon , like a curcuit diagram shows man with 5 senses

as a robot yes !

:

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/pentagram666.jpg

The traditional esoteric interpretation is that the Pentaqram represents the five elements, one of which is 'spirit (consciousness),' not the 5 senses.

:
but if man was drawn out in full senses he would be drawn out like a hexagon or a 6 pointed star .

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/ThreePillars.jpg
Above: Left: female. Middle: Unification. Right: Male.

Traditionaly the Hex (6) represented by two interlocking triangles represents the union of male and female energies (see my essay on The Kabbalah simplified), and 6 in the tree of life in the tree is 'heart' or 'love' in the column of unification, 6 in the Tarot is 'The Lovers;'

Also the 8 (the scales, libra, the balancing of two, in the tarot) has be used to represent this and also the 10 (two pentagrams, one inversed); 10 in the tree being the 'manifestation of heaven on earth' or fulfillment, completion and 'kingdom,' and the alchemical marraige; the union of spirit, earth, fire, air and water between two lovers; the final destination of the Tree and the manifestation of Kether on earth; spirit becoming materialised in the divine image of male and female.

http://www.lightparty.com/Artainment/images/LoversKey.jpeg

There is nothing evil in the estoeric meanings attached to sacred geometry; a judge is rarely ever interested in what people believe but in how they behave; the various Masonic cults and cultists, for example can be better understood by studying how they behave in Capitalism and their commitment to militant apocalyptic world Capitalist revolution; their 'beliefs,' rituals and the meanings they attach to sacred geometry is a separate issue to the evil they commit in the world and the general effect of their loan sharks, arm's manufacturers, militarists and so forth.

LL

Lux

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:08 PM

The traditional esoteric interpretation is that the Pentaqram represents the five elements, one of which is 'spirit (consciousness),' not the 5 senses.

:

Traditionaly the Hex (6) represented by two interlocking triangles represents the union of male and female energies (see my essay on The Kabbalah simplified).

LL

Lux

i fully agree with you and mine , why

because einsteins theory is relative , it uses maths which is a logic language , it is universal

but symbols and signs are MULTI DIMENSIONAL , whilst they stay the same shape , they can , in different concepts , mean different things whilst holding the same shape , unlike maths .

the hexigon is also the prison matrix .

allow me if you will .

1 times 6 ) = the amount of ways inwhich our minds communicate to our body .
sight
hearing
touch
smell
taist
feelings ( through the heart )

2 times 6 ) = the amount of ways inwhich our bodies interact with the etha .

3 times 6 ) we need
"X" references = 2
"Y" references = 2
and "z" references = 2

= 6

IE we need 6 points in space time to know our position in 3 dimensional space time .

6 mind to body
6 body to etha
6 points of references to know point of relativity in space time .

IE 666.

and no man can exist unless he has the number of the beast , for it is a mans number and will be ( marked ) on the forehead or the wrist .man cannot live with out the number of the beast , for its number is 666.

what do you think ?

different point of view ?

or something very credible not often thought about ?:cool:

we are the beast and we create the same shape prison with our thoughts .

flyermay

23-04-2009, 08:17 PM

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:23 PM

again let me enlighten you on true dimensional logic.

we dont live in a 3 dimensional universe which is why if we accept that we do that we will never create star drives and worm holes etc , and they know it .( yes i said "THEM" the "THEY" the "THEM" )

some people assume that a 4dimensional hyper cube has 8 sides .

total bullshit .

their reasoning is this .

a line can be said to be one dimension .
it has two sides .
if i push it towards you , it now has 4 sides
if i now slide it up or down it now has 6 sides

thuse we have a cube

thus 2/4/6 and the next number will be ? yes every one says and reasons with the number 8 .

but wait a minute , in 4 dimensional space , time does not exist , and in the 3 dimensional universe time is linear , IE foward ( in theory it goes backwards too ) but fact has it , time is linear

linear time does not exist in the 4th dimension as if we were in the 4th dimension we could be in all places at the same time

there fore linear times does not exist in the 4th dimension .

so why do the numbers of a hyper cube go up in linear numbers IE 2/4/6/8 ?

it cant !

a hyoer cube would be a cube surrounded by a sphere

why ?

because if you touched the outside of that sphere , the inside of that sphere would be touching all sides of a 3 dimensional 6 sided cube tat the same times , thus at one point in the 4th dimension ( represented bya sphere ) you are at all points in 3 diensional space time ( represented by the cube on the inside )

thus 2/4/5.

why 5

because the extra 1 point ( being in the 4th dimension ) is relative to all points in the 3rd .

thus

numbers do not count when calculating multi dimensional theories . one has to use symbols and signs .:cool:

flyermay

23-04-2009, 08:23 PM

http://www.lightparty.com/Artainment/images/LoversKey.jpeg

Can I just make an observation about this picuture? If you look at the top representation of both male and female together. Can't you see her holding a square, and him a compass?

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:24 PM

Out of the subject of this thread; I've been thinking about the whole idea of 5 senses since I studied it as school, and I always thought we do have more than 5 senses. For example, I have the sense of equilibrioum; I know if I'm upside down, downside up, sideways and so on...

I also feel like... well, when I have to go to the toilet... you know, I just sense it ;)

Any more senses that you could think of????

we are talking about symbols and signs . the relative meaning of them .

i think .:rolleyes:

im not sure now .

the illuminate language etc .

the luciferian language IE angel of light IE knowledge ,

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:26 PM

flyermay

23-04-2009, 08:26 PM

we are talking about symbols and signs . the relative meaning of them .

i think .:rolleyes:

im not sure now .

the illuminate language etc .

the luciferian language IE angel of light IE knowledge ,

Oh, sorry, go on...

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:33 PM

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/pentagram666.jpg

The traditional esoteric interpretation is that the Pentaqram represents the five elements, one of which is 'spirit (consciousness),' not the 5 senses.

:

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/ThreePillars.jpg
Above: Left: female. Middle: Unification. Right: Male.

Traditionaly the Hex (6) represented by two interlocking triangles represents the union of male and female energies (see my essay on The Kabbalah simplified).

http://www.lightparty.com/Artainment/images/LoversKey.jpeg

LL

Lux

another reason why the 2 interlocking triangles are used is to represent not just the prison matrix , but 2 times 2dimensional triangles .

the strongest shape ever to exist .

mind
body
soul.

allow me if you will.

if you draw a square , or an oblong , or a hexigon or a pentagon or an octagon , you cans squash them , and the shape may change but if the sides stay connected they will cover the same area but appear as a diferent shape .
IE one could squash a square and make it look lop sided like a parrallelagram , but the saides stay the same lengths .

you cant do that to a triangle .

try to move one side and it wont work unless another grows or shortens thus the triangle is a 2 dimensional concept of the strongest shape in the univers

other than a pyramid or the other shape that has only 3 sides but is 3 dimensional .

the concept is the same .

2 triangles

man and woman
mind
body
soul

in interlocked in Duality !

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:36 PM

Oh, sorry, go on...

try and read what i have written .

I am saying that the lucifarian language of symbols and signs is multi dimensional and not fixed like maths .

this language can mean many things in different concepts .

maths is fixed , but symbols and signs are not .

that way

they can mean what I say AND what the thread creator says .

thats the danger of the duality lucifarian language .

you read one line , and you get this
read it again and you get something else .

a true way to exploit a language to the most high .

unlike the written word or maths ,;)

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 08:41 PM

Out of the subject of this thread;

Yes my apologies flyermay; we had a rather interesting discussion on quantum physics etc.

The Kabbalah relates to metaphysics (an interpretation of reality), not physics and I have an entire thread on that.

I'll get back to the quantum and the program later; I have some things to do.

LL

Lux

miracles

23-04-2009, 08:43 PM

Where did Lucifer come from?

You say you dont despise Righteous Christians, well thats nice of you. Yet on another thread you state THE GREAT WORK is to rid the world of Christians and Christianity. I know that people who use that term THE GREAT WORK are satanists to the core, and the goal is not to convert, but to destroy AKA kill all Christians.

Also we live in a four dimensional universe - Height, Width, Length, and Time. Time exists only in the earthly dimension of height length and width. We are only given a certain amount of "time" to come to our senses in this valley of decision, to become awakened through the reality of Jesus Christ.

Our creator lives outside of time and has no beginning and no end. The human intellect can not fathom this concept, it would like an ant saying "who created man?"

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 08:51 PM

thats the danger of the duality lucifarian language .

Linquistics is one of my speciality subjects, but I really don't want to go off track here.

See my thread on Capitalist Jesus and the doublespeak that Christians use when they claim to represent an Israeli anti-Capitalist martyr, for example.

Double-speak is the langauge of Christendom; they 'mean' exactly the opposite of what they say, 'good is evil,' love is hate,' 'freedom is restriction,' 'salvation is slavery,' etc

Words are the weapons of Mass hypnosis. Careful how you use them. the The study of 'Meaning' and behaviour is more important than the 'words' used.

By 'theory of everything' I don't mean lingustics, the kabbalah, and how to fix a washing machine; I am speaking of the Unified Theory physics.

We are having a discussion here on physics / the quantum world / the holographic universe / the Grand Design.

LL

Lux

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:54 PM

Yes my apologies flyermay; we had a rather interesting discussion on quantum physics etc.

The Kabbalah relates to metaphysics (an interpretation of reality), not physics and I have an entire thread on that.

I'll get back to the quantum and the program later; I have some things to do.

LL

Lux

on the contrary ,the 666 equasion is a point in space time to RELATIVITY , thus it is a curcuit diagram of reality .

it is practicly on the same tracks as the kabbalah , and even if im not mistaken , if you do think its to do with physics
it tends to back up your theory

somewhere some how

meees thinks

awwwwwwww :confused:

just when i thought i was going to get a chat .:o

tracker

23-04-2009, 08:57 PM

Linquistics is one of my speciality subjects, but I really don't want to go off track here.

See my thread on Capitalist Jesus and the doublespeak that Christians use when they claim to represent an Israeli anti-Capitalist martyr, for example.

Double-speak is the langauge of Christendom; they 'mean' exactly the opposite of what they say, 'good is evil,' love is hate,' 'freedom is restriction,' 'salvation is slavery,' etc

Words are the weapons of Mass hypnosis. Careful how you use them. the The study of 'Meaning' and behaviour is more important than the 'words' used.

By 'theory of everything' I don't mean lingustics, the kabbalah, and how to fix a washing machine; I am speaking of the Unified Theory physics.

We are having a discussion here on physics / the quantum world / the holographic universe / the Grand Design.

LL

Lux

wow , thats what i said , sorry didnt want to trash your thread and promise not to bring it up again but this is what i said on another thread about religions .

because religion uses block commands .

I call the negative block commands .

to show your children that you devote your life to an outside enterty is a negative block command to allow them to be introduced to the fact that you dont believe in them and neither are they allowed to believe in them self .

here is one way to show you negative block commands in a pray .

Consciouse says -------------------------------------------subconscious admits

our father who is in heaven----------------------------------I am a slave in a crap hole
Hallowed be thy name---------------------------------------I am nothing
Thy kingdon come ------------------------------------------your kingdom is comming
they will be done --------------------------------------------I do as you ask
On earth as it is in heaven-----------------------------------in mind and body
Give us today our daily bread--------------------------------give us bare minimum inwhich could slowly induce mallneutrition
and forgive us our trespasses--------------------------------I am guilty of something
Aswe forgive those who do against us------------------------treat us like we treat others
and lead us not into temptaion-------------------------------because you usually do
and deliver us from evil-------------------------------------thanks for putting us in that position in the 1st place .
for thyne is the kingdom------------------------------------its your place not ours
the power and the glory----------------------------------we dont deserve any

amen

saying these things to your selfand teaching your self that its right does so much damage !

so there is how religion uses negative block commands so that those who pray to a god that loves the meek and needy

usually have a meek and needy existance and usualy stay that way .

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee , we are not so disimilar lucifihorus.

I always knew it .

thanks to when I was young and my reptilian friends showed me how .

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 08:58 PM

Where did Lucifer come from?

You say you dont despise Righteous Christians, well thats nice of you. Yet on another thread you state THE GREAT WORK is to rid the world of Christians and Christianity.

Oh dear, here we go again.

Yes but do not misinterpret this term 'Righteous Christians;' I am an Anarchist and a Communist; by righteous I refer only to those who are Anarchists and Communists and who are absolutely committed in terms of their beliefs and activism to creating the conditions for armed violent revolution, the complete destructuion and dismantling of the Capitalist system and the total holocaust (genocide) of the Capitalists until the last Capitalist is buried with the last priest and the last tyrant (statist); if you have a problem with that, bear in mind that the Capitalists (Christians) are also genocidal, militant and have been dropping depleted Uranium on Afghani and Iraqi women and children and are also commited to the genocide of all militant enemies.

There are some Christians who are anti-Capitalists; I do not refer to them when I refer to the holocaust of the Christians, since Christianity is a Capitalist religion and their god the god of Capital.

Could we take this up on the Capitalist Jesus thread?

We were having a chat about the Unifed Theory; it is irrelevant to Christianity.

LL

Lux

tracker

23-04-2009, 09:03 PM

Oh dear, here we go again.

Yes but do not misinterpret this term 'Righteous Christians;' I am an Anarchist and a Communist; by rightous I refer only to those who are Anarchists and Communists and who are absolutely committed in terms of their beliefs and activism to creating the conditions for armed violent revolution, the complete destructuion and dismantling of the Capitalist system and the total holocaust (genocide) of the Capitalists until the last Capitalist is buried with the last priest and the last tyrant (statist).

There are some Christians who are anti-Capitalists; I do not refer to them when I refer to the holocaust of the Christians, since Christianity is a Capitalist religion and their god the god of Capital.

Could we take this up on the Capitalist Jesus thread.

We were having a chat about the Unifed Theory; it is irrelevant to Christianity.

LL

Lux

I find the kabballa ( even though I started out when young as a born again christian ) to be spiritually fact and scientificly fact .

even the bible has more parts relating to the Kabballa than christians dare research .
why because they fear they might be a copy , and not a good one at that .
although i do know good christians with good intent .

otherwise , please can you give more info , i have read this stuff and copied it on paper coz its that good .

its the type of thing one likes to read more than once .

it is in a sense

mind
body
and spirit

fact !

very good stuff .

flyermay

23-04-2009, 09:04 PM

The Kabbalah relates to metaphysics (an interpretation of reality), not physics and I have an entire thread on that.

If I'm honest with you, the only reason I started this discussing with you about this subject is because I was hopping to find some physics background in the metaphysics (which I'm sure there are; maybe not discovered yet). And I thought that no one better than you would be able to help me in this task (as you know about both; unlike me).

I'm not a conventional atheist (as you described them before), I realised that new physics have open many doors, and I'm looking for the one between the methaphisical and physical world (sort of speak).

Whatever you say is more than welcome (even if I contest it)!!! But take your time... I'm still here.

tracker

23-04-2009, 09:07 PM

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 09:40 PM

If I'm honest with you, the only reason I started this discussing with you about this subject is because I was hopping to find some physics background in the metaphysics (which I'm sure there are; maybe not discovered yet). And I thought that no one better than you would be able to help me in this task (as you know about both; unlike me).

I'm not a conventional atheist (as you described them before), I realised that new physics have open many doors, and I'm looking for the one between the methaphisical and physical world (sort of speak).

Whatever you say is more than welcome (even if I contest it)!!! But take your time... I'm still here.

Physics and Metaphysics

If say that the weight of an object is X, if you doubt me, you could devise a test to prove me wrong; my claim is subject to falsification; there is the possibility of being proven wrong.

But if I refer to the Creator as a hermaphrodite, or I say that She is a Lesbian and a Communist this cannot be falsified; you cannot devise a test to prove me wrong; therefore it is not a scientific statement; however this does not mean that it is false, or even true.

Truth.

Some woman may tell you that they love you, but this 'love' is occurring in her subjective consiousness; it may be 'true,' but it is a truth of the subjective inner realm; you cannot use instruments to measure it; similarly it may not be true; she may merely be lonely and desparate for love; it may just be the first flush of lust; she may not even like you personally once she gets to know you, or she may say 'I hate you' when in fact she really loves you.

The Kabbalah is a spiritual / metaphysical interpreation of reality; it is not a method of 'measuring' things; it may contain many truthisms, but if they are true they are not scientific truths but truths in the same way that god is a lesbian is true only if she really is a lesbian.

There are Christians here who believe that Jesus is one of the three gods in the Capitalist Un-Holy Trinity. They have come to believe that by being subjected to hypnosis, for to us they are speaking non-sense; we cannot disprove that there are three Capitalist gods in scientific language because it is non-sense and we only have STTSH senses. God does not lend herself to empirical observation by the 5 senses, but then neither does love or beauty.

My understanding of the Tarot and the Kabbalah has been formed in the same way that others understand the I-Ching by using it, but to a materialist the I-Ching is non-sense; however many find that it is valuable as a guide to their life, but it cannot be explained scientifically.

LL

Lux

watson_k

23-04-2009, 10:40 PM

There are Christians here who believe that Jesus is one of the three gods in the Capitalist Un-Holy Trinity. They have come to believe that by being subjected to hypnosis, for to us they are speaking non-sense; we cannot disprove that there are three Capitalist gods in scientific language because it is non-sense and we only have STTSH senses. God does not lend herself to empirical observation by the 5 senses, but then neither does love or beauty.

What about the 7 psychic senses according to the Hermeticians?

luciferhorus

23-04-2009, 11:22 PM

What about the 7 psychic senses according to the Hermeticians?

I think that would be generally included in the term 'spirit' or consciousness; one could also subdivide the consciousness into numerous categories as psychologists are fond of doing, but these are all descriptions in langauge of a singular consciousness (the person); irrespective of whatever name you substitute for 'spirit.'

LL

Lux

flyermay

23-04-2009, 11:51 PM

Physics and Metaphysics

If say that the weight of an object is X, if you doubt me, you could devise a test to prove me wrong; my claim is subject to falsification; there is the possibility of being proven wrong.

But if I refer to the Creator as a hermaphrodite, or I say that She is a Lesbian and a Communist this cannot be falsified; you cannot devise a test to prove me wrong; therefore it is not a scientific statement; however this does not mean that it is false, or even true.

Truth.

Some woman may tell you that they love you, but this 'love' is occurring in her subjective consiousness; it may be 'true,' but it is a truth of the subjective inner realm; you cannot use instruments to measure it; similarly it may not be true; she may merely be lonely and desparate for love; it may just be the first flush of lust; she may not even like you personally once she gets to know you, or she may say 'I hate you' when in fact she really loves you.

The Kabbalah is a spiritual / metaphysical interpreation of reality; it is not a method of 'measuring' things; it may contain many truthisms, but if they are true they are not scientific truths but truths in the same way that god is a lesbian is true only if she really is a lesbian.

There are Christians here who believe that Jesus is one of the three gods in the Capitalist Un-Holy Trinity. They have come to believe that by being subjected to hypnosis, for to us they are speaking non-sense; we cannot disprove that there are three Capitalist gods in scientific language because it is non-sense and we only have STTSH senses. God does not lend herself to empirical observation by the 5 senses, but then neither does love or beauty.

Many people thoght like that along our history, but the case is that the list of things that humans considered metaphysical kept on shrinking in favour of the list of things considered physical (i.e. the thunder, the storm, the stars, the clouds, sickness, light, conception, love, etc, etc, etc, the list is endless; though all of them left the realm of the methphysical long ago).

Not knowing how to obtain an empirical or theorical explanation for a concept doesn't mean it will neve be done; it just means we don't know how to do it now (as we thought 1000 years ago about common stuff today).

We are now able to measure and/or theorise far beyond our 5 senses; actually we barely use any of those senses anymore for those matters. And our grandchildren will continue to develop more and more tools beyond their sense (science is in its infancy; even if we already have particle accelerators).

The only difference between the physical and the metaphysical is our ability to explain "how". And if by any chance there is something out of our possibilities, the most we can do is be “agnostic” about it.

miracles

24-04-2009, 12:26 AM

Oh dear, here we go again.

Yes but do not misinterpret this term 'Righteous Christians;' I am an Anarchist and a Communist; by righteous I refer only to those who are Anarchists and Communists and who are absolutely committed in terms of their beliefs and activism to creating the conditions for armed violent revolution, the complete destructuion and dismantling of the Capitalist system and the total holocaust (genocide) of the Capitalists until the last Capitalist is buried with the last priest and the last tyrant (statist); if you have a problem with that, bear in mind that the Capitalists (Christians) are also genocidal, militant and have been dropping depleted Uranium on Afghani and Iraqi women and children and are also commited to the genocide of all militant enemies.

There are some Christians who are anti-Capitalists; I do not refer to them when I refer to the holocaust of the Christians, since Christianity is a Capitalist religion and their god the god of Capital.

Could we take this up on the Capitalist Jesus thread?

We were having a chat about the Unifed Theory; it is irrelevant to Christianity.

LL

Lux

Fair enough, I see where your coming from. Wow, you do realise your going to need a few capitalists to fund your war. LOL.

luciferhorus

24-04-2009, 01:51 AM

Fair enough, I see where your coming from. Wow, you do realise your going to need a few capitalist to fund your war. LOL.

Your anti-Capitalist god Jesus lived in a Capitalist / monetarist / propertyist system and yet he did not demand that you burn your money or destroy your property, merely that you sell 'all' that you have and give it to the poor.

Similarly there are millions of Communist who live in Capitalist Europe; they do not burn their money and destroy their property; on the contrary, many sell their labour hours as wage slaves in order to survive and to create the conditions for revolution; many raise funds to publish media propaganda'

Propaganda is the first stage of war.

In Castro's Revolution (Castro was a Lawyer) he had to earn money to publish propaganda and later to buy arms; he had to buy a boat to transport his army to Cuba, etc....you have to be realistic about such matters.

LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

luciferhorus

24-04-2009, 02:02 AM

Many people thoght like that along our history, but the case is that the list of things that humans considered metaphysical kept on shrinking in favour of the list of things considered physical (i.e. the thunder, the storm, the stars, the clouds, sickness, light, conception, love, etc, etc, etc, the list is endless; though all of them left the realm of the methphysical long ago).

Not knowing how to obtain an empirical or theorical explanation for a concept doesn't mean it will neve be done; it just means we don't know how to do it now (as we thought 1000 years ago about common stuff today).

.

I am not suggesting that science has nothing left to discover; on the contrary.

[QUOTE]

A scientific theory is a theory based upon a interpretation of evidence; if it were a fact it would not be a theory.

We cannot examine a particle with our 5 senses, but we can build a particle accellerator; it is still a device which gives information to the senses so we can speak factually about certain things; an accellerator does not provide theories however, but the human mind does based upon evidence.

Metaphysics is quite another matter and by defintion it is Meta (above) Physics. You cannot have a theory of physics about non-physics, just as you cannot weigh love in a scale and describe it's colour or height.

You might say that you are going to be agnostic about love because you cannot experience it with your 5 senses and weigh it in a scale but eventually you might end up lonely and unhappy and decide that it is better to live with the 'experience' of love all around you than without it.

LL

Lux

watson_k

24-04-2009, 02:47 AM

I am not suggesting that science has nothing left to discover; on the contrary.

If the Universe truly is Expanding and Changing all the time, wouldn't Science saying it has nothing left to discover called Horganism I believe, quite arrogant in my opinion, contradict it's self.

luciferhorus

24-04-2009, 05:55 AM

If the Universe truly is Expanding and Changing all the time, wouldn't Science saying it has nothing left to discover called Horganism I believe, quite arrogant in my opinion, contradict it's self.

The Key to the Kingdom and the Defeat of the Dark Lord (Armageddon)

Of course science will develop, but I doubt if anyone will ever crack the hologram's program; I believe it to be locked.

The universe is billion of years old; there are countless billions of solar systems; I think it improbable that there has only even been life on planet earth; in all these billions of years, if anyone had ever cracked the program, they could change and reprogram the hologram and the universe as we know it could cease to exist; but it seems to me that the Grand Architect has a fool-proof lock on Her program; there are limits to the extent of our destructiveness. It is not the kind of information I would share with the American military or indeed anyone anyway.

Physics and Metaphysics

Having said this, there are ways to subjectively experience what is beyond the hologram of our 5 senses dimension and to obtain information from other dimensions; however this is not a scientific method but a totally subjective one which involves the use of shamanic substances and magick; however by 'information' I do not refer to objective scientific knowledge.

Those who have had shamanic experiences often say that it was a great 'learning' experience, but if you ask them what they learned, they always speak subjectively about an inner experience beyond the 5 senses.

What is the Truth?

1: Objective language.

Some women consider all men to be liars.

A man is attempting to seduce a woman by using objective scientific language so that everything he says is absolutely true.

He walks up to her and says 'Your eyes are blue, I notice that you are approximately 5 feet tall; I think it is about 30 degrees today. That music they are playing is approximately X decibels. It is hotter today than yesterday and the sun is brighter today than yesterday.....etc., etc.
He rambles on and on descriptive language which describes the experience of the 5 senses in the world around him. Everything he says is true.

Eventually the woman gets bored and walks away.

Subjective language.

So he switches tactic, and decides to try again using only the subjective language of his inner world of thoughts and feelings.

He runs after the woman and days; 'Oh babe you look so beautiful; I think that an angel dropped you out of heaven; your eyes are like the eyes of Aphrodite; your scent reminds me of some heavely paradise; and on and on..he rambles in purely subjective language.

Of course when speaking in objective scientific language, the woman knows that everything he said was true, but we presuppose our common sensory experience anyway and it is boring to speak of it. Now the woman has no idea if he is speaking the truth; she has to guess; perhaps he just wants to get laid and doesn't mean a word of what he said? But at least he is not boring; at least she is being flattered, she may even feel loved and admired.

We cannot speak in scientific objective terms all the time or we would just bore everyone and we would never get laid. We do not just live in a sensory world but in a realm of feelings, emotions, love, beauty, ideas, thoughts, memories and so forth.

When two lovers are kissing and talking to each other they generally speak in subjective language. That is because in addition to our holographic external reality we are also inner subjective beings.

Truth.

This is not a physics forum; it is the David Icke forum. Most people here are 'seekers' of the truth, who seek to unpack the mysteries of our world and the universe, with the possible exception of the Christians, since they believe that have already found the truth.

There are physcial and metaphysical truths.

The 'Truth' can be expressed in objective scientific Scottish (STTSH or See, Taste, Touch, Smell, Hear) language, but we are so much more than just beings with 5 senses; that is why we ponder the mysteries of the universe and speak of theories and interpretations and we then discuss this with others to test if they agree or disagree; it is very much a dialectical process and there is not the same certainly as there is whith sensory facts, but often that which is subjective is what is most precious to us and the most interesting.

Moral Philosophy

A moral judgement is a subjective discernment of good and evil. Here on this forum a 'good' Freemason to some may be an evil Capitalist to others; again these are not scientific judgements but subjective ones; for some it is good to wage war to exploit and enslave the world for the god of Capital, and for others it is evil.

All this is why we separate physics and metaphysics, objective and subjective, knowledge and belief, certainty and mystery, facts and the interpretation of facts (theory), scientific judgements (measuring) and subjective judgements (good and evil). It is the way we are.

"Magick is the art and science of bringing about change in accordance with the will"

Probably most scientists and materialists would dispute this as non-sense, but if we consider the world to be Hell on Earth and seek to change the world in accordance with our will to Heaven on Earth, it should be understood that the economic masters and magi (spiritualists) who rule this world have armies of military scientists.

Without science the masters of war who worship the god of Capital could not rain fire down from the sky on children in nations they seek to conquor; without science a small army could not defeat a large army.

Magick without Physics.

They who seek to effect change in the world cannot do so by spiritual / necromantic magick alone; the Christians who are part of the resistance against the current masters cannot change them merely by the evocation (calling upon) of Jesus, for if they could, this world would have become economic heaven long ago and our history of holocausts, wars, slavery and human suffering would not have occurred.

Physics is War

Unfortunately Physics is not just an interesting 'academic subject; it holds the key to the defeat of the Capitalists and to the transformation of Hell on Earth to Heaven.

Physics is the highest stage of War. It is the key to Armageddon and the defeat of the world's current masters.

Ring of Power.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

The Dark Lord Sauron crafted the rings, but lost the ring of power and ultimately it was used against him to destroy Mordor.

I cannot just hurl a mythical gold ring into the fires of Mordor unfortunately.

The real Dark Lord has not lost his rings of power; but even worse than that for him, the once secret technology to create them has been revealed to all peoples and nations.

The real rings of power are extracted from Uranium not gold; the process is not a secret anymore.

In time the 7 angels (servants) of the apocalypse shall cast their rings into the real Sauron's fires and the kingdom of the Dark Lord shall fall to ruin.

Thus the importance of practical alchemy (physics) in addition to ritual magick in the application of militant apocalyptic will; that is the importance of physics and metaphysics to the magi involved in the process of the eradication of Hell on earth and of the casting of the Dark Lord into a lake of fire, the defeat of his armies, the destruction of his kingdom etc.

All this of course could have been avoided had the Christians of Christendom rose in revolution against their Capitalist masters, but that has not occurred and today Christianity is in general a Capitalist phenomenon in submission to the Dark Lord. A terrible price will be paid for such mass submission.

Great and Terrible and Dreadful and Wrathful shall be the Day of Judgement; no miracles shall occur, none are called for or required; all that will occur is the military application of physics.

Revolutionary Propaganda is the First Stage of Revolutionary War. Words are Weapons.

LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Revolution in all the world.

miracles

24-04-2009, 06:20 AM

Your anti-Capitalist god Jesus lived in a Capitalist / monetarist / propertyist system and yet he did not demand that you burn your money or destroy your property, merely that you sell 'all' that you have and give it to the poor.

Similarly there are millions of Communist who live in Capitalist Europe; they do not burn their money and destroy their property; on the contrary, many sell their labour hours as wage slaves in order to survive and to create the conditions for revolution; many raise funds to publish media propaganda'

Propaganda is the first stage of war.

In Castro's Revolution (Castro was a Lawyer) he had to earn money to publish propaganda and later to buy arms; he had to buy a boat to transport his army to Cuba, etc....you have to be realistic about such matters.

LL

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

Sounds like we dont need to worry about that for long because your going to burn and destroy everything for us!

Im confused how can a communist be an anarchist? Wouldnt anarchy be bad for the community? Sorry Im not the brain of Britain, you will need to keep things simple.

luciferhorus

24-04-2009, 08:28 AM

Sounds like we dont need to worry about that for long because your going to burn and destroy everything for us!

I have long since summoned the Seven Angels of the Apocalypse; all this shall occur in due course.

.
Im confused how can a communist be an anarchist? Wouldnt anarchy be bad for the community? Sorry Im not the brain of Britain, you will need to keep things simple.

See my essay on 'What is Anarchism;' traditionally 'all' Anarchists without exception have been Communists; the development of other more confused forms of Anarchist are very recent.

LL

Lux

miracles

24-04-2009, 09:35 AM

flyermay

24-04-2009, 09:39 AM

Those who have had shamanic experiences often say that it was a great 'learning' experience, but if you ask them what they learned, they always speak subjectively about an inner experience beyond the 5 senses.

There is the key!!!

The rest, is just repeating ourselves.

flyermay

24-04-2009, 10:10 AM

Our creator lives outside of time and has no beginning and no end. The human intellect can not fathom this concept, it would like an ant saying "who created man?"

That's agnosticism!!!

miracles

24-04-2009, 03:30 PM

That's agnosticism!!!

Pardon? Thats antagonism!

watson_k

24-04-2009, 05:15 PM

I have long since summoned the Seven Angels of the Apocalypse; all this shall occur in due course.

.

See my essay on 'What is Anarchism;' traditionally 'all' Anarchists without exception have been Communists; the development of other more confused forms of Anarchist are very recent.

LL

Lux

Heh Number 7, the Octave keeps reappearing. (I say 7 the octave and not 8 because 8 would be the beginning of a new octave) Fittingly you say 7 Angels of the Apocalypse, 7 being the end of the Octave. (In Pre-Modern Astronomy there were only 7 Planets also) Oh 7 Days of the week which are named after planets. Okay, I'm gonna stop now...

cleopatraxxx

24-04-2009, 07:24 PM

this is a very interesting thread you have started luciferhorus

Lobsang Rampa in his book "YOU-FOREVER" (http://www.lobsangrampa.net/lobsang_rampa.html) speaks about the ether being the space between the atom and the molecules, thus light. he speaks in a very easily explainable way. i recommend the book. it can be downloadable in pdf format on the link provided on the title of the book in the text above. All his books are downloadable and fantastic to read.

i am looking forward to see more info here from you and anything related :)

Thank YOU
Cleo

cleopatraxxx

24-04-2009, 07:29 PM

Posted by miracles
Our creator lives outside of time and has no beginning and no end. The human intellect can not fathom this concept, it would like an ant saying "who created man?"

sorry miracles, but i can't agree with that statement.
How do you know what an ant thinks in the first place?
the human intellect can fathom any concept as long as the basis for that concept is there. a person cAN FATHOM IT EVEN FROM JUST ASSUMING IT IS POSSIBLE.
:)
I AM A CREATIVE PERSON, my imagination is really active and vivid, so i can imagine this being that way... ;)

anyway, it is an interesting read all this info :)
Speaks loads to me...

Cleo

luciferhorus

25-04-2009, 12:31 AM

There is the key!!!

The rest, is just repeating ourselves.

Yes well I am just trying to separate the language of physics and metaphysics; with the facts of physics we have to speak in terms of absolute truth and our truths have to be falsifiable; with regards to 'theories of physics; this we have to discuss, since these are interpreations of facts, not the facts themselves.

So to metaphysics....

LL

Lux

luciferhorus

25-04-2009, 12:49 AM

this is a very interesting thread you have started luciferhorus

Lobsang Rampa in his book "YOU-FOREVER" (http://www.lobsangrampa.net/lobsang_rampa.html) speaks about the ether being the space between the atom and the molecules, thus light.

Cleo

Infinite causual regresssion

In language the term 'molecule' is a term which desribes a collection of atoms. For example the water molecule H20 is two hyrdrogen atoms and an Oxygen atom.

Thus let us say that you are a person (like an atom) and that you are part of a group of persons (like a molecule). There is 'space' between you. This is the ether, but it is not a complete defintion.

Let us consider you as an individual. You are a collection of molecules.

Between these molecules is space (ether), but the molecules are made of atoms and between these atoms is space (ether).

However these atoms are not 'things;' as we understand a piece of wood or metal.

The atom is just a term in language to desribe a collection of quarks, leptons, etc (smaller pieces) and between these sub atomic particles there is space (ether).

How far do you wish to go down the rabbit hole?

It is not 'just' a question of space between 'things.'

The ether is the 'container' of all that is preceived as matter; it is the container of Light which appears to us as Mass and Energy.

It is good that you are thinking deeply about these things and non things.

Physics has puzzled me since I was a child; yet the highest truths are found in metaphysics.

We are creatures of Love and Light

I don't know where the Love and Light who created me came from; I just accept it.

I could not create a Linux or Microsoft operating system; it is not my technical speciality; I just use it.

Love and Light

Lux

miracles

25-04-2009, 09:49 AM

sorry miracles, but i can't agree with that statement.
How do you know what an ant thinks in the first place?
the human intellect can fathom any concept as long as the basis for that concept is there. a person cAN FATHOM IT EVEN FROM JUST ASSUMING IT IS POSSIBLE.
:)
I AM A CREATIVE PERSON, my imagination is really active and vivid, so i can imagine this being that way... ;)

anyway, it is an interesting read all this info :)
Speaks loads to me...

Cleo

Fair comment, my analogy however, is to deal with the fact that just because we may not be able to answer the question "Who made God?" with the argueably unsatsifactory answer of "No one, because God has No Beginning and no end" doesn't in actual fact act as a satisfactory reason to conclude that this answer is the wrong answer. Hence forth it is an even less satisfactory reason to deny the possbility of a creator.

I know for a fact that ants think about gathering up stocks for winter, because they are often hard at it outside my back door. Even the bible says in proverbs ...Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: So evidently God considers the ant to be wise enough for humans to learn wisdom from. They certainly seem to know what they are doing which, sadly, can not be said for the majority of the human race.

flyermay

25-04-2009, 03:31 PM

Yes well I am just trying to separate the language of physics and metaphysics; with the facts of physics we have to speak in terms of absolute truth and our truths have to be falsifiable; with regards to 'theories of physics; this we have to discuss, since these are interpreations of facts, not the facts themselves.

So to metaphysics....

Hi Lucifer,

I think we've been stuck for 2 days going around in circles about "physics" and "metaphysics", and we still nowhere near of reaching a consensus. Maybe this message can help.

Please allow me to explain it in this way using your own definition of “metaphysics”. A couple of messages ago you defined metaphysics as “meta (above) physics”, or above physics; that’s correct. Nevertheless, the problem is not in your definition, but our interpretation of the word “above”.

From your side, you interpret the word “above” as unreachable, meaning that physics is not able to reach the metaphysical world. And from my side, I interpret “above” as not reached yet; but reachable after all. For example, consider the term “unknown”; couldn’t it be interpreted as “not known yet”?

My believe -regardless of science and atheism-, is that there is an explanation for the metaphysical, and that it can coexist peacefully with physics (not breaking any physical law); it is just that we didn’t find it yet (buy I’m convinced we will). But it has nothing to do with measuring or calculating; I told you I’m not a physicist or a mathematician (neither think that these people only accept physical/mathematical proofs –many of them are theists, for example-). However, it is absolutely necessary to have a solid basis for our believes; a profound understanding of each subject that goes beyond it just making sense in our mind, but also sustainable when contrasted with other people’s minds and believes (especially, when those people have hard evidences or very good reasons to make claims that contest our believes).

You can believe that humans will never be able to “reach” or explain the metaphysical if you like (I have no problems with other people’s believe; at the contrary: I have a great respect for other people’s set of believes, as I consider this a fundamental freedom). I’m just saying that history has proven your position wrong. Obviously, I can’t discuss about how far science will go in the future, but I can say that at the current rate at which the realm of metaphysical passes to the realm of the physical is exponential (it gets faster and faster as time goes by); regardless of the fact of having good or bad consequences for all of us –that’s a different matter-.

The bottom line is that I believe there is a very thin and subtle line between physics and metaphysics (but please read bellow what I mean by metaphysics), and then consider that any new discovery, proof or theory can change any accepted believe in the blink of an eye.

__________________________________________________ _______________

About the concepts you use as an example of the “metaphysical”, from my point of view, they are invalid for the purpose of our discussion. The reason is that our discussion is about the physical/metaphysical world we live in (the universe), and you are mixing personal subjective concepts, which I have no interest in discussing over the internet (like beauty or love).

But even if we were talking about metaphysics at a personal level: in one side we have that “beauty” is a human concept, subject to personal and cultural conditioning (which varies from person to person and from culture to culture); but it is not a feeling common to all living beings in the universe. Either way, can you measure what a specific human calls “beauty”? Yes… you just need to define the standards and the scale by which you want beauty to be measured and anyone will be able to measure it. You see, “Beauty” is just an adjective, a subjective attribute given to a third concept.

Now “love”: As I said before, love is a combination of a feeling and a thought induced by a biochemical reaction to an idea, an object or a person. It is true that love has no colour, or height, but the force of gravity hasn’t either (you cannot say the force of gravity is blue or tall, those attributes simply don’t apply; but you still can measure it). In the same way, you could also measure the intensity of “love” at a personal level (as well as the force of gravity); whether you do it with a physiological test, looking at a brainwave pattern, or through a biochemical analysis (you would probably need all of those for an accurate measure; but it can be done). As a matter of fact, it has been tested scientifically that any feeling can be induced with a simple electromagnetic wave applied to the brain at certain frequencies (love, fear, pleasure, and even feeling the presence of the divine); that's fact, not fiction. But forget about complicated equipment and tests, and think of it from your own experience: didn’t you ever notice that a close friend is in love; it’s evident isn’t it, therefore measurable?

The same applies to shamanic experiences: they are personal and subjective and do not apply to the whole of humanity or the entire universe. Does this mean that shamans are crack heads that no one should listen to them because they speak non-sense? No… shamans’ purpose is not to describe how the universe works, in the same way that scientists’ job is not to heal or understand spirituality at a personal level. Why am I so sure of this… well, simply because throughout history, shamans interpreted the world in an infinity of different ways, often contradicting each other. If they were not able to reach a consensus about physical/metaphysical subjects (well known and explained today), how can anyone say that they are able to explain how the universe ticks; it is sensible to think they were all wrong in that respect (obviously, I'm talking in reference to what’s now considered physical, as some metaphysical claims are yet unreachable/unexplained; as explained above).

Said that, I don’t also discard a shaman describing the universe better than a physicist, I’m just saying that his claims also need to be contrasted (as everyone else’s) and proved; whether it is empirically or theoretically.
__________________________________________________ ____

Resuming: I am absolutely certain, that most of the so called pseudo-sciences, considered to be in the realms of the “metaphysical” today, will be possibly one day fully explained, or at least certain truths found in them (i.e. parapsychology, ufology, astrology, and probably even theology).

As a matter of fact, I am discussing this subject with you only for one reason (as stated before): science has opened many doors to an infinite number of possibilities; meaning that all of those who were tagged as “loonies” yesterday, could have their revenge and vindication pretty soon (and I’m looking forward to it). Until then, we have to stick to what is provable (empirically or theoretically), unless we have a good reason for the contrary.

Just say that we are living in a very exciting moment in human history; and I think it is a mistake to hang on to just one possibility or believe system (much less have a blind “faith”).

luciferhorus

26-04-2009, 09:58 PM

Hi Lucifer,

I think we've been stuck for 2 days going around in circles about "physics" and "metaphysics", and we still nowhere near of reaching a consensus. Maybe this message can help.

Please allow me to explain it in this way using your own definition of “metaphysics”. A couple of messages ago you defined metaphysics as “meta (above) physics”, or above physics; that’s correct. Nevertheless, the problem is not in your definition, but our interpretation of the word “above”.

From your side, you interpret the word “above” as unreachable, meaning that physics is not able to reach the metaphysical world. And from my side, I interpret “above” as not reached yet; but reachable after all. For example, consider the term “unknown”; couldn’t it be interpreted as “not known yet”?

My believe -regardless of science and atheism-, is that there is an explanation for the metaphysical, and that it can coexist peacefully with physics (not breaking any physical law); it is just that we didn’t find it yet (buy I’m convinced we will). But it has nothing to do with measuring or calculating; I told you I’m not a physicist or a mathematician (neither think that these people only accept physical/mathematical proofs –many of them are theists, for example-). However, it is absolutely necessary to have a solid basis for our believes; a profound understanding of each subject that goes beyond it just making sense in our mind, but also sustainable when contrasted with other people’s minds and believes (especially, when those people have hard evidences or very good reasons to make claims that contest our believes).

You can believe that humans will never be able to “reach” or explain the metaphysical if you like (I have no problems with other people’s believe; at the contrary: I have a great respect for other people’s set of believes, as I consider this a fundamental freedom). I’m just saying that history has proven your position wrong. Obviously, I can’t discuss about how far science will go in the future, but I can say that at the current rate at which the realm of metaphysical passes to the realm of the physical is exponential (it gets faster and faster as time goes by); regardless of the fact of having good or bad consequences for all of us –that’s a different matter-.

The bottom line is that I believe there is a very thin and subtle line between physics and metaphysics (but please read bellow what I mean by metaphysics), and then consider that any new discovery, proof or theory can change any accepted believe in the blink of an eye.

__________________________________________________ _______________

About the concepts you use as an example of the “metaphysical”, from my point of view, they are invalid for the purpose of our discussion. The reason is that our discussion is about the physical/metaphysical world we live in (the universe), and you are mixing personal subjective concepts, which I have no interest in discussing over the internet (like beauty or love).

But even if we were talking about metaphysics at a personal level: in one side we have that “beauty” is a human concept, subject to personal and cultural conditioning (which varies from person to person and from culture to culture); but it is not a feeling common to all living beings in the universe. Either way, can you measure what a specific human calls “beauty”? Yes… you just need to define the standards and the scale by which you want beauty to be measured and anyone will be able to measure it. You see, “Beauty” is just an adjective, a subjective attribute given to a third concept.

Now “love”: As I said before, love is a combination of a feeling and a thought induced by a biochemical reaction to an idea, an object or a person. It is true that love has no colour, or height, but the force of gravity hasn’t either (you cannot say the force of gravity is blue or tall, those attributes simply don’t apply; but you still can measure it). In the same way, you could also measure the intensity of “love” at a personal level (as well as the force of gravity); whether you do it with a physiological test, looking at a brainwave pattern, or through a biochemical analysis (you would probably need all of those for an accurate measure; but it can be done). As a matter of fact, it has been tested scientifically that any feeling can be induced with a simple electromagnetic wave applied to the brain at certain frequencies (love, fear, pleasure, and even feeling the presence of the divine); that's fact, not fiction. But forget about complicated equipment and tests, and think of it from your own experience: didn’t you ever notice that a close friend is in love; it’s evident isn’t it, therefore measurable?

The same applies to shamanic experiences: they are personal and subjective and do not apply to the whole of humanity or the entire universe. Does this mean that shamans are crack heads that no one should listen to them because they speak non-sense? No… shamans’ purpose is not to describe how the universe works, in the same way that scientists’ job is not to heal or understand spirituality at a personal level. Why am I so sure of this… well, simply because throughout history, shamans interpreted the world in an infinity of different ways, often contradicting each other. If they were not able to reach a consensus about physical/metaphysical subjects (well known and explained today), how can anyone say that they are able to explain how the universe ticks; it is sensible to think they were all wrong in that respect (obviously, I'm talking in reference to what’s now considered physical, as some metaphysical claims are yet unreachable/unexplained; as explained above).

Said that, I don’t also discard a shaman describing the universe better than a physicist, I’m just saying that his claims also need to be contrasted (as everyone else’s) and proved; whether it is empirically or theoretically.
__________________________________________________ ____

Resuming: I am absolutely certain, that most of the so called pseudo-sciences, considered to be in the realms of the “metaphysical” today, will be possibly one day fully explained, or at least certain truths found in them (i.e. parapsychology, ufology, astrology, and probably even theology).

As a matter of fact, I am discussing this subject with you only for one reason (as stated before): science has opened many doors to an infinite number of possibilities; meaning that all of those who were tagged as “loonies” yesterday, could have their revenge and vindication pretty soon (and I’m looking forward to it). Until then, we have to stick to what is provable (empirically or theoretically), unless we have a good reason for the contrary.

Just say that we are living in a very exciting moment in human history; and I think it is a mistake to hang on to just one possibility or believe system (much less have a blind “faith”).

On Physics and Metaphsyics.

Linguistics (the Study of Language)101. Wittgenstein’s Tree. Objective and Subjective Language. On speaking Scottish (STTSH). On Personalism and Consciousness (All of Philosophy Simplified)

More about Love (the essence of metaphysics) and Light (the essence of Physics)

Lucifer
Aeon of Light, 2009

1: Objective language

This story has been related to millions philosophy students. I will reiterate and simplify.

One day Wittgenstein and Moore were waiting upon their tea.

It was a sunny day in an English garden.

What Wittgenstein actually said to Moore is shrouded in mystery but approximately he pointed to a tree and stated ‘This is a tree,’ or possibly ‘I see an appearance of the Tree,’ or more importantly "I know that's a Tree,"

“I know that's a Tree” is more precise linguistically since the word ‘know’ is important to philosophers who incessantly debate about objective and subjective know-ledge

Meanwhile the tea lady was walking down the garden path

What the tea lady said to Wittgenstein is also shrouded in mystery, but in approximate terms, she stated

’You philosophers speak a lot of non-sense; you are all insane; why don’t you get a real job like me; why don’t you do some-thing instead of speaking all this non-sense?’

Now at this point, as subjective, metaphysical, emotional, (etc) creatures, we all sympathise with the tea-lady; we do understand her, but only subjectively; most of us will just laugh at this exchange; it is what we are used to as persons who engage in the dialectical process of debate, argument, discussion, etc, in the sky (Internet).

However the tea lady was just making a subjective emotional outburst.

Wittgenstein and Moore were simply discussing the limits of objective knowledge.

The Tea Lady was absolutely incorrect; she was wrong; she was confused; she was simply expressing (ASC) Abuse (such as ‘fuck you’), Sophistry (usually incoherent rambling about the individual’s experience; I believe this and that; this is my judgement, etc.) and Contradiction (I don’t agree with you).

Why was the tea lady wrong?

The debate has been won in millions of philosophy classes; the Tea lady has been branded forever as a heretic.

The key word is ‘non-sense.’

When the tea lady remarked that Wittgenstein was speaking non-sense; this contradicted the truth he was speaking.

The Scottish (STTSH) language is essentially scientific language; we can only speak of what we objectively, empirically can be certain of.

The tree was accessible to the STTSH (the 5 senses) of the tea lady.

So when she argued that Wittgenstein was speaking non-sense (i.e., in subjective language), she was simply wrong; she had a bad day; perhaps her husband did not love her. In order to defend her, one would have to prove that the tree was simply not accessible to the STTSH.

2: Subjective Language and Personalism.

I have covered the STTSH language. A certain PhD student allegedly once remarked to Wittgenstein that since he understood the limits of objective language, that he could not write his PhD, since he had nothing to add to Wittgenstein’s conclusions regarding linguistics. For this remark Wittgenstein allegedly stated that this remark alone was worthy of a PhD..

It is so simple. Thus far I have covered all of philosophy with regards to and objective knowledge

Let us leave scientific language behind.

Let us take a trip into the world of subjective language and the philosophy of Personalism.

“I love you.”

Give me a formula for this? Tell me about endorphins and blood chemistry. L=?.

All Communists without exception are personalists; as are all Christians; this philosophy transcends atheism, theism and agnosticism.

Here we can start to speak about moral (our subjective discernment of good and evil) philosophy, but we can no longer speak in the Scottish language.

Rationalism

‘I think therefore I am’

All personalists who understand this must dispute this.

The statement begs so many questions.

Who is the I who is thinking?

A person thinks.

However a think (thought) cannot person.

I think but my think does not person; it does not create me, it is an effect of me as a person.

‘I think, I judge, I love, I am,’ but ‘I’ am doing all this thinking, judging, loving.

‘I’ am the subject of my own consciousness.

Thus far I have explained subjective and objective language.

Judgement

I am here to judge (to discern good and evil); I wish to separate the wheat from the chaff; there is no scientific formula for this.

A person whom I judge as evil (a Christian state terrorist collaborator for example) may have access to great knowledge in the objective sense (they may be objectively correct), but I may still consider that person to be morally worthless (subjectively errant) and as the chaff fit only for the ovens of the final holocaust.

Science is very interesting; in particular it’s military applications; but I am here to judge humanity; that is a subjective judgement not a scientific one.

Love and Light.

Lucifer.

flyermay

26-04-2009, 10:12 PM

Love and Light.

Lucifer.

Thank you for sharing your Love and Light.

flyermay

27-04-2009, 01:03 PM

Judgement

I am here to judge (to discern good and evil); I wish to separate the wheat from the chaff; there is no scientific formula for this.

A person whom I judge as evil (a Christian state terrorist collaborator for example) may have access to great knowledge in the objective sense (they may be objectively correct), but I may still consider that person to be morally worthless (subjectively errant) and as the chaff fit only for the ovens of the final holocaust.

Science is very interesting; in particular it’s military applications; but I am here to judge humanity; that is a subjective judgement not a scientific one.

Love and Light.

Lucifer.

I see you rectified your original message. That’s a petty, I really liked the statement about cutting tongues and dismembering bodies; it was so… so full of... love!!!

How was it?... Wait, I think you also made that statement several times before:

... I have the inherent desire to cut their tongue out and dismember their body.

Are you talking about “physical” or “metaphysical” tongues and bodies?

Never mind: you can steer the conversation to linguistics, philosophy, politics or religion if you like; it really makes no difference. What it is undeniable is the fact that you have quite a peculiar notion of what many concepts really mean for you (like “love” and “light”); as I can clearly see throughout your posts from last week in various threads. But hey, you are free to interpret any concept as you wish; just make you aware that for many of us they mean a complete different thing.

But I also have to admit that I was completely wrong… I made a huge mistake misjudging you (luckily for me you have the habit of going around talking about yourself a lot).

And by the way, I would recommend you reviewing the various concepts and branches linked to “metaphysics” so that you don’t keep on discussing it from such a narrow perspective. Maybe then you will realise that talking about a “universal program” (as you call it) implies having multitude of “formulas” for everything.

luciferhorus

27-04-2009, 04:12 PM

I see you rectified your original message. That’s a petty, I really liked the statement about cutting tongues and dismembering bodies; it was so… so full of... love!!!

How was it?... Wait, I think you also made that statement several times before:

.

I have been debating on the Internet since it's beginnings and thus I have numerous prewritten essays that I use as responses; the response above was part of an essay that I wrote some time ago which was a response on a Masonic forum, thus cut their tongue out and dismember their body.[/I] was appropriate in that context since that I was citing the Masonic oath.

[I]All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation.

You will find that on the fronpage of my Internet site luciferia.tv that I have some demands for the introduction of a temporal martial law during the period of apocalytpic war which includes the tearing out of tongues of all Masonic cultists, and the total holocaust of all cultists, the destruction of their temples and their nuclear destruction of their economic command and control centres, etc I don't see how anyone could object to that, since that is the game their cowarldy mercenaries of war play themselves, murder, torture, genocide, etc.

One cannot eradicate militant, apocalyptic, genocidal Capitalists armed with weapons of mass destruction with a peace flag.

It is simply a matter of karmic retribution; what goes around comes around.

LL

Lux
War, revolution, genocide, anything good but strong...

" A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate…..Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine--this is what our soldiers must become." Guevara

flyermay

27-04-2009, 06:14 PM

I have been debating on the Internet since it's beginnings and thus I have numerous prewritten essays that I use as responses; the response above was part of an essay that I wrote some time ago which was a response on a Masonic forum, thus cut their tongue out and dismember their body.[/I] was appropriate in that context since that I was citing the Masonic oath.

[I]All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation.

You will find that on the fronpage of my Internet site luciferia.tv that I have some demands for the introduction of a temporal martial law during the period of apocalytpic war which includes the tearing out of tongues of all Masonic cultists, and the total holocaust of all cultists, the destruction of their temples and their nuclear destruction of their economic command and control centres, etc I don't see how anyone could object to that, since that is the game their cowarldy mercenaries of war play themselves, murder, torture, genocide, etc.

One cannot eradicate militant, apocalyptic, genocidal Capitalists armed with weapons of mass destruction with a peace flag.

It is simply a matter of karmic retribution; what goes around comes around.

LL

Lux
War, revolution, genocide, anything good but strong...

" A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate…..Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine--this is what our soldiers must become." Guevara

Those statements are exactly what are puzzling me the most about you. At first I thought they were no more than “made up phrases” copied & pasted out of context. But during the last week, and due to the many statements you made about yourself, your ideology and your political goals, I became conviced that you do really mean all those things; changing completely my opinion of you, as now I thinking you are exactly the same as those you despise (obviously, on the opposite side of the political spectrum).

Maybe I’m wrong, but you are also starting to sound as if you thought of yourself as superior to other human beings; as if you really believed you are divine and godlike, holder of some sort of an absolute truth, or even empowered to judge, condemn, torture and execute others. I'm pretty sure these kind of thoughts can't do anyone any good. In fact, I think they are distorting your view about concepts like “justice”.

About the methods you describe for your warfare, I doubt that someone like “Che” (who fought for the less fortunate) would ever approve the idea of using any type of weapons of mass destruction, causing a total holocaust, and killing billions of innocent men, women and children just for an ideology to prevail. It is true that Che talked about using the same weapons as his enemies, but he never used or approved the same methods: unnecessary cruelty, torture and repression (and please don’t mix the later Cuban government with this statement).

You also argue that “war is peace”; and this statement can be true to a certain extent. But in my humble opinion, the kind of peace that war brings is not acceptable; as it is “the peace of the dead”.

But either way, I'm starting to think that what you preach is based on hatred and revenge towards all of those who chose or are hypnotised to live their lives in a different way from yours. And as much as I could agree with your cause, I could never accept your methods. From my point of view, using such methods would mean becoming one of those I most despise (far away from what I consider “love” and “light” anyway).

quysant

28-04-2009, 05:02 PM

Act 3 Scene I

GLENDOWER:

I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR:

Why, so can I, or so can any man;

But will they come when you do call for them?

flyermay

28-04-2009, 05:33 PM

Act 3 Scene I

GLENDOWER:

I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR:

Why, so can I, or so can any man;

But will they come when you do call for them?

As it is often said:

"The intention is what counts."

quysant

28-04-2009, 05:40 PM

As it is often said:

"The intention is what counts."

flyermay,
I am not with you there,
What do you mean?

flyermay

28-04-2009, 06:40 PM

flyermay,
I am not with you there,
What do you mean?

It's just an old say in reference to your quote from Shakespeare: It doesn't really matter if the spirits from the vasty deep come to Glendower's call; what matters is the act of calling them. That's all.

luciferhorus

29-04-2009, 05:45 AM

Maybe I’m wrong, but you are also starting to sound as if you thought of yourself as superior to other human beings; as if you really believed you are divine and godlike, holder of some sort of an absolute truth, or even empowered to judge, condemn, torture and execute others. I'm pretty sure these kind of thoughts can't do anyone any good. In fact, I think they are distorting your view about concepts like “justice”.

Dear Flyermay,

Divine & Sacrament.

Certainly I consider myself to be a divine (godlike) being, but that is an ontological (the type of being I am) statement which describes all human beings (see my essay 'The Kabbalah Simplified'); however by 'godlike' I refer not to the Christian / Masonic god of Capital who should be considered 'devil-like' and a morally repugnant god, and his cultists and assorted willing collaborators as 'devil-like,' unworthy of life and as representing the anti-thesis of their true 'divine' nature. Resistance against the priesthood of the god of Capital I consider to be the highest sacrament (L. 'sacre' 'mentis:' sacred mind) which transforms a repentant and penitent Capitalist devil, and returns the person to their true divine nature.

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!" - Che Guevara

Judgement

With regards to judgement and comdenmnation; a Judgement is a discernment of good and evil; a condemnation is a judgement which considers a person to be morally worthless (i.e., evil). A person who has no discernment of good and evil at all, is usually a child, since all adults have their definitions of good and evil, just as Capitalists often consider Communists to be evil and vice versa.

Torture.

With regards to torturing anyone, I have no idea what gave you that impression; I consider torture to be immoral.

With regards to your 'torture' allegations you may be confusing this with my response to the Masonic oath.

"All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation."

Obviously I feel that they should be dealt with likewise, however cutting a person in two is hardly torture; it is a swift exection; which is not the fate that many of the enemies of the god of Capital have been subjected to, who have rather been brutally tortured; the history of anti-Capitalist resistance in Latin America and of Islamic resistance is strewn with tales of torture at the hands of the Christian state terrorist mercenaries (who fight only for Capitalist coin); we are further discussing this matter of 'throat cutting, body quartering or halving (depending on the rite) and death by a 1000 cuts' on the 'Albert Pike' thread.

Ubermensche and Untermensche

With regards to being 'superior' to other human beings, well of course I consider myself to be morally superior to those who would collaborate with the Christian state terrorists, anti-Communists, propertyists, the priesthood of Capital, etc., all of whom I consider to be morally worthless (i.e., evil) individuals and 'untermensche (moral inferiors),' who are essentially useless eaters and are unworthy of life; the 'superior' person has no need for the slave morality of the priesthood of the god of Capital and their millions of laws.

Truth

With regards to being the holder of some form of 'truth,' well there are many people in the world whose truths I hold to be errant, and to believe that Anarchist Communism as a political philosophy represents the highest truth in the political sense, why yes, of course, why else would I propagate that?

Executions. War, revolution, genocide.... anything good but strong.

With regards to executions; well we are in a state of global war; the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists torture and execute their enemies; they are commited to armed violent World Capitalist Revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies, the economic and sexual enslavement of humanity under Capitalism, and the worship of the god of Capital; their victims of economic imperialism, their global Capitalist system are in their 'billions,' and are mostly innocents, mostly women and children; thus a militant response is required; that is the general Communist position; the only other alternatives are to collaborate with them or to espouse pacifism; neither of which I consider to be morally acceptable.

About the methods you describe for your warfare, I doubt that someone like “Che” (who fought for the less fortunate) would ever approve the idea of using any type of weapons of mass destruction, causing a total holocaust, and killing billions of innocent men, women and children just for an ideology to prevail. It is true that Che talked about using the same weapons as his enemies, but he never used or approved the same methods: unnecessary cruelty, torture and repression (and please don’t mix the later Cuban government with this statement).

Apocalyptic Guerilla War. Revolution 'by all means necessary.'

"We have maintained that peaceful coexistence among nations does not include coexistence between exploiters and the exploited"

Well I really don't see where you are finding any justification for torture in my writings; with regards to Che, his stated position after the Cuban Missile crisis was that had he been in control of the weapons, that he would certainly have used them on the Americans.

It was actually Che whom Castro sent to Moscow to request the nuclear weapons. A popular mantra of the Cuban revolution was after all "Patria o muerte" (Fatherland or Death); having read numerous works on both Fidel and Che, I think there is no question that they would have used such weapons if they had been attacked, and that they were considering action in response to what they considered attacks by the Americans; today there are 12 million Cubans and about 250 million Americans; obviously when David fights Goliath he must attempt to use a superior strategy and superior weapons against a stronger enemy; so too it shall be with the forthcoming apocalyptic guerilla war; it is my view that the Christian state terrorists can 'only' be defeated by bringing the war to their homelands, adopting a 'guerilla' strategy and using their own chosen weapons against them; that is a common conclusion that all the numerous enemies of the state terrorists are coming to, and indeed I consider it to be the 'only' option.

Further with regards to the moral conviction to use nuclear weapons on the Christian state terrorists, this is written in the hearts of the enemies of the Christians who have after all been using nuclear weapons (such as depleted uranium) on their enemies.

In war the choice of weapons are not decided by the defenders and victims but by the agrressor; since the Anglo-American state terrorists have weapons of mass destruction and are willing to use them and have used them in their colonies, I think it totally ridiculous to suggest that it is immoral to use such weapons against them in their homelands; that is after all 'their' chosen strategy.

I must point out that I don't have any nuclear weapons however, I fully support their use as a response to Christian Captialist, state terrorist, aggression, terrorism and imperialism.

You also argue that “war is peace”; and this statement can be true to a certain extent.

Doublespeak

Well that is just Orwellian Newspeak; obviously the Christians will not concede that they are terrorists and aggressors, they always claim to be fighting for peace and often 'mean' exactly the opposite of what they say; thus their words need to be 'translated' by Communist linguists into the common language; this when Capitalists claim to be 'liberating' the people of Iraq and Afghanistan' by dropping depleted uranium on innocents, women and children the term 'liberating' should be translated as 'enslaving,' 'democracy' translated as 'tyranny,' freedom as oppression, and so forth

'War is always fought in the name of peace; the peace that follows victory.'

But in my humble opinion, the kind of peace that war brings is not acceptable; as it is “the peace of the dead”.

'Until the last tyrant is buried with the last priest'

'Until the last tyrant is buried with the last priest' would be a peace that requires the death of the enemies of humanity; you cannot have peace in the world when there is still even one remaining nation or even one remaining person alive who is willing to kill and be killed for Capitalism.

But either way, I'm starting to think that what you preach is based on hatred and revenge towards all of those who chose or are hypnotised to live their lives in a different way from yours. And as much as I could agree with your cause, I could never accept your methods. From my point of view, using such methods would mean becoming one of those I most despise (far away from what I consider “love” and “light” anyway.

"The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
"There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man."–Che Guevara

I do not consider it an act of Love to stand on the sidelines and simply watch the Capitalists take over the world; even among Christians who do not support state terrorism 'love' is often considered to include non-resistance; i.e., 'doing nothing;' that is not my definition; love seeks to liberate the enslaved and the oppressed, and if the agressor is militant, a militant response is required. If an armed violent Capitalist thug seeks to turn your family and society into labour slaves and sex slaves, to take up militant resistance to him is an act of love, it is not out of love for him, it is out of hatred for him, but it is out of love for for his victims and slaves; you cannot love the master and the slaves, for you will either serve the interests of one of the other; you cannot love the victims 'and' the masters and priesthood of the god of Capital.

Having said all this, might I ask you what 'you' consider to be an appropriate response to Christian state terrorism, imperialism, torture, murder, genocide etc?

LL

Lux

More on:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/graphics/banner/anarchism.gif

and

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/graphics/banner/anarkismobannersmall.jpg

flyermay

29-04-2009, 05:24 PM

Hi Lucifer,

I’m glad you're back; I was looking forward for your response. But first, thank you for responding to my post in a coherent and polite manner; I didn’t expect less of you.

With regards to Che, his stated position during the Cuban Missile crisis was that had he been control of the weapons, that he would certainly have used them on the Americans.

we have maintained that peaceful coexistence among nations does not include coexistence between exploiters and the exploited

It was actually Che whom the Castro sent to Moscow to request the weapons. The motto of the revolution was after all Patria o muerte" (Fatherland or Death); having read numerous works on both I think there is no question that they would have used such weapons if they had been attacked.

I know well the phrase “patria o muerte”; as you can imagine, it is quite popular where I am from; but I think you are misinterpreting it. “Muerte” (death), makes reference to a personal sacrifice to fight until death for a cause, and not until a nation is totally annihilated. A revolutionary who shouts “patria o muerte” shows his commitment to give his life for his cause (or his country).

About the Cuban missile crisis, I thought you would make reference to it, but I would like to point out two things about this subject: First, it is no secret that nuclear weapons have a far greater effect as dissuasive weapons than as weapons of mass destruction. And second, and as a matter of fact, the decision of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba during 1962, did effectively dissuade the US from ever trying another invasion, like “Bahia de cochinos” (Bay of pigs) in 1961.

I guess that we will never know for sure if “Che” would have used those nuclear weapons in an attack to the root of the world’s oppressing imperialism. But in my opinion (and this is just a personal view): he cared too much about the Cuban people (all Sudamerican people for that matter) to sacrifice them all of them in a nuclear holocaust. People are more important than ideologies, and fortunately, that is the only reason why we haven’t blown each other out of the face of the earth already.

Further with regards to the moral conviction to use nuclear weapons on the Christian state terrorists, this is written in the hearts of the enemies of the Christians who have after all been using nuclear weapons (such as depleted uranium) on their enemies.

In war the choice of weapons are not decided by the defenders and victims but by the agrressor; since the Anglo-American state terrorists have weapons of mass destruction and are willing to use them and have used them in their colonies, I think it totally ridiculous to suggest that it is immoral to use such weapons against them in their homelands; that is after all 'their' chosen strategy.

I can find no justification (neither I think it exists) for anyone using such tactics. What the US and their collaborators are doing cannot be tagged as “war”; as for war you need two armies fighting each other. And unfortunately in this case, there is only one army. So, in this case, the term that more appropriately describes what those cowards are doing in the Middle East is “genocide” (or the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group).

With regards to executions; well we are in a state of global war; the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists torture and execute their enemies; they are commited to armed violent World Capitalist Revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies, the economic and sexual enslavement of humanity under Capitalism, and the worship of the god of Capital; thus a militant response is required; that is the general Communist position; the only other alternatives are to collaborate with them or to espouse pacifism; neither of which I consider to be morally acceptible.

I see your point, and I agree with it to a certain extent (from a personal point of view). However, what happens with all of those who are not interested in either side; whether it is because they are too busy grooming themselves, enjoying the few benefits of capitalism, or simply because they are more worried about football? Who are, by the way, the vast majority (regardless of being hypnotised or not).

I thought like you not too long ago, but then I realised that for most people it doesn’t really matter who is in power; they just want to get on with their lives and don’t want to hear about anything supposedly better. Who am I (or anyone) to draw them all into a bloody war that they never wanted in the first place, or even cared of the outcome? Doing so, and imposing by force my political views over the current ones, would make me the same as those who I despise on the other side; another tyrant with innocent blood on his hands.

I must point out that I don't have any nuclear weapons however, I fully support their use as a response to Christian Captialist, state terrorist, aggression, terrorism and imperialism.

Well that is just Orwellian Newspeak; obviously the Christians will not concede that they are terrorists and aggressors, they always claim to be fighting for peace.

:) I bet you don’t; though you probably wouldn’t be the first one to make such a device in his garage (and please, don’t take this as a suggestion for any weird idea ;))

But please tell me something: did you consider the “collateral damage” in such a holocaust? How do you justify the deaths of the billions of innocent men, women and children that those cowards are hidden behind? Don’t you see that a nuclear holocaust at a global scale would probably mean that there will be no survivors to benefit from any ideology? And even in the best case scenario, you need to take into account that only those who pushed the nuclear buttons will have enough protection to survive, and their descendants will be the ones that will crawl back to earth once all the radiation is gone.

How will this solve anything? I see only two reasons for doing, or looking forward for it: hate and revenge.

'War is always fought in the name of peace; the peace that follows victory.'

'Until the last tyrant is buried with the last priest' would be a peace that requires the death of the enemies of humanity; you cannot have peace in the world when there is still even one remaining nation or even one remaining person alive who is willing to kill and be killed for Capitalism.

I don’t think those quotes apply to a nuclear holocaust; as there will be no victorious sides; only the “peace of the dead”.

I do not consider it an act of Love to stand on the sidelines and simply watch the Capitalists take over the world; even among Christians who do not support state terrorism 'love' is often considered to include non-resistance; i.e., 'doing nothing;' that is not my definition; love seeks to liberate the nsalved and the oppressed, and if the agressor is militant, a militant response is required.

I can agree with those statements to a certain extent. But there are ways and ways of showing love, other than killing for it. Either way, looking forward for a global nuclear holocaust to get rid of a handful of bastards, a huge lot of hypnotised fools, and also killing in the process all in between, is surely not my idea of love.

About a revolution to liberate those you love… what can I say… reminds the Russia, China and Cuba; at the end, the revolutions consisted in overthrowing a tyrant to put another one in its place (with all my respects for the courage and good intentions of the Castro brothers and the “Che”).

Would you like to hear my personal opinion about anarchy and communism? As much as I can agree with them, I see them just as a utopia. And the reason is simple: humanity is just not ready for them. We might be in the future; we might even live happily under the law of Thelema; who knows; but I in my humble opinion, we are not ready just now; and even if some people are, the vast majority would simply have their egos clashing against each other’s all the time (starting all over again).

Proof of this is the need for Castro to end up becoming a tyrant. The ideal communist society was simply not possible on its own (it needed fear and repression to maintain the ideals). Not to mention the mess done in Russia, China and North Korea. Well… I guess you know exactly what I mean, as you talked about a martial law being imposed if your revolution succeeds.

Having said all this, might I ask you what 'you' consider to be an appropriate response to Christian state terrorism, imperialism, torture, murder, genocide etc?

To answer this question it is important to discuss first what I said about you in my previous message (which follows bellow); as we wouldn’t be able to understand each other’s point of view from our current paradigms.

With regards to being the holder of some form of 'truth,' well there are many people in the world whose truths I hold to be errant, but to believe that Anarchist Communism as a political philosophy represents the highest truth in the political sense, why yes, of course, why else would I propagate that?

Yes, I have to admit that that wasn’t my strongest point. After all, we all think of ourselves as holding an absolute truth (it was unfair for me to accuse you of it, and I apologize for doing so).

But the truth is that I made that point precisely because I see “truths” in a different way than you do. For example, your use of the term “errant” is absolutely correct, and if fact, in my humble opinion, that’s the only way forward in an always changing world. What I mean is: there is no point on holding with absolute faith unto a believe that will probably be considered sometime in the near future outdated and even mistaken; reason why I always look at things with an open mind, weighing both sides in fair balance, advocating the best arguments and always open to change and rectification (if necessary). There is no better way to learn in these times we live in!!!

With regards to torturing anyone, I have no idea what gave you that impression; I consider torture to be immoral.

Well… immoral unless for freemasons… I consider someone who says: “feeling an inherent desire to cut their tongues and dismember their bodies” someone looking forward to torture; especially if the subjects are alive while you do it. Which by the way, I have to apologize for thinking at first that you were referring to me indirectly the last time you mentioned it (which you cleared later).

With regards to judgement and comdenmnation; a Judgement is a discernment of good and evil; a condemnation is a judgement which considers a person to be morally worthless (i.e., evil). A person who has no discernment of good and evil at all, is usually a child, since all adults have their definitions of good and evil, just as Capitalists often consider Communists to be evil and vice versa.

I’m fine with that; after all we are here in this forum judging the world -and each other- and we are all as guilty as you. But what I meant was about being at the same time: judge, jury and executioner (which it seems you would, given the chance). We are all free to judge, but who is anyone to sentence and execute others? And I’m not only talking about you or other members of this forum; I talking about humanity in general. On what grounds a human being can judge, condemn and execute another human being?

If any of you can show me any evidence of his (or anyone’s) alleged higher power to sentence and execute other human beings, I will rest my case.

With regards to being 'superior' to other human beings, well of course I consider myself to be morally superior to those who would collaborate with the Christian state terrorists, anti-Communists, propertyists, the priesthood of Capital, etc., all of whom I consider to be morally worthless (i.e., evil) individuals and 'untermensche (moral inferiors),' who are essentially useless eaters and are unworthy of life

I don’t think that disagreeing with you, or seeing the world in a different way necessarily means they are inferior to you or anyone. I have to admit, that as well as you, I also don’t have any sympathy for them (and no empathy for some of them in particular); but this doesn’t mean that it is a justification for thinking of myself as superior to them; morally, physically, nor intellectually.

In fact, these thoughts of superiority are the main cause and basis for thousands of years of abuse, slavery and killing each other. Feeling superior implies that others are inferior, and that is quite often the basis for the differences between classes, races and cultures.

Certainly I consider myself to be a divine (godlike) being, but that is an ontological (the type of being I am) statement which describes all human beings (see my essay 'The Kabbalah Simplified').

In regards to those matters: Well… yes, you can say that’s true. However, I wasn’t referring to it in that sense; instead I was referring to your previous posts in other threads stating that you (in particular) are “godlike”, unlike many of the other posters. As a matter of fact, you even made a statement making reference to, and justifying narcissism.

The bottom line is: I can easily see someone disregarding others as unworthy, unfit or useless when they think of themselves as superior in any sense. And from my point of view, I think it is a huge mistake that throughout history proved to cloud the judgment of many bright good men and turned them into abominable tyrants.

For this reason, I cannot accept the arguments of someone talking about himself in those grounds, as I will always have the doubt of his judgment and clarity being influences by those thoughts.

I would like to finish with a quote. I read some of Tolkien’s books when a teenager (I assume you like him too), and though I forgot most of what I read, I never forgot this paragraph:
“Many that live deserve death.
And some that die deserve life.
Can you give it to them?
Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

luciferhorus

02-05-2009, 06:01 AM

Hi Lucifer,

I know well the phrase “patria o muerte”; as you can imagine, it is quite popular where I am from; but I think you are misinterpreting it. “Muerte” (death), makes reference to a personal sacrifice to fight until death for a cause, and not until a nation is totally annihilated. A revolutionary who shouts “patria o muerte” shows his commitment to give his life for his cause (or his country).

Well since Spanish is your own first language I am happy to refer to your translation rather than mine.

About the Cuban missile crisis, I thought you would make reference to it, but I would like to point out two things about this subject: First, it is no secret that nuclear weapons have a far greater effect as dissuasive weapons than as weapons of mass destruction. And second, and as a matter of fact, the decision of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba during 1962, did effectively dissuade the US from ever trying another invasion, like “Bahia de cochinos” (Bay of pigs) in 1961.

I guess that we will never know for sure if “Che” would have used those nuclear weapons in an attack to the root of the world’s oppressing imperialism. But in my opinion (and this is just a personal view): he cared too much about the Cuban people (all Sudamerican people for that matter) to sacrifice them all of them in a nuclear holocaust. People are more important than ideologies, and fortunately, that is the only reason why we haven’t blown each other out of the face of the earth already.

Well one of the quotes which I dug up from Che was "the people [of Cuba] you see today tell you that even if they should disappear from the face if the earth because an atomic war is unleashed in their names... they will feel completely happy and fulfilled" and Che is further described is thus: he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York or Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/this-endless-myth-making_b_151217.html

In the classic anti-Communist text 'Exposing the real Che Guevara,' in an interview with Cuban exile Humberto Fontova, he describes him as a "violent Communist who .... openly talked about his desire to use nuclear weapons against New York City. Such was Che's bloodthirsty hatred that Fontova considers him the godfather of modern terrorism."

There is no question that Che was evangelically militant and would often take charge of firing squads and executions.

I think this begs the question of what made him think like that?

Clearly Che and Castro were not part of the 'proletariate;' Castro was a lawyer and Che was a middle class medical doctor who had not experienced a life of poverty; they were both like many of us who live in the First World Capitalist states.

I think it was Che's travels around Latin America where he came face to face with the reality of poverty and the oppression of the masses. Similarly I too have travelled the world and I am very familiar with the reality of the incredible poverty which affects the vast majority of humanity.

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/depleted-uranium.jpg

The Capitalists of course are militant and apocalyptic and determined to both retain and advance their world revolution 'by all means necessary' including the use of nuclear weapons. They are currently using depleted uranium in Iraq and it is clear that they are determined to use their nuclear weapons to defend their revolution.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/dusty1215/depleted-uranium.2005.jpg

Further it does appear that there is a determination to use nuclear weapons to advance their Capitalist revolution.

Consider

Nine of ten candidates for the Republican presidential nomination explicitly or tacitly supported a US attack on Iran using nuclear weapons, in response to a question at Tuesday (June 5, 2007) night’s nationally televised debate in New Hampshire

http://www.firststrikenuts.com/artman/publish/article_54.shtml

I can find no justification (neither I think it exists) for anyone using such tactics. What the US and their collaborators are doing cannot be tagged as “war”; as for war you need two armies fighting each other. And unfortunately in this case, there is only one army. So, in this case, the term that more appropriately describes what those cowards are doing in the Middle East is “genocide” (or the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group).

Yes they are not fighting a national army, they are being resisted by those using a guerilla strategy.

I see your point, and I agree with it to a certain extent (from a personal point of view). However, what happens with all of those who are not interested in either side; whether it is because they are too busy grooming themselves, enjoying the few benefits of capitalism, or simply because they are more worried about football? Who are, by the way, the vast majority (regardless of being hypnotised or not).

Yes the proletariate in the first world are generally politically dumbed down, and complacent, more concerned with football results and the latest eyeshadow or designer handbag. Unfortunately this is the case; but war will change this; when the supermarkets of Capitalism empty, the stock markets collapse and Capital becomes worthless.

The problem is that unlike Fidel and Che, the proletariat of the First World do not relate to the suffering of their brothers and sisters in the Third World, and they probably shall not until they experience it personally.

you probably wouldn’t be the first one to make such a device in his garage (and please, don’t take this as a suggestion for any weird idea ;))

If that was my intent, I would hardly be speaking publicly on the Internet, since I do not speak anonymously and the police / miltiary are well aware of who I am; I am just a judge of the matter and a propagandist; the executioners of judgement shall by necessity be a 'hidden hand;' that is after all the a central strategy of the guerilla warrior, but not so with the propagandist.

I am just a messenger and a warning of what is to come; I have spent many years networking with Communists and Muslims and I am quite aware that among them are those who are every bit as militant as Che and Fidel and who are entirely intent on bringing apocalyptic war to the homelands of the Christian state terrorists.

Consider for example;

http://72.167.140.182/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/may27surv.png

A new video called “Nuclear Terrorism” has been posted on the worldwide web calling for jihadists to use nuclear or chemical weapons to strike the west.

“Strike civilians in the west without mercy using weapons of mass destruction” is one of the calls made in the 39-minute video.

Before the video was posted on the Arab internet forum Ekhlas a banner headline appeared on the website that said: “Pray, pray, Allah is great. America is destroyed by a fatal jihadist nuclear strike.”

The objective appears to be to incite followers of al-Qaeda to use weapons of mass destruction to strike the west

http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/05/27/nuclear-terrorism-jihadist-video-calls-for-nuclear-strike-on-west/

But please tell me something: did you consider the “collateral damage” in such a holocaust? How do you justify the deaths of the billions of innocent men, women and children that those cowards are hidden behind? Don’t you see that a nuclear holocaust at a global scale would probably mean that there will be no survivors to benefit from any ideology? And even in the best case scenario, you need to take into account that only those who pushed the nuclear buttons will have enough protection to survive, and their descendants will be the ones that will crawl back to earth once all the radiation is gone.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/hsr/nuclear/nuclear_book.JPG

Yes it is quite a moral dilemma, but the forthcoming war shall not be of my doing; long have and others like me cried out against the Christian state terrorists and forewarned them of the consequences of their terrorism and Capitalist imperialism; the matter is out of my hands; the repercussions shall be directly related to the evil that the Christians have perpetrated in the world; it shall simply be karmic retribution. There are those among humanity who simply will not stand by and watch the Christians dropping fire from the sky on women and children and enslaving nations after nation; this shall come to an end at some point; there shall be inevitable repercussions.

How will this solve anything? I see only two reasons for doing, or looking forward for it: hate and revenge.

That may possiblly be a motivation for some; obviously in war if your enemy is dropping depleted uranium on your homeland, it is quite morally acceptible to use nuclear weapons on your enemy's homeland; the only other alternative is to surrender and accept enslavement; the destruction of Christendom shall be directly related to the evil that they have done to humanity, their wars and revolutions, torture, murder and genocide; such is the nature of war.

However there are also those who are ideologically motivated such as the Muslims and Communists; for them it is about total victory over the Christian Capitalists and there is simply no other way to defeat them other than nuclear guerilla war which I predict shall be forthcoming.

We are of course merely speaking of the collapse of Christendom and the liberation of the Third World; I don't expect the entire world to be nuked.

About a revolution to liberate those you love… what can I say… reminds the Russia, China and Cuba; at the end, the revolutions consisted in overthrowing a tyrant to put another one in its place (with all my respects for the courage and good intentions of the Castro brothers and the “Che”).

Yes well that has nothing to do with my own particular ideological agenda nor that of any Anarchist; on the contrary

Would you like to hear my personal opinion about anarchy and communism? As much as I can agree with them, I see them just as a utopia. And the reason is simple: humanity is just not ready for them. We might be in the future; we might even live happily under the law of Thelema; who knows; but I in my humble opinion, we are not ready just now; and even if some people are, the vast majority would simply have their egos clashing against each other’s all the time (starting all over again).

Proof of this is the need for Castro to end up becoming a tyrant. The ideal communist society was simply not possible on its own (it needed fear and repression to maintain the ideals). Not to mention the mess done in Russia, China and North Korea. Well… I guess you know exactly what I mean, as you talked about a martial law being imposed if your revolution succeeds.

I mean 'martial law' in the same way that it existed in the Anarchist regions of Spain during the revolution against Franco and the Catholics; obviously one had to fight the fascists and certain principles had to be applied.

I consider someone who says: “feeling an inherent desire to cut their tongues and dismember their bodies” someone looking forward to torture; especially if the subjects are alive while you do it. Which by the way, I have to apologize for thinking at first that you were referring to me indirectly the last time you mentioned it (which you cleared later).

http://www.policeinefficiency.com/Web%20Graphics/050104/Handshakes/easign.jpg

I am simply responding to the Masonic oath which includes an oath concerning ritual murder, however Masons cutting each others throats is hardly torture if you consider what the victims of their Capitalist revolution have had to endure; on the contrary it is a rather quick death. With regards to those who are committed Capitalists and religious cultists and who incite murder and state terrorist collaboration I think it quite appropriate to make such a response.

I’m fine with that; after all we are here in this forum judging the world -and each other- and we are all as guilty as you. But what I meant was about being at the same time: judge, jury and executioner (which it seems you would, given the chance). We are all free to judge, but who is anyone to sentence and execute others? And I’m not only talking about you or other members of this forum; I talking about humanity in general. On what grounds a human being can judge, condemn and execute another human being?

A moral judgement is a personal subjective judgement; if your nation is being terrorised by the Anglo-American Christians and they are torturing, murdering and committing genocide, you can hardly blame the victims and those who sympathise with them for seeking to respond in a miltant manner; this is the reality of war and in accord with the natural right of defence of self and of others.

If any of you can show me any evidence of his (or anyone’s) alleged higher power to sentence and execute other human beings, I will rest my case.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/killed_iraq.jpg

The power comes from the barrel of the gun essentially; an unarmed person is powerless to execute judgement on a highly weaponised army such as the Christian terrorists who have nuclear weapons, advanced aircraft, etc.

In fact, these thoughts of superiority are the main cause and basis for thousands of years of abuse, slavery and killing each other. Feeling superior implies that others are inferior, and that is quite often the basis for the differences between classes, races and cultures.

Obviously Communists in general consider themselves morally superior to their enemies, but then their Christian Capitalist enemies feel the same way, however as far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with race; though I suspect that among the Aryan Christians it is otherwise

In regards to those matters: Well… yes, you can say that’s true. However, I wasn’t referring to it in that sense; instead I was referring to your previous posts in other threads stating that you (in particular) are “godlike”, unlike many of the other posters. As a matter of fact, you even made a statement making reference to, and justifying narcissism.

Narcissism is simply self love; Christians of course are not supposed to feel that; they are supposed to be full of fear and self loathing as worthless sinners; that is not my view.

The bottom line is: I can easily see someone disregarding others as unworthy, unfit or useless when they think of themselves as superior in any sense. And from my point of view, I think it is a huge mistake that throughout history proved to cloud the judgment of many bright good men and turned them into abominable tyrants.

For this reason, I cannot accept the arguments of someone talking about himself in those grounds, as I will always have the doubt of his judgment and clarity being influences by those thoughts.

Unfortunately the Christian state terrorists / narco-terrorists and their collaborators also claim that they are morally superior to their enemies, otherwise they would refer to their enemies as freedom fighters or at least combatants rather than 'terrorists.'

I would like to finish with a quote. I read some of Tolkien’s books when a teenager (I assume you like him too), and though I forgot most of what I read, I never forgot this paragraph:
“Many that live deserve death.
And some that die deserve life.
Can you give it to them?
Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

Yes but consider also that Tolkein's tale is a very blood soaked tale of the war against the evil king Sauron who seeks to take over the world; in the end his armies are defeated; it is very much an Armageddon tale of a Final War between good and evil, and in war, one must not hesitate to shed the blood of the enemy; 'good' always feels morally superior to 'evil.'

Frankly the 'only way I can think of to possibly prevent the forthcoming nuclear guerilla war is for the Christian state terrorists to surrender, disarm, collectivise their nations, revert to the anti-Capitalism and anti-propertyism of their god (i.e., Jesus) and make restitution among humanity for all the evil they have done, but this is simply not their agenda; it is simply too unrealistic to expect this, thus I must conclude merely by 'listening' to the voices of the numerous enemies and victims of the Christians that total war and the destruction of Christendom is therefore inevitable and that the matter is out of my hands.

It is based upon such an analysis of both sides that I 'take sides' but World Capitalist Revolution began before I was even born; I did not create this world, not this war; I am merely sitting in judgement on the matter.

http://www.poster.net/lord-of-the-rings-ii/lord-of-the-rings-ii-one-ring-4900240.jpg

Unfortunately no magick ring of gold will suffice; I cannot just throw a gold ring into the fires of Mordor and instantly destroy the Dark Lord's kingdom; it is however a good analogy for what will occur; it shall not be a ring of gold, a different type of enriched metal shall be required to eradicate the Dark Lord's kingdom in an instant, and the Fires of Mordor are not really 'fires;' they are his nuclear power stations; all this has long been spoken of in the sky and the Achillies heel of the state terrorists is well known to their many angy, militant enemies.

Great and Terrible and Dreadful and Wrathful shall be the Day of Judgement.

LL

Lux

http://www.fabiofeminofantascience.org/BONESTELL/nukebonestell.jpg

Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire; .... ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For your judgment has come in one hour.’ 18:11 The merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise any more; 18:12 merchandise of gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, fine linen, purple, silk, scarlet, all expensive wood, every vessel of ivory, every vessel made of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble; 18:13 and cinnamon, incense, perfume, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, sheep, horses, chariots, and people’s bodies and souls. 18:14 The fruits which your soul lusted after have been lost to you, and all things that were dainty and sumptuous have perished from you, and you will find them no more at all. 18:15 The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, will stand far away for the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning; 18:16 saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, she who was dressed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls! 18:17 For in an hour such great riches are made desolate.’ Every shipmaster, and everyone who sails anywhere, and mariners, and as many as gain their living by sea, stood far away, 18:18 and cried out as they looked at the smoke of her burning, saying, ‘What is like the great city?’ 18:19 They cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, in which all who had their ships in the sea were made rich by reason of her great wealth!’ For in one hour is she made desolate.

..........Thus with violence will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down, and will be found no more at all. 18:22 The voice of harpists, minstrels, flute players, and trumpeters will be heard no more at all in you. No craftsman, of whatever craft, will be found any more at all in you. The sound of a mill will be heard no more at all in you. 18:23 The light of a lamp will shine no more at all in you. The voice of the bridegroom and of the bride will be heard no more at all in you; for your merchants were the princes of the earth; for with your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth.”

Addendum

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/080826_NK1.jpg

On Military Strategy.

The point of war is not martyrdom but rather victory over the enemy.

I think it appropriate to raise a Final Question.

Let us say that defeat was not an option.

What military strategy would you advise the Muslims and Communists to use in order to totally defeat the state terrorists (i.e., the Capitalists)?

It is this question I have also asked myself for many years and I reach only one conclusion; if there were any other strategy which would utterly defeat the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists and their economic masters and allies, other that that which Muslims and Communists are currently considering, I would gladly consider it.

The current strategy in practice is an unsuccessful strategy, it is one of constant martyrdom; that is totally unacceptable.

Further you have to address those whose thinking is not far from that of Machiavelli or Che Geuvara; if there is a strategy for total victory, that 'must' be utilised; all else is accept to the possibility of defeat; and that is unthinkable.

The only peaceful means to destroy the financial command and control centres, with minimum loss of life, of the Anglo-American state terrorists that I am aware of is by an EMP detonation (see below); however this requires an ICBM missile which very few nations in the world have; unfortunately the Muslims and Communists who seek to defeat the Christians are unlikely to be able to produce this very advanced technology, thus I don't see any alternative to the current suggestions made by the Communist and Islamic militants. Futher one has to consider the hundreds of underground military bases which the state terrorists have; first there shall have to be surface wars, then the Beasts from below the earth shall have to eradicated; it is not a simple matter.

LL

Lux

http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/20080627_emp_bombs.jpg?w=300&h=203

One small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can, in fact, destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a by-product of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.

This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/a-single-nuke-could-destroy-america/

flyermay

02-05-2009, 09:39 PM

Hi Lucifer,

I’m glad to see that we might end up understanding each other. I’m even starting to think that I might have rushed up my statement about misjudging you (which is a relief, as I rarely do ;)).

Well one of the quotes which I dug up from Che was "the people [of Cuba] you see today tell you that even if they should disappear from the face if the earth because an atomic war is unleashed in their names... they will feel completely happy and fulfilled" and Che is further described is thus: he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York or Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world.

Regarding the first quote, I can understand the reasons for “Che” making those statements. In my opinion, there is no point on acquire weapons of mass destruction with a dissuasive purpose, if you cannot convince your enemy that you will use them. The problem with nuclear weapons is that it is not worth using them on an enemy that also has nuclear capability (reasons why the US is so far the only nation to cowardly use them; but only on enemies who do not have nuclear capability). Said this, I have no doubts about Cuba using them before surrendering to the USA.

About the second quote: It just sounds to me like anti-Castrist and anti-Communist propaganda; just one of the many imperialist attempts to discredit the myth of the most influential revolutionary of all times; trying to lower him down to the level of a terrorist, a tyrant and a mass murderer. The truth is that so far, I have never heard of him killing civilians, much less in mass (but maybe I'm wrong).

Said that, you have to remember that in the hottest moment of the cold war, the US had already attempted to invade Cuba. Any fool could see that Cuba had no chance against another attempt from the US. So frankly, if the Soviets were to nuke the US they would be making Cuba a great favour (but that's not the same situation nor the same motivation for any of us to desire it now). And by the way, I would have to agree with Guevara in that the world would be a far greater place without the misleading propaganda from Hollywood (Los Angeles), the economic manipulation from Wall Street (New York), and the oppressive tyranny of the White House plus the mass murdering plans from the Pentagon (Washington). Still, the problem is the shield of millions of civilians behind who those cowards are hidden.

In the classic anti-Communist text 'Exposing the real Che Guevara,' in an interview with Cuban exile Humberto Fontova, he describes him as a "violent Communist who .... openly talked about his desire to use nuclear weapons against New York City. Such was Che's bloodthirsty hatred that Fontova considers him the godfather of modern terrorism."

There is no question that Che was evangelically militant and would often take charge of firing squads and executions.

I haven’t read this interview, but either way, it’s not difficult to imagine that it is another attempt to damage Guevara’s image; especially coming from an anti-castrist in exile, who are regularly used by the US government as propaganda against communist Cuba.

Either way, I have to agree with the description of Guevara as a ‘violent communist’; as a matter of fact, it’s one of the reasons I admire him. There is no point in being a revolutionary if you are not prepared to at least kill your enemies.

I think this begs the question of what made him think like that?

Clearly Che and Castro were not part of the 'proletariate;' Castro was a lawyer and Che was a middle class medical doctor who had not experienced a life of poverty; they were both like many of us who live in the First World Capitalist states.

I think it was Che's travels around Latin America where he came face to face with the reality of poverty and the oppression of the masses. Similarly I too have travelled the world and I am very familiar with the reality of the incredible poverty which affects the vast majority of humanity.

I completely agree with you: Guevara would never be the same again after his voyage around South America. I also lived in third world countries (like a year in Nigeria) and as you say, it changes forever the way you see the world (nothing to do with what you see on TV, which only makes us insensible to human suffering).

Nevertheless, and unlike most middle class ideologists, Castro and Guevara proved to be far more than just ideals; and their revolution was one of the most extraordinary events in human history.

The Capitalists of course are militant and apocalyptic and determined to both retain and advance their world revolution 'by all means necessary' including the use of nuclear weapons. They are currently using depleted uranium in Iraq and it is clear that they are determined to use their nuclear weapons to defend their revolution.

Further it does appear that there is a determination to use nuclear weapons to advance their Capitalist revolution.

I’m surprised that you call their agenda “revolution”. English is not my first language, as you said, but it doesn’t seem to me like the right word (i.e. in Spain no one would dare calling Franco’s raise to power a revolution; it could give the wrong impression). Either way, it seems to me like an intentional confusion from the establishment and the media regarding these two terms (“revolution” and “terrorism”), which now a day seems to depend on who uses the term, and on the outcome of the conflict.

The problem is that unlike Fidel and Che, the proletariat of the First World do not relate to the suffering of their brothers and sisters in the Third World, and they probably shall not until they experience it personally.

Exactly, that was my point above.

I am just a messenger and a warning of what is to come; I have spent many years networking with Communists and Muslims and I am quite aware that among them are those who are every bit as militant as Che and Fidel and who are entirely intent on bringing apocalyptic war to the homelands of the Christian state terrorists.

Consider for example;

A new video called “Nuclear Terrorism” has been posted on the worldwide web calling for jihadists to use nuclear or chemical weapons to strike the west.

“Strike civilians in the west without mercy using weapons of mass destruction” is one of the calls made in the 39-minute video.

Before the video was posted on the Arab internet forum Ekhlas a banner headline appeared on the website that said: “Pray, pray, Allah is great. America is destroyed by a fatal jihadist nuclear strike.”

The objective appears to be to incite followers of al-Qaeda to use weapons of mass destruction to strike the west

I see what you mean. And I see their point too, I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same if a foreign army blew up my home, killed my family or kidnapped and torture my friends for no apparent reason.

One thing is sure, every time a bomb goes off here, the freedom fighters responsible for it are the last ones I blame; as I know well they have been simply driven to do it by our own governments’ unbearable oppression. Giving your life for such cause isn’t a matter of choice; but a matter of survival.

Yes it is quite a moral dilemma, but the forthcoming war shall not be of my doing; long have and others like me cried out against the Christian state terrorists and forewarned them of the consequences of their terrorism and Capitalist imperialism; the matter is out of my hands; the repercussions shall be directly related to the evil that the Christians have perpetrated in the world; it shall simply be karmic retribution. There are those among humanity who simply will not stand by and watch the Christians dropping fire from the sky on women and children and enslaving nations after nation; this shall come to an end at some point; there shall be inevitable repercussions.

That may possiblly be a motivation for some; obviously in war if your enemy is dropping depleted uranium on your homeland, it is quite morally acceptible to use nuclear weapons on your enemy's homeland; the only other alternative is to surrender and accept enslavement; the destruction of Christendom shall be directly related to the evil that they have done to humanity, their wars and revolutions, torture, murder and genocide; such is the nature of war.

However there are also those who are ideologically motivated such as the Muslims and Communists; for them it is about total victory over the Christian Capitalists and there is simply no other way to defeat them other than nuclear guerilla war which I predict shall be forthcoming.

We are of course merely speaking of the collapse of Christendom and the liberation of the Third World; I don't expect the entire world to be nuked.

I don’t see how you expect the collapse of Christendom and capitalism with a nuclear holocaust without the entire world being nuked… Unfortunately, we are already too deep into globalisation. Even the slightest social, political or economical event in the smallest country has an effect in the whole world; much more a nuclear war. I assure you that on WWIII there will be no neutral paradises.

I mean 'martial law' in the same way that it existed in the Anarchist regions of Spain during the revolution against Franco and the Catholics; obviously one had to fight the fascists and certain principles had to be applied.

See, this is a good example for what I meant about humanity not being ready for real anarchism or communism; you will always have a handful of bastards trying to gain power and pursuing personal interests, while a huge lot of fools will ready to serve them for the crumbs left.

I am simply responding to the Masonic oath which includes an oath concerning ritual murder, however Masons cutting each others throats is hardly torture if you consider what the victims of their Capitalist revolution have had to endure; on the contrary it is a rather quick death. With regards to those who are committed Capitalists and religious cultists and who incite murder and state terrorist collaboration I think it quite appropriate to make such a response.

Then… don’t be surprised if I think that you are in favour of torture (who it is applied to is not the issue, the issue is allowing and performing it –even if it is on animals-).

A moral judgement is a personal subjective judgement; if your nation is being terrorised by the Anglo-American Christians and they are torturing, murdering and committing genocide, you can hardly blame the victims and those who sympathise with them for seeking to respond in a miltant manner; this is the reality of war and in accord with the natural right of defence of self and of others.

That’s true, as I said above. However, in a nuclear holocaust; every single human being will suffer the consequences. I don’t have anything against people killing to survive, but I do against those who do it for hate and revenge (especially when innocents have to pay the price).

Obviously Communists in general consider themselves morally superior to their enemies, but then their Christian Capitalist enemies feel the same way, however as far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with race; though I suspect that among the Aryan Christians it is otherwise

Narcissism is simply self love; Christians of course are not supposed to feel that; they are supposed to be full of fear and self loathing as worthless sinners; that is not my view.

Unfortunately the Christian state terrorists / narco-terrorists and their collaborators also claim that they are morally superior to their enemies, otherwise they would refer to their enemies as freedom fighters or at least combatants rather than 'terrorists.'

I doesn’t really matter why they feel superior: class, culture, race or ideology; those were just examples of how feeling superior can (and does) creates bloody conflicts; often ending in atrocious actions –from either side-. Actually, this is one of the main reasons why anarchy or communism will not work; people DO feel superior to others.

It’s not a matter of prohibiting the feeling of superiority (like Christians do), it is simply a matter of growing up beyond those outdated and useless paradigms, and disregarding them as what they really are: irrelevant. I can’t care less about issues of superiority or inferiority; in fact, I don’t even believe human beings are superior or inferior to each other (just different). I'm just surprised that you could fall on it.

Yes but consider also that Tolkein's tale is a very blood soaked tale of the war against the evil king Sauron who seeks to take over the world; in the end his armies are defeated; it is very much an Armageddon tale of a Final War between good and evil, and in war, one must not hesitate to shed the blood of the enemy; 'good' always feels morally superior to 'evil.'

It might have not been a good idea to choose a fiction book to quote. However, in this case Sauron was the spirit of evil itself in its pure form; so it would be something like killing Satan and ending with evil once and for all on earth; you can’t be wrong in that case, can you?

Let us say that defeat was not an option.

What military strategy would you advise the Muslims and Communists to use in order to totally defeat the state terrorists (i.e., the Capitalists)?

It is this question I have also asked myself for many years and I reach only one conclusion; if there were any other strategy which would utterly defeat the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists and their economic masters and allies, other that that which Muslims and Communists are currently considering, I would gladly consider it.

What can I say?

First, I don’t think there is any military strategy that would end capitalism or Christianity without also putting an end, or least risk, human life on earth.

Second, I’m neither a Muslim nor a Communist (neither are you), so I don’t see why any of us would want either of them controlling the world.

Said this, I have to admit that in one side: I agree with many of the communist ideals (as well as you). And in the other side: and that as far as I know, the only period in human history when Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived together in perfect peace and harmony was during the Arab government of Al-Andalus (Southern Spain) between 711 and 1492 AD; maybe that’s something to take into account.

The current strategy in practice is an unsuccessful strategy, it is one of constant martyrdom; that is totally unacceptable.

Further you have to address those whose thinking is not far from that of Machiavelli or Che Geuvara; if there is a strategy for total victory, that 'must' be utilised; all else is accept to the possibility of defeat; and that is unthinkable.

I know exactly how you feel. I feel the same way. But now I think you are considering the wrong solution. Ok, let’s imagine that it happens, that Muslims control the world, and / or communism defeats capitalism. Would that solve the problem? I don’t think so. You’ll have again an ideology and religion being imposed on the rest of the world; probably with the same methods (or worst) than those of the capitalists and Christians.

On the other side you would still have organised religion and you would still have leaders, both telling everyone how they should live, what they should think, what they could do and could not do, elites living of the labour of workers, the few controlling and abusing the many, and so on and so forth.

That’s not what I’m looking forward to, and I think you ain’t either (unless you are looking for revenge against capitalists and Christians)

The only peaceful means to destroy the financial command and control centres, with minimum loss of life, of the Anglo-American state terrorists that I am aware of is by an EMP detonation (see below); however this requires an ICBM missile which very few nations in the world have; unfortunately the Muslims and Communists who seek to defeat the Christians are unlikely to be able to produce this very advanced technology, thus I don't see any alternative to the current suggestions made by the Communist and Islamic militants. Futher one has to consider the hundreds of underground military bases which the state terrorists have; first there shall have to be surface wars, then the Beasts from below the earth shall have to eradicated; it is not a simple matter.

One small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can, in fact, destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a by-product of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.

This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.

I think that wouldn’t also solve the problem; it would just disrupt it for a while.

As I see it, the problem are the hypnotised masses, which ignorant of what really is going on, would simply refuse any radical change and would even fight for the current system that abuses and slaves them. But I could never accept to punish them with their lives for the crimes of their corrupt leaders and master (there are still many people I love and care for under hypnosis).

I know you are not going to like this method; as you already said it’s unacceptable. But in these conditions, I see no other solution but to just try to wake up as many people as possible. It is said that once the critical mass is reached, this corrupt system will fall on its own like a house of cards.

In the mean time, the only thing you can do for yourself is have your own bit of anarchy, for you and your people, and cooperate as little as possible with our terrorist governments.

luciferhorus

03-05-2009, 11:08 PM

Dear Flyermay,

About the second quote: It just sounds to me like anti-Castrist and anti-Communist propaganda; just one of the many imperialist attempts to discredit the myth of the most influential revolutionary of all times; trying to lower him down to the level of a terrorist, tyrant and a mass murderer. Either way, I would agree with Guevara in that the world would be a far greater place without the false propaganda from Hollywood (Los Angeles), the economic manipulation from Wall Street (New York), and the oppressive policies of the White House plus the mass murderers hidden in the Pentagon (Washington).

I haven’t read this interview, but either way, it’s not difficult to imagine that it is another attempt to damage Guevara’s image; especially coming from an anti-castrist in exile, who are regularly used by the US government as propaganda against communist Cuba.

Either way, I have to agree with the description of Guevara as a ‘violent communist’; as a matter of fact, it’s one of the reasons I admire him. There is no point in being a revolutionary if you are not prepared to at least kill your enemies. About NYC, I have explained above how I see that issue (if it was possible without destroying the whole world, which it isn’t).

Yes I too would treat as highly 'suspect' any statement made by any anti-Communist Cuban exile in Miami or wherever.

Pre-revolutionary Cuba was a sewer of Capitalism much like Thailand or Cambodia today are the capitals of sex-tourism today' the Cuban migrants to America, seek to turn Cuba back into a cesspit of casinos and brothels and people back into slaves of multi-national corporations and pimps; I would not believe anything that they say unless it was backed up by other sources, however with regards to Che's militancy, this is quite well known.

Frankly one of the great books on Castro which I bought in the early 90's was Meyer's 'Guerrilla Prince (1991)' which is an 'anti-Castro' work which portrays him as an 'ideological fanatic' and a violent terrorist, however it only inspired in me a great love for Castro; the central problem of such critiques is that they often come from those of the ilk of the author (Meyer) who are also ideological fanatics (i.e., fanatical Capitalists) and persons who defends the genocidal ultra-violence of Capitalist state terrorism.

___________________

http://i43.tinypic.com/10703ed.jpg

Watch the movie on:

http://megavideo.com/?v=N3BZPBPO

(Part One: Good quality. In Spanish with English subtitles) 130 mins.

You can bypass the megavideo.com time limit by blocking cookies for megavideo.com. This can be done in Firefox or Explorer by clicking Tools, then Options, then Privacy in follow up dialog box, then Exceptions and typing www.megavideo.com in web address and then clicking Block.

This method works perfectly for me...Lux

http://i40.tinypic.com/2z3xq2x.jpg

Che, Part 2. Spanish with English subtitles. 130 minutes.

Part 2 on megavideo.com is much poorer quality compression than Part One and if you don't speak Spanish, some of the subtitles are hard to read; however the two films can be downloaded in DVD quality from various 'warez' sites

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=2KLTR894

Certainly one of the great historical and political films of all time and well worth the almost four and a half hours required to watch it.

Part One deals with the successful Cuban revolution; it is a tale of victory. Part Two is a tragedy and deals with the unsuccessful attempt to expand the revolution to Bolivia and Che's eventual martyrdom.
_________________

I completely agree with you: Guevara would never be the same again after his voyage around South America. I also lived in third world countries (like a year in Nigeria) and as you say, it changes forever the way you see the world (nothing to do with what you see on TV, which only makes us insensible to human suffering).

Yes I have travelled in many Third World countries; they are mostly sewers of poverty, crime, child labour and sex slavery; it is often the stench of human misery which turns the compassionate soul to seek violent revolution; it is not a matter of revenge, but one of love and compassion for the victims of Capitalism and the desire to eradicate the world of the armchair warriors of Capitalist revolution who wage wars from their mansions and office buildings.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/suj133/blogs/ist590-fall2008/starving-child.jpg

Nevertheless, and unlike most middle class ideologists, Castro and Guevara proved to be far more than just ideals; and their revolution was one of the most extraordinary events in human history.

Yes of course, and further it serves as a 'model' of revolution, for example as opposed to the primitivist and barbarian model of the Kyhmer Rouge.

I’m surprised that you call their agenda “revolution”. English is not my first language, as you said, but it doesn’t seem to me like the right word (i.e. in Spain no one would dare calling Franco’s raise to power a revolution; it could give the wrong impression). Either way, it seems to me like an intentional confusion from the establishment and the media regarding these two terms (“revolution” and “terrorism”), which now a day seems to depend on who uses the term, and on the outcome of the conflict.

Well I do differentiate between Communist and Capitalist revolution; a revolution is a 'complete change' of a political system; Hitler's Germany was certainly a 'Nazi Revolution' and the agenda that is often being discussed here on Icke's forum is the agenda of the New World Order, a Global Police State, One World Government, One World Capitalist Currency; this is clearly a Capitalist Revolution which many conspiracy theorists confuse with Communist Revolution.

... I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same if a foreign army blew up my home, killed my family or kidnapped and torture my friends for no apparent reason.

One thing is sure, every time a bomb goes off here, the freedom fighters responsible for it are the last ones I blame; as I know well they have been simply driven to do it by our own governments’ unbearable oppression. Giving your life for such cause isn’t a matter of choice; but a matter of survival.
...

Yes that is why pacifism is not in accord with human nature; if someone enters your home and attempts to murder your mother, it is quite natural for you to militantly defend her; this 'hatred' for the aggressor would be interpreted by your mother as an act of selfless and sacrificial love; all the heroic archetypes of human history are generally militants of such an ilk, who in waging war against evil, are later loved by humanity, and unfortunately also often turned into objects of religious idolatry to serve the Archons who represent the anti-thesis of he hero, much as it is with the Christians.

I don’t see how you expect the collapse of Christendom and capitalism with a nuclear holocaust without the entire world being nuked… Unfortunately, we are already too deep into globalisation. Even the slightest social, political or economical event in the smallest country has an effect in the whole world; much more a nuclear war. I assure, on WWIII there will be no neutral paradises.

Unfortunately, as we have discussed, and as Marx understood, it is not in the nature of humanity to be a slave; thus there will always be slave revolutions and resistance against the economic Archons until the end of slavery.

When militant, apocalyptic resistance begins against the Christian state terrorists, it will be a 'response' to the evil they seek to perpetrate and have perpetrated. To restate, the only other alternative is to surrender to slavery and submit to the enemy; that is not an option that we can expect from all people.

See, this is a good example for what I meant about humanity not being ready for real anarchism or communism; you will always have a handful of bastards trying to gain power and pursuing personal interests, plus a huge lot of fools ready to serve them for the crumb left.
...

"Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpetings, & farwells him with hootings, only to welcome another with trumpetings again."

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/graphics/fodpaper.jpg

Yes I think that there is a general misunderstanding among anti-Communists regarding 'human nature' and collectivism; I often explain it thus:

If you take 1000 people from Beverly Hills (the economic slave masters) and 1000 from Watts (the slaves, the victims, the poor) and place them on an island, it would be unrealistic to expect collectivism and sharing of resources, since they have been conditioned by Capitalism; what we would expect is a 'Lord of the Flies' or an 'Animal Farm' scenario; gang warfare might break out and we might see wars for resources and property.

The success of the Spanish Anarchists (they were eventually defeated only militarily) to create a society of equals, or of the Israeli Communists was because they 'believed' in the ideology of economic equality; whereas the inhabitants of Capitalism's cities have been conditioned to think otherwise in a dog-eat-dog world where 'look after number one,' and 'selfishness' is encouraged.

flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html (On the anarchist Revolution in Spain (1936))

In a revolutionary situation you need to have committed communist idealists; however in a post revolutionary situation, you need to consider for example the Israeli Kibbutz; I worked for the Israelis for some years and I have also studied the sociological effects of this kind of collectivism; once you have children who grow up conditioned by a Communist environment, what you see is that they are 'natural' Communists just as conditioned Capitalists are naturally selfish, and thus the 'Animal Farm' or 'Lord of the Flies' scenario does not occur; what we find is an almost total absence of crime and violence; a society of sharers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2009/1399/images/supporting-the-palestinian-people.jpg
(above: Israeli Communists)

Then… don’t be surprised if I think that you are in favour of torture (who it is applied to is not the issue, the issue is allowing and performing it –even if it is on animals-).

Well just to restate I consider torture to be immoral, even if used against the Christian state terrorists, who themselves torture their enemies and victims; and further I find it not be effective; a person who is tortured will tell you anything you want to hear, just to make the torture stop. However in war, one has to consider how to paralyse and ultimately defeat a militant enemy, and if your enemy is using advanced weapons and has weapons of mass destruction on your homelands, one is forced to use the same weapons against them and upon their homelands; these are simply the unwritten rules of war; if the Christian state terrorists expect that they will not be retaliated against for their evil, this is simply unrealistic.

That’s true, as I said above. However, in a nuclear holocaust; every single human being will suffer the consequences. I don’t have anything against people killing to survive, but I do against those who do it for hate and revenge (especially when innocents have to pay the price).

There are 6 billion people here; I very much doubt if every single person will be 'nuked;' however the responsibility for the blood of any innocents in the Capitalist states will be the responsibility of the Capitalists themselves.

Since the Christians are quite determined to kill, starve, enslave and oppress innocents, it is only natural that their enemies will attempt to take such a war to the homelands of Christendom.

I doesn’t really matter why they feel superior: class, culture or race; those were just examples of how feeling superior can (and does) create conflicts; often ending in atrocious actions –from any side-. Actually, this is one of the motives why anarchy or communism will never work; people do feel superior to others.

It’s not a matter of prohibiting the feeling of superiority (like Christians do), it is simply a matter of growing up beyond those outdated and useless paradigms, and disregarding the issue as what it really is: irrelevant. I can’t care less about issues like being superior or inferior; in fact, I don’t even believe human beings are superior or inferior to each other (just different).

It might have not been a good idea to choose a fiction book to quote. However, in this case Sauron was the spirit of evil itself in its pure form; so it would be something like killing Satan and ending with evil once and for all on earth; you can’t be wrong in that case, can you?

Yes well that is a good example of quite understandable moral superiority; good always feels morally superior to evil; just as Communists feel morally superior to Capitalists.

What can I say?

First, I don’t think there is any military strategy that would end capitalism or Christianity without also putting an end, or least risk, human life on earth.

Second, I’m neither a Muslim nor a Communist (neither are you), so I don’t see why any of us would want either of them controlling the world.

I know exactly how you feel. I feel the same way. But now I think you are considering the wrong solution. Ok, let’s imagine that it happens, that Muslims control the world, and / or communism defeats capitalism. Would that solve the problem? I don’t think so. You’ll have again an ideology and religion being imposed on the rest of the world; probably with the same methods (or worst) than those of the capitalists and Christians.

I have to point out that Anarchist Communists do not consider other forms of tyrannical Communism to represent Communism but rather pseudo-Communism; any admiration I express for Marx, Ho Chi, Che, Fidel, Mao, Trotsky etc., should not be taken as a suspension of criticism.

Every year at the London Anarchist Bookfair, the Marxists show up outside and protest the Anarchists; I was having a chat with one of their (Marxist) organisers a few years ago where he admitted that at some point, despite any ad hoc (temporary) alliance that the Marxists and Anarchists would have to turn on each other, since tyranny and anti-tyranny are not compatible; having said this I am rather fond of Castro's State Capitalist tyranny, but revolutions often do not turn out that way; consider Cambodia and North Korea which manifested economic hell on earth, not economic paradise; this is why it is important to stress 'correct politics (political correctness), for if this is not in place prior to a revolution, the consequences of revolution can be disastrous; thus we are currently in a pre-revolutionary propaganda (education) stage, and to be frank, Anarchist politics in Europe seem now to be prevailing over Marxist politics among the younger generation of anti-Capitalists and Chomsky is much more respected among intellectuals than probably any living Marxist intellectual.

I should point out that in 2001 I ran as an independent Communist candidate in Brixton / Lambeth 'against' the Marxist SWP (Socialist Worker's Party)'s political front, the 'Socialist Alliance,' and that Communists are certainly not ideologically united.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6110/ezln6ck.jpg

In general Anarchists tend to have a great deal of respect for the martyrs of Communist revolution, especially the Cuban revolution, but that is more a 'personal respect' for Che, Fidel and the Cuban revolutionaries; we import what is valuable but Anarchism is not a totalitarian ideology in the traditional sense in terms of state control, tyranny etc., yes that the 'total' transformation of society is demanded.

Anarchist FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

Said this, I have to admit that I agree with many of the communist ideals (as well as you), and that as far as I know, the only period in human history when Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived together in perfect peace and harmony was during the Arab government of Al-Andalus (Southern Spain) between 711 and 1492 AD; maybe that’s something to take into account.

On the other side you would still have organised religion and you would still have leaders, both telling everyone how they should live, what they should think, what they could do and could not do, elites living of the labour of workers, the few controlling and abusing the many, and so on and so forth.

That’s not what I’m looking forward to, and I think you ain’t either (unless you are looking for revenge against capitalists and Christians)

http://www.luciferia.tv/images/judgement dayIV.jpg

The eradication of organised religion begins with propaganda (education), and that is entirely one of my purposes on the Interent; to undermine the credibility of the priesthood of the god of Capital; I have been at this 'work' since the Internet began, as have many others of my ilk, and I certainly see the effects of this; the religionists in my judgement are currently on the losing side in comparison with their many critics; they simply cannot defend their ridiculous faiths against the barrage of criticism.

Further there a billion Christians hypnotised by the priesthood of Capital, and whose mentor was clearly an anti-Capitalist; that is a massive untapped resource of individuals who if awakened could transform humanity, which is very much the intention of my 'shock' tactics and of the stromtroops of Liberation theology / Communist Christianity; this of course only requires education and dehypnosis, not nuclear weapons; it requires the rejection of Capitalism, tyranny organised religion and an intellectual 'conversion' to Christian Anarchism.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Christian_Socialism_Anarchism.svg/450px-Christian_Socialism_Anarchism.svg.png

I think that wouldn’t also solve the problem; it would just disrupt it for a while.

As I see it, the problem are the hypnotised masses, which ignorant of what really is going on, would simply refuse any radical change and would even fight for the current system that abuses and slaves them. But I could never accept to punish them with their lives for the crimes of their corrupt leaders and master (I still have many people I love and care for under hypnosis).

This is why at this pre-revolutionary and pre-Apocalyptic war stage, that revolutionary propaganda (education) is important.

I know you are not going to like this method; as you already said it’s unacceptable. But in these conditions, I see no other solution but to just try to wake up as many people as possible. It is said that once the critical mass is reached, this corrupt system will fall on its own like a house of cards.

I entirely agree with you that this is one possible method, but this is a 'process' that will take time and education; however we do not know how long we have before apocalyptic guerrilla war breaks out; none know the day and the hour by they who by their militant will seek to carry that out.

David Icke in his writings uses an explanation similar to this: that each person knows about 10 people very well and is acquainted with perhaps 100 people.
If you can wake up even one person, that person can speak to 100 people, who in turn know 10,000 people and so forth.

However it is rather like the blue pill and the red pill in the Matrix, some do not want to be 'awake' and would rather stay asleep; one shall be taken and one shall be left behind.

http://www.luciferia.tv/images/images/DSC00208a.jpg

With regards to your comments in another post regarding 'inciting' nuclear war; I should point out that I am merely a propagandist and a practitioner of magick; I do not have nuclear weapons; my weapons are no more than the sword of my mouth and my media and propaganda skills; unfortunately my tactics are very much 'shock tactics;' I merely seek to awaken the children of Capitalism to the reality that they have militant enemies, who will in time brutally retaliate against them should they not awaken in time; the matter is out of my hands; if they should fail to believe that the consequences for inaction will be apocalyptic, it shall not be for the want of trying on my part or of others of my ilk.

LL

Lux

http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

flyermay

04-05-2009, 10:02 PM

Yes I too would treat as highly 'suspect' any statement made by any anti-Communist Cuban exile in Miami or wherever.

Pre-revolutionary Cuba was a sewer of Capitalism much like Thailand or Cambodia today are the capitals of sex-tourism today' the Cuban migrants to America, seek to turn Cuba back into a cesspit of casinos and brothels and people back into slaves of multi-national corporations and pimps; I would not believe anything that they say unless it was backed up by other sources, however with regards to Che's militancy, this is quite well known.

Frankly one of the great books on Castro which I bought in the early 90's was Meyer's 'Guerrilla Prince (1991)' which is an 'anti-Castro' work which portrays him as an 'ideological fanatic' and a violent terrorist, however it only inspired in me a great love for Castro; the central problem of such critiques is that they often come from those of the ilk of the author (Meyer) who are also ideological fanatics (i.e., fanatical Capitalists) and persons who defends the genocidal ultra-violence of Capitalist state terrorism.

That’s exactly my point. On one hand you have that those quotes coming from anti-castrists and anti-communists; obviously influenced by their ideology. And in the other hand you have that they don’t even consider the true motivations for Castro or Guevara’s actions.

For example: as I said before, Cuba was on the edge of a second invasion by the US (after Bay of Pigs), and no one would doubt that a second attempt to invade Cuba wouldn’t fail. Looking at the missile crisis and the pledge from Guevara for the Soviets to nuke the US takes a whole new meaning if you consider his motivation (which, those anti-castrists writers obviously didn’t do). Though in my opinion, Guevara’s message and strategy was quite clear: “if Cuba goes down, the US also goes down”; and simply worked until today!!!

Certainly one of the great historical and political films of all time and well worth the almost four and a half hours required to watch it.

Part One deals with the successful Cuban revolution; it is a tale of victory. Part Two is a tragedy and deals with the unsuccessful attempt to expand the revolution to Bolivia and Che's eventual martyrdom.

I saw them already: it was quite odd to see Guevara (Del Toro) speaking with a Cuban accent but they are still two really good movies. However, in my opinion, they are still no more than clear propaganda. For example: you see how communists tried to push their ideology on people that didn’t want it, how Fidel enjoyed opulence while Che kept on fighting around the world, the script disregarded that one of the main causes for the revolution was the transformation of Cuba into a huge brothel for American troops and interests –as you pointed out-, or the fact that 2.000 men were especially trained by the CIA just to capture Guevara, and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately, as we have discussed, and as Marx understood, it is not in the nature of humanity to be a slave; thus there will always be slave revolutions and resistance against the economic Archons until the end of slavery.

When militant, apocalyptic resistance begins against the Christian state terrorists, it will be a 'response' to the evil they seek to perpetrate and have perpetrated. To restate, the only other alternative is to surrender to slavery and submit to the enemy; that is not an option that we can expect from all people.

The problems with our slavery are the sophisticated methods and techniques used against us; which create slaves that are grateful and complacent with the treatment received by their masters; whom reward the slaves with an abundance of crumbs, directly proportional to their level of cooperation.

All slaves sooner or later grow up to realise that cooperation leads to rewards, and non-complacency leads to punishment. Furthermore, now for the first time in history, a slave has the chance to achieve greater rewards than ever before by becoming a master and slave at the same time; enslaving on behalf of his masters others to work towards goals beyond those of their own. This creates the current pyramidal system of slaves, who server their masters, that serve other masters, who also server other masters, and so on and so forth until the very top; the perfect system for global submission into slavery.

A revolution today would be unlike anything else history has ever seen. No revolutionary before had to persuade their people about their condition as slaves; just make them realise that it was worth and possible to fighting against it. Unfortunately today, this would be simply impossible, as we all have an infiltrated agent in each of our homes, spreading the master’s propaganda to keep the slave in their place: we call it ‘television’.

Furthermore, another of the method used by our masters comes from ancient Rome. The Romans discovered that if you fed your people well and provided them with enough entertainment, they would not care about who ruled. This method was called “bread and circus”, and still works to this day as well as 2000 years ago.

Yes I think that there is a general misunderstanding among anti-Communists regarding 'human nature' and collectivism; I often explain it thus:

If you take 1000 people from Beverly Hills (the economic slave masters) and 1000 from Watts (the slaves, the victims, the poor) and place them on an island, it would be unrealistic to expect collectivism and sharing of resources, since they have been conditioned by Capitalism; what we would expect is a 'Lord of the Flies' or an 'Animal Farm' scenario; gang warfare might break out and we might see wars for resources and property.

The success of the Spanish Anarchists (they were eventually defeated only militarily) to create a society of equals, or of the Israeli Communists was because they 'believed' in the ideology of economic equality; whereas the inhabitants of Capitalism's cities have been conditioned to think otherwise in a dog-eat-dog world where 'look after number one,' and 'selfishness' is encouraged.

That’s why I think real anarchism or communism are a utopia. You would need to get rid of all the people who have been already conditioned. Something like starting the world from scratch. Unfortunately, that’s simply not possible.

It might have worked in other times, like in some regions of Spain before the civil war, but globalisation has jeopardized any chances of that happening ever again, as we have all been conditioned to think that selfishness and the accumulation of wealth are the way forward.

In a revolutionary situation you need to have committed communist idealists; however in a post revolutionary situation, you need to consider for example the Israeli Kibbutz; I worked for the Israelis for some years and I have also studied the sociological effects of this kind of collectivism; once you have children who grow up conditioned by a Communist environment, what you see is that they are 'natural' Communists just as conditioned Capitalists are naturally selfish, and thus the 'Animal Farm' or 'Lord of the Flies' scenario does not occur; what we find is an almost total absence of crime and violence; a society of sharers.

Again we have the problem of the adults, who have been conditioned already. Not everyone in this world will accept the new rules and therefore will pass a negative influence to their children. Something like all those people who live in communist countries and dream with going to America and become rich bastards.

There are 6 billion people here; I very much doubt if every single person will be 'nuked;' however the responsibility for the blood of any innocents in the Capitalist states will be the responsibility of the Capitalists themselves.

Since the Christians are quite determined to kill, starve, enslave and oppress innocents, it is only natural that their enemies will attempt to take such a war to the homelands of Christendom.

It’s not only about the 6 billion people being killed directly by nuclear weapons; you also have to consider the indirect effects of a nuclear war at a global scale. All those who would survive and will probably experience a slow death due to the radiation, lack of resources, destroyed environment, and god know what more. I don’t think that life on earth’s surface would be possible for some good hundreds of years after.

The responsibility will probably fall in all of us, as we didn’t do anything to prevent it when we had the chance. At the contrary, we supported and funded our leaders while they were developing such weapons and warfare tactics (and we still do it every single day –like the guy who smokes and then blames the tobacco company when he falls sick-).

This is why at this pre-revolutionary and pre-Apocalyptic war stage, that revolutionary propaganda (education) is important.

I entirely agree with you that this is one possible method, but this is a 'process' that will take time and education; however we do not know how long we have before apocalyptic guerrilla war breaks out; none know the day and the hour by they who by their militant will seek to carry that out.

David Icke in his writings uses an explanation similar to this: that each person knows about 10 people very well and is acquainted with perhaps 100 people. If you can wake up even one person, that person can speak to 100 people, who in turn know 10,000 people and so forth.

However it is rather like the blue pill and the red pill in the Matrix, some do not want to be 'awake' and would rather stay asleep; one shall be taken and one shall be left behind.

Yes, I realised that things are starting to get out of hand (on both sides; against and in favour of the current system). But as I said, I see no point in doing anything else than opening people’s eyes until enough of us care about what is going on.

And I said “care” because the problem are not those who take the blue or the red pill, but those who choose the right pill and don’t give a dam about it.

luciferhorus

26-05-2009, 05:01 AM

That’s exactly my point. On one hand you have that those quotes coming from anti-castrists and anti-communists; obviously influenced by their ideology. And in the other hand you have that they don’t even consider the true motivations for Castro or Guevara’s actions.

For example: as I said before, Cuba was on the edge of a second invasion by the US (after Bay of Pigs), and no one would doubt that a second attempt to invade Cuba wouldn’t fail. Looking at the missile crisis and the pledge from Guevara for the Soviets to nuke the US takes a whole new meaning if you consider his motivation (which, those anti-castrists writers obviously didn’t do). Though in my opinion, Guevara’s message and strategy was quite clear: “if Cuba goes down, the US also goes down”; and simply worked until today!!!

.

Yes I think that the fear of retaliation stopped the US invading Cuba. In this age, the masters of Anglo-American state terrorism appear to have spent decades burying themselves below the earth, and they seem to have lost that fear, and they seem ot believe that they can get away with anything, and yet still rise from the ashes of Armageddon.

Final War is thus complicated by the fact that these Beasts are 'below' the earth, and yet simplified by the fact that they are trapped there, and that their underground culture can be very easily turned into a 'pit of fire.'

Thus surface war shall not suffice; fire shall have to be cast upon the Beasts from below the earth; thus the war on the surface of the earth shall have to be followed by the war of the undergrounds; it shall be very messy; rivers of blood I forsee, but certainly neither impossible nor improbable; I forsee that it shall become actual, since there are anti-Capitalists who are every bit as genocidal and as unwilling to surrender the world as the masters of Captialism are.

.
I saw them already: it was quite odd to see Guevara (Del Toro) speaking with a Cuban accent but they are still two really good movies. However, in my opinion, they are still no more than clear propaganda. For example: you see how communists tried to push their ideology on people that didn’t want it,
.

The economic elites never want revolution against their own kingdom; they can only be convinced to surrender through revolution by the 'rod of iron.'
A bullet in the head is generally the deciding factor.
.
how Fidel enjoyed opulence while Che kept on fighting around the world,
.

Yes but Fidel risked his life so many times prior to that; and as such he deserves his reputation as a heroic figure; had he been martyred and defeated, we would respect and love him no less, but he would not have brought liberation to the 12 million people of Cuba from the yoke of the pimps, casino owners, usuryists and the multi-national corporations; that he stayed alive and substantiated the revolution allows us to look to Cuba as a model for the future world; frankly most of the 6 billion people here would emigrate to Cuba tommorrow if you gave them the choice; it is only the Capitalist elites who would demand their 5 star hotels and their slaves; a slavemaster cannot be expected to supprt revolution; the beneficiaries of revolution are always the slaves, not the masters, thus I find myself addressing the 'masters' of Capitalism in the hope that the many who are enslaved will hear me.

.

the script disregarded that one of the main causes for the revolution was the transformation of Cuba into a huge brothel for American troops
.

Fidel often points out that there were 100,000 prostitutes among the (in 1959) 6 million Cubans. The Capitalist elites love prostitutes, but if you suggest to them that they should sell their mothers, daughters and sisters to a pimp, they quickly become offended.

.
and interests –as you pointed out-, or the fact that 2.000 men were especially trained by the CIA just to capture Guevara, and so on and so forth.

The problems with our slavery are the sophisticated methods and techniques used against us; which create slaves that are grateful and complacent with the treatment received by their masters; whom reward the slaves with an abundance of crumbs, directly proportional to their level of cooperation.

All slaves sooner or later grow up to realise that cooperation leads to rewards, and non-complacency leads to punishment. Furthermore, now for the first time in history, a slave has the chance to achieve greater rewards than ever before by becoming a master and slave at the same time; enslaving on behalf of his masters others to work towards goals beyond those of their own. This creates the current pyramidal system of slaves, who server their masters, that serve other masters, who also server other masters, and so on and so forth until the very top; the perfect system for global submission into slavery.

A revolution today would be unlike anything else history has ever seen. No revolutionary before had to persuade their people about their condition as slaves; just make them realise that it was worth and possible to fighting against it. Unfortunately today, this would be simply impossible, as we all have an infiltrated agent in each of our homes, spreading the master’s propaganda to keep the slave in their place: we call it ‘television’.

Furthermore, another of the method used by our masters comes from ancient Rome. The Romans discovered that if you fed your people well and provided them with enough entertainment, they would not care about who ruled. This method was called “bread and circus”, and still works to this day as well as 2000 years ago.

That’s why I think real anarchism or communism are a utopia. You would need to get rid of all the people who have been already conditioned. Something like starting the world from scratch. Unfortunately, that’s simply not possible.

It might have worked in other times, like in some regions of Spain before the civil war, but globalisation has jeopardized any chances of that happening ever again, as we have all been conditioned to think that selfishness and the accumulation of wealth are the way forward.

Again we have the problem of the adults, who have been conditioned already. Not everyone in this world will accept the new rules and therefore will pass a negative influence to their children. Something like all those people who live in communist countries and dream with going to America and become rich bastards.

.

I think that it is generally understood that if you placed the population of Hamstead or Beverly Hills (the masters) on an island with the population of Brixton or Watts (the slaves) that gang warfare would break out; the masters would no longer have the Capital with which they persuade the slaves to work; Communism would not naturally occur; in times of war a tyrant may arise as a general; but if you look to the kibbutz, such children have been conditioned as Communists since birth; if you placed a 1000 kibbutzists on an island, I tend to think that they would execute the first dictator who sought to arise, and that Commune-ism would be their priority since they are conditioned to think in a more selfless way and to value the collective spirit.

.

It’s not only about the 6 billion people being killed directly by nuclear weapons; you also have to consider the indirect effects of a nuclear war at a global scale. All those who would survive and will probably experience a slow death due to the radiation, lack of resources, destroyed environment, and god know what more. I don’t think that life on earth’s surface would be possible for some good hundreds of years after.

The responsibility will probably fall in all of us, as we didn’t do anything to prevent it when we had the chance. At the contrary, we supported and funded our leaders while they were developing such weapons and warfare tactics (and we still do it every single day –like the guy who smokes and then blames the tobacco company when he falls sick-).

Yes, I realised that things are starting to get out of hand (on both sides; against and in favour of the current system). But as I said, I see no point in doing anything else than opening people’s eyes until enough of us care about what is going on.

And I said “care” because the problem are not those who take the blue or the red pill, but those who choose the right pill and don’t give a dam about it.

When there are sufficient numbers of intelligent and scientific opponents of the Capitalist 'New World Order,' 'like a theif in the night, on the clouds of heaven, the kingdoms of Capital shall turn to dust, in the blink of an eye, on a day and an hour; however by 'sufficient numbers' I think that as few as '7 angels' would suffice, assuming a sufficient knowledge of the military application of phyiscs, and the mythical 144,000 righteous of Israel (the Israeli Communists) would be able to clean up the mess.

Lux

torus

26-05-2009, 05:45 AM

luciferhorus

26-05-2009, 06:37 PM

'violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.'
-Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn is probably not a good person to speak about 'anti-violence' since in the political sense he believed in 'Constitutional Monarchy' which is a rather regressive form of politics and indeed 'any' form of Monarchy can only be held in place by the violence of a police state.

The dictatorship of Capital is a system which also can only be held in place by the terror of a police state; to respond to such militant Capitalists with militant force is an entirely natural and defensive action; pacifism is simply 'submission' and surrender, and is entirely what the militant capitalists wish their enemies to believe.

Lux

flyermay

27-05-2009, 02:23 PM

Yes I think that the fear of retaliation stopped the US invading Cuba. In this age, the masters of Anglo-American state terrorism appear to have spent decades burying themselves below the earth, and they seem to have lost that fear, and they seem ot believe that they can get away with anything, and yet still rise from the ashes of Armageddon.

It is obvious that the US avoid at all cost attacking any real enemy that could reach their soil in retaliation. The proof is that since the introduction of the inter ballistic missiles they only engaged in armed conflicts with small defenceless nations like Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Final War is thus complicated by the fact that these Beasts are 'below' the earth, and yet simplified by the fact that they are trapped there, and that their underground culture can be very easily turned into a 'pit of fire.'

Thus surface war shall not suffice; fire shall have to be cast upon the Beasts from below the earth; thus the war on the surface of the earth shall have to be followed by the war of the undergrounds; it shall be very messy; rivers of blood I forsee, but certainly neither impossible nor improbable; I forsee that it shall become actual, since there are anti-Capitalists who are every bit as genocidal and as unwilling to surrender the world as the masters of Captialism are.

…

When there are sufficient numbers of intelligent and scientific opponents of the Capitalist 'New World Order,' 'like a theif in the night, on the clouds of heaven, the kingdoms of Capital shall turn to dust, in the blink of an eye, on a day and an hour; however by 'sufficient numbers' I think that as few as '7 angels' would suffice, assuming a sufficient knowledge of the military application of phyiscs, and the mythical 144,000 righteous of Israel (the Israeli Communists) would be able to clean up the mess.

I'm not sure what you mean by the beasts from below the earth. I also heard you before talking about the 7 angels and the 144,000 righteous of Israel, but I don't understand what you mean exacly.

luciferhorus

27-05-2009, 03:23 PM

It is obvious that the US avoid at all cost attacking any real enemy that could reach their soil in retaliation. The proof is that since the introduction of the inter ballistic missiles they only engaged in armed conflicts with small defenceless nations like Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan and Pakistan.
.

Yes well in the past only large nation states had nuclear weapons, but the secrets of physics are now taught in every major university of the world and are secrets no more; thus the Communist and Islamic militia who wish to retaliate against the Christian state terrorists no longer need access to such 'state' secrets, since they are state secrets no longer. Obviously nuclear missiles require a great deal of resources to engineer and target, and further they leave a memory on the global sattelite system as to their origin; an origin which can be retaliated against, leaving nuclear guerilla warfare to be the only option; in time the apocalyptic enemies of the Christian state terrorists will inevitably retaliate; what goes around comes around.

.
I'm not sure what you mean by the beasts from below the earth.
.

The Beast from Below the Earth.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/tunnel_boring_machine_2.jpg

The Internet is full of information on this. The American military today have nuclear powered tunnelling machines and have been digging themselves under the earth for decades; there are allegedly at least 100 large military bases deep underneath America, connected allegedly by high speed train; some of these bases allegedly cover up to four square miles.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/underground_bases.html

http://www.projectcamelot.org/tunnel_boring_machine_1.jpg

http://www.whale.to/b/zone51_zoom.jpg

Europe similarly has an underground military presence in preparation for the Apocalypse; thus surface war shall not suffice, the Beasts from below the earth shall have to also be cast into the pit of fire, otherwise the Phoenix shall simply rise from the ashes of Armageddon and revolution shall have to be begun all over again, and even more rivers of blood shall flow; for the Final Revolution to be Final, the war against the undergrounds will have to be accomplished; I think that this is anyway widely understood; the major militant enemies of the Chrstians hardly need to send intelligence agents into America to discover this; the evidence is all over the Internet.

http://www.alexjoneslive.com/deepundergroundmilitarybases

http://www.alexjoneslive.com/tunnel_boring_machine_4_lg.jpg/tunnel_boring_machine_4_lg-large.jpg

.
I also heard you before talking about the 7 angels and the 144,000 righteous of Israel, but I don't understand what you mean exacly.

The 7 Angels of the Apocalypse

http://www.bigaddison.com/newstuff/armageddon_cam_apocalypse2.png

I am simply using the apocalytpic language of John's revelation; had John spoken of 8 Angels of apocalyptic war, then I would be speaking of 8 angels and not 7; if he had spoken of the revolutionary vanguard of 145,000, I would also be speaking of 145,000; such prophecies are engrained the in human consciousness in Christendom, as the prophecies of the Ad Dijjal and the Mahdi are engrained in the Islamic consciousness; obviously if I were speaking on an Islamic forum, I would speak of the nuclear war against the Ad Dijjal by the Madhi.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/nuclear_jihad.JPG

Generally I think it feasible for an apocalyptic 7 militants to destroy Capitalism, given that we are in a nuclear age, and given that it is widely understood that the King of Capitalism has surrounded his kingdom with giant nuclear weapons dumps (nuclear power stations) which are succeptible to attack and which will inevitably be detonated in the forthcoming nuclear guerilla war.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/29/article-1022840-0168F03500000578-456_468x285_popup.jpg

144,000 Righteous of Israel.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ulnzk75rWHQ/SVvEiAmIrvI/AAAAAAAAAMk/NATAYaDKqtM/s400/cuba50

This is approximately one person out of every 30,000 people among the human population of 6 billion +. I think that there are at least 30,000 Communists in the world who commited to African slave revolution and the liberation of the motherland (Africa); this would be quite sufficient to initiate agricultural revolution, swords to ploughshares etc., in the aftermath of nuclear war and the defeat of the Christian state terrorists.

http://nachtkabarett.com/ihvh/img/tarot_magician.jpg

Further it is a magickal working which I am doing; having already evoked the 7 demons of the apocalypse, I have long sought to find and evoke their counterparts on earth (they to whom the prophecy speaks) to carry out this task; similarly with the revolutionary Vanguard.

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

Fire, plague and poisoned waters.

michael christopher

30-05-2009, 06:25 PM

luciferhorus

30-05-2009, 09:02 PM

Do you think it's possible that perhaps part of the reason people have such a limited visual perception is because they are, through cultural training, willing to see only so far back as matter can be understood?).

If we believe that matter is as far down as it goes, then perhaps we simply cannot perceive energy.

Analogy.

An a analogy in language is where we 'compare' one thing to another, such as when we compare our lover's eyes to all the stars in the universe, or that when she speaks it is as if a 1000 choirs of angels are singing, or that a computer processor is like our brian, the hard disk is like our past memories, the RAM is our current thoughts and consciousness in the present, and the metal box which contains the computer is like our 'head,' the container of the brain, and so forth.

http://www.quantumenergywellness.com/quantum-image.jpg

When I was in secondary school back in the 70's, the way that physics and chemistry were taught was to explain that the atom is a tiny 'thing'; that the nucleus of the atom was a small piece of matter, and that the electrons which spun around it were also tiny pieces of matter, rather than 'waveforms;' this 'analogy' was merely for the purposes of 'teaching' a student who could not othewise grasp the micro-universe.

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/08aug/holographicrepatt.jpg

This was only an approximate analogy which was useful for the young person to 'picture' in their mind what was too small for them to ever see; it was also a very a useful way of avoiding the question of infinite causal regression, since if the student were to ask, 'What is the nucleus of the atom made of?' the teacher may say that the nucleus is just a term in language to describe a collection (like 'galaxy' to describe a collection of solar sytems) of sub-atomic particles for which we have invented many Latin names; if the student then asks; what these sub atomic particles are made of, and so forth, the teacher then eventually gets to a point where he is as puzzled as the students, assuming that he has an understanding of the mystery of the quantum world.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/06/quantum_computing_internet_3.jpg

Since even Einstein suspected that quantum physics might be the 'End of Physics' as we know it, even in the classrooms of the post Einstein period where teachers of physics and chemistry have used 'models' based on atoms being small pieces of matter, these 'models' have always anyway been an 'analogy (a comparison of things)' which attempted to solidify the micro-universe in the terms of our world of perceivable matter.

http://www.alternativelearningtechnologies.com/sitebuilder/images/quantum_physics3-944x389.jpg

When we touch a 'thing' like a rock or a tree, we think that we touching a 'solid object,' and the mind can more easily understand this as a collection of small pieces of matter like a bag of sand.

When we touch a bag of sand we find it to be a solid heavy mass, though we know it is composed of many small, light tiny pieces, and the analogous model of the atom taught in schools seems to paint a picture in the mind of all matter as being like a bag of sand.

In fact when we touch any solid object, we are not in fact touching a collection of tiny pieces of matter; rather what we perceive as solid is in fact the effect of the electron waves; it is rather more like touching an invisible force field, and we can never touch the 'nucleus' of the atom for it is shielded by the waves of electrons; thus a useful analogy would be a 'Star Wars' type force field which protects a spacecraft from attack, and is very 'real' to the senses but alos entirely invisible, and to confuse matters further, the spacecraft is not at all like the atom's nucleus, for the nucleus is also entirely invisible but also entirely existant, so it is more like an invisible spacecraft surrounded by an invisible forcefield; this is a more 'mature' analogy because it is as confusing and mysterious as the reality of the quantum world, but when we teach physics to children, the point is 'not' to create confusion in their minds, so we use simple analogous models, and there is the danger of this being taken too literally, which leads of course to the scientific heresy of 'materialism.'

If we believe that matter is as far down as it goes, then perhaps we simply cannot perceive energy.

Flyermay and I have been going around in circles on this thread on this one, and I think that we both understand the nature of the problem The problem here is that changing one's thinking from materalism to energyism does not resolve the question. We know that Mass is convertable to Energy and Light, and this fact is confirmed every time we look up at the Sun. We understand that tiny pieces of the Sun's Mass are 'transforming' or 'transubstantiating' into what appears to be the different phenomena of Energy and Light, and the human senses consider Mass, Light and Energy to be three different forms, rather than entwined and part of the 'One Stuff or Non-stuff,' of the universe.

http://blog.sciseek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/quantum-physics.png

In summary and to restate simply, instead of holding that the universe is made of Mass, we could say that it is made of Energy or Light, but then this leads to the question of that this Energy is made of, or what the Photon is made of? It does not solve the question but merely leads to another series of questions.

http://hasylab.desy.de/e77/e106/e122/e8155/e8156/titleimage8_eng.gif

We understand that Mass is convertable to Energy and Light. The E=MC squared conversion thus must have it's opposite equation which would be an equation which shows how Energy is convertible to Mass; therefore neither materialism (Mass-ism) nor Energy-ism resolves the question of what is the 'stuff' of the universe, since both Mass and Energy and clearly interconvertable and the phenomena of 'one substance,' or more likely 'one-non-substance.'

Since I dropped this belief, I have been able to see vividly at times what Stuart Wilde refers to as "the morph" or morphogenetic field. I have a friend who can see the same things I can see. I wonder if this has something to do with my loss of belief in matter as being authentically different from light (ultimately I believe it's just crystalized light).

http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1440/f7b6c3.jpg

Yes I think that when we approach the realm of 'shamanistic' experiences, we 'see' a different universe, but it is not a 'seeing' with the physical eyes, since the modern person who has mostly experimented at one time or another with shamanistic psychoactives perceives the universe differently; probably the best theory which explains all this is the 'holographic theory' and also traditional 'animism;' the former being a scientific theory and the latter being a view of reality which assumes that all things are 'alive,' and that a rock or a planet has a 'living, spiritual' essense; for example all astrologers are by default animists, as am I, but we cannot prove this scientifically because it is a subjective perception of human consciousness, but it is a common view among the New Age movement and a central belief among Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, the Gaia movement, etc., but it is not a new belief; it is a rather ancient interpretation of reality, that all life and all things have within them a living, spiritual, divine (godlike) essense; such people are often described in derogatory terms by materialists as 'tree-huggers,' and I am unashamedly a tree-hugger.

http://www.alternativelearningtechnologies.com/sitebuilder/images/mystic_image-250x188.png

More on the Holographic Universe on:

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/holographic.html

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/holographic.jpg

Hologram

The problem with the term 'Holographic Universe' is that it is also an 'analogy,' since what we understand as a 'hologram' is a three dimensional image which is an effect of Light, but we may place our hand 'through' a hologram; it is not solid; whereas the real hologram of our universe which we perceive is much more than this; it also gives the impression of solidity; we can see, hear, speak to, touch and taste other objects and persons, but it is a hologram of Light never the less, but we are not used to thinking of Light as having a 'Mass' or as solid, but it is entirely clear that Light is not unrelated to Mass; we look up to the Sun and our eyes are blinded by the Light; Light which was once a tiny piece of matter which transubstantiated, became Light, travelled about 93 million miles through space and almost blinded us; Light that entirely originated in a tiny piece of mass and that lights up our planet.

Animated.

You are not 'just' a hologram of course; you are alive, you are a person and within you is a cosmos of emotions, intelligence, memory, thoughts; you cannot be entirely reduced to a hologram, and from here we leave behind physics and must consider metaphysics; the origin of all Light in the universe is a mystery and the origin of all love sees to be an even greater mystery, but ultimately of course it is entirely the same question; we are futher not merely a random confused display of Light, this hologram is entirely programmed and dependent on information to display it as it should be, and of course this demands the exsitence of the ultimate Grand programmer, Grand Designer, Grand Architect, One Mother, or whatever term suits you.

Design

The Argument from Design, which has always merely been an 'argument' not a proof, has usually been made based upon Paley's Watch, but today better a analogy might be as if I found a fully working computer on a beach; if I argued that it was just an 'accident' of nature which accidentally and randomly organised itself into a computer, most people would consider such thinking to be rather foolish, however far beyond any handmade watch or computer analogy, is the reality of the person; when I come across another person, it is inconceivable to me that they are simply an accidental, random holographic image which appears to all my senses; they appear to me as entirely the product of a sacred program which arranges Light in such a way, but it is not an 'open source' program; there are limits to how we can interfere with the program since the ultimate code has been 'locked' to some degree by the Grand Progammer.

Evil and the Return to year Zero

Ultimately if the universe has been created by the Creator of Love and the Origin of Love, we may expect Her to eventually resolve the problem of evil; unfortunately She does not appear in our universe as an object, but rather only 'within' our universe and within all persons and things; unfortunately Her only solution appears to be to send 'agents' of Her providential will into her system, rather like using an anti-virus program; this may explain why many of us who are part of New Aeon spirituality are in receipt of very similar realisations, visions, revelations and so force, and this hopefully explains the rise of the collective Messianic complex; we seek to save the world, not to conquer it, to liberate our 6 billion brothers and sisters, not to enslave them; to turn the world of hatred, poverty and suffering into a New Heaven on earth. Unfortunately the most effective anti-virus must seek out and destroy or immunise 'all' viruses, and at times it is more effective to clear the hard drive and start again; in order to create the New World, we may have to completely destroy the old one and start again; though I do not yet think that it is necessay to eradicate all of humanity, since most of the 6 billion here are just impoverished victims, mostly women and children whom the evil magi here seek to impoverish and enslave; since the priesthood of Capital are prepared to eradicate all of humanty who resist their rule and to 'save' only they and their allies and slaves, I thus think it entirely appropriate to consider the possibility of the eradication of every last person on earth who cannot be reprogrammed to fit into an entirely new Communist Paradise; this of course being the agenda of the Final Revolutionary War of Economic Salvation, the Apocalypse, Armageddon, the Final Judgement, the separation of the wheat from the chaff; this of course leads away from the discussion of physics to that of political philosophy, economics and Final War which is the subject of other threads here on this forum, but which are entirely entwined with the military application of the conversion of Mass to Light and Energy.

Weaving Spiders, come thy here.

I tend to write rather long essays and responses rather than in simple one-liners, but I must point out that I have been doing this purposefully for many years and that I am not merely addressing human persons, but am entirely guilty of addressing the various spiders of the various search engines such as Google; I am engaged not only in a magickal working and the reprogramming of humanity, but I am also addressing various non human programs who respond very well to repetitive keywords and phrases; I hope that you don't take this personally Michael, since I am also a person who is responding to you entirely as another person, I merely have to also address the 7 Angels of the Apocalpse, the Vanguard of Revolution on earth and the myraids of peoples and nations who surround you in the clouds of heaven.

Propaganda is the First Stage of War. Words are Weapons.

"Every Man and Woman is a Star"

Love (the essense of metaphysics) and Light (the essense of physics).

Lucifer
Lucis Rex; Human Anti-virus, Final Upgrade version 777, Great King of Terror and numerous other heretical and blasphemous titles.
Fire, plague and poisoned waters.

http://www.drizzle.com/~eric/ase.jpg

The 1000 Year Revolution of the Many Points of Light.