PDA

View Full Version : The Freedom of Choice



Ghislain
11-22-2010, 01:55 AM
I am not sure where this thread belongs but HERE (thefreedomofchoice.com/e-book.pdf) is a free
Ebook from Dr Thomas J. Chalko MSc, PhD called, "The Freedom of Choice".

I read this many years ago and it contains some very relevant points for those that seek what is (IMHO)

It's an easy read...give it a go.

I place it here as I need a quote from it to use in answer to another thread :)

Ghislain

Seth-Ra
11-22-2010, 09:47 AM
Ghislain,

Nice find with the Ebook. :D
Im not done reading the whole thing - but from what i have, it makes a good argument of what i knew, very nicely infact.
Also, my favorite quote so far:

“Whoever knows everything,
but lacks Within,
lacks EVERYTHING...”

Again, very nice find, and thank you for sharing it. :)



~Seth-Ra

Albion
11-23-2010, 02:38 PM
Thanks for the link, Ghislain.

Recently, I've been reading through "Who, In Fact, You Really Are" and "Lessons of Enlightenment" found here: http://www.cosmicawareness.org/html/free_downloads.html

[ Versions of the same, with somewhat better typesetting: http://www.transactual.com/cac/free.html , http://www.transactual.com/cac/free.html ]

This is channelled material but sans the condescending tone and overly saccharin lightsider rhetoric one generally associates with channelled material. Although I wouldn't go so far as to give it an absolute endorsement, nevertheless I feel there are many gems of truth strewn throughout these [many] pages. On a half-dozen or so occasions [that I've discovered thus far], an explanation employs the four/five Element conceptual schematic of Fire, Air, Water, Earth, and Akasha.

I'm not sure quite how to put this, but these texts were strong on what, in my personal vocabulary, I call "articulation" [as in the 'joint' articulation of muscle, tendon, cartilage and bone] - in which the many factors comprising the 'soul,' the interrelated nexus of feeling, emotion, identity [on various levels], the mind [on various levels], the heart, awareness, will, imagination, individuality, social input, etc., are described in their interaction [articulation]. I first encountered this sort of approach in the works of Soren Kierkegaard. Whether or not one agrees with its conclusions, such material can be helpful if it serves to bring into play [more central consideration] factors which one had perhaps otherwise relegated to the periphery of their conceptual palette.

solomon levi
11-24-2010, 06:19 PM
My experience does not agree with the book.
Just because a house is easier for an intellect to build does not =
life is thus even more difficult to come across by chance.
A house is a human creation. Life is not.
Houses appear after humans; life appears before humans.

So this guy is mistaken from the get-go.
Obviously since life appeared first, we would say it was easier, more primitive/primordial, than a house.

I hate it when people use logic and fuck things up.
Direct seeing is far better than logic.

And he's making arguments about Intellect and Intelligence without defining them for us.
With the house example it is obviously human intellect/intelligence.
Obviously he imagines that through logic we can compare our intellect to the Source's.
This is not true.

The Source created life without any plan or design.
If it weren't so, there would be no freedom of choice -
we would all act precisely as we were designed to act.

Creation appeared when the Void contemplated itself, or became self-aware.
It had no idea or plan what would result from that. It did not contemplate itself
IN ORDER TO begin creation. It just did so.
Why must life creating itself and life being created by design oppose?
Life created itself AND it has a design.

By the way, I am not saying that we DO have freedom of choice.
It depends on how evolved you are. Most people are mechanical - reactions to their environment.
That's Gurdjieff 101.

Oh boy! I just got to the part on Purpose.
This guy is way off. And he's so pretentious:
"Don't piss on it because you may feel strange later when you will grow to understand more"
So if we don't agree with him, we haven't grown enough - he's above us.
What bullshit!
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Or he knows too well.
It's like those people who intentionally disseminate false info in a logical way to mislead people.

Purpose is a personal invention. God or the Great Architect, or whatever you call it, has no purpose for us.
If It does, then relax. You can't miss it. How could "little old you" defy God's Purpose?
Anyway. This is bullshit. Please find out for yourselves.

He says not to proceed if you don't agree with the first premise.
Well, the first premise is bunk, and so is the rest of it based on that false premise.

"Can you imagine anyone EXTREMELY intelligent designing
something with NO purpose and for NO reason?"

Again, he is "thinking as man thinks, and not as God thinks."
Don Juan made Carlos Castaneda do meaningless chores for hours to teach him "acting for the sake of acting",
that is without gain or purpose.

The Intelligence in you is far greater than human intelligence.
Here is Krishnamurti's defintion of intellect and intelligence:
http://buddhasangha.blogspot.com/2009/06/jiddu-krishnamurti-on-intelligence-and.html

this one's good too:
http://www.contentwriter.in/articles/self-development/intelligence.htm

Did you notice what K said about conclusions?
And here is this guys next words:
"Hence, the next conclusion is that Life MUST have a
PURPOSE."

Which mind makes conclusions?
Do you think God makes conclusions?
What has ever concluded?

K is a seer. So is Castaneda. This other dude is a jackass.

Seth-Ra
11-24-2010, 07:23 PM
To each their own i suppose.

Id like to point out though, that (it is possible) Life has a design, the Creator created it with said design, but people can and do miss it - due to freedom of choice. Design, purpose etc, do not mean you must, when free will is entered into the picture - it means you can, and it will go better if you do. But with free will, a person can choose to go out and get a job and take care of themselves and their loved ones (way the system is designed to work *example only*) OR, same person could go blow all the $$ on meth and go kill themselves, self-destruct. (opposite of how its designed to be) all because they simply have the option to do either one.
The Creator, God, etc.. is Truth - is Source, is All, as One - but how many people really see that, or get that? How many had rather create veils, deceive themselves and destroy themselves. I have two friends who are consistently unsatisfied with the people around them - not personally, but just the people at their schools: the mind-sets, the low grade of mentality, mostly due to all they want is sex, drugs and death. They have the free will to do this, and enter the grave accordingly.

Even here, the internet connecting us all, continents apart - and we are a minority, if we weren't then there would be alchemy in hospitals, not vulgar chemistry. ;)

The Creator having a plan, that is good for us, and us choosing to not accept it, or even want it, and doing what is not good for us is not proof that there is no purpose, or plan - it is proof that the one who doesnt want it, doesnt want it.

This is also a theme of the Bible - even as alchemical allegory (if thats how you wish to see it), demonstrates in the very beginning in the garden that we have a choice. Observer effect, premise of magic, premise of alchemy - I can change something by my choosing to change it, i can influence it, i can see the design and use it for its purpose intelligently (the royally clothed artist depicted in alchemical imagery) - or i can stay ignorant, oblivious and a "victim" to life because it has no rhyme or reason and i refuse to use it, waiting on death. (the unclothed/heathen worker depicted in alchemical drawings)

We start as children, the ignorant, but we tend to have faith when we are little, if we choose to use that and move forward towards a better life, or life as it is designed to be, then we will (and gain understanding and wisdom along the way) - but if we abandon that, then we have nothing but our ignorance, depression, and death.

... and it seems what started as a small comment has grown into a rather large one... my apologies. :o

Anyway - tis my 2¢, do what ye will. :)



~Seth-Ra

Andro
11-24-2010, 07:33 PM
My experience does not agree with the book.

Mine neither.


I hate it when people use logic and fuck things up.

To quote Albion, quoting Peter Kingsley: "Our intelligence and best intentions only make matters worse."
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________

IMO, the only free choice can be made from outside all possible infinities (and there's an infinity of them).

We didn't start the fire. Noone did. We just fuck forward and pass it on and along. There is no point of origin.

The week of Genesis doesn't start with a Sabbath, but ends with one. Maybe an everlasting one, since there is no mention of another Sunday/first day.

Is there rest? If we find out that there is, now THAT would be a test of free choice. The rest is inevitable anyway. (Pun simultaneously intended and un-intended :))

The secret is how to die.

solomon levi
11-24-2010, 10:12 PM
To each their own i suppose.


No - not in this case. A thing is reasonable or it's not.
I think I've shown that this guys reason is not reasonable.
This is not about opinion.
This guy isn't claiming to have an opinion.
He's putting forth arguments that this is the way it is,
and he's wrong.

But yes, people can believe whatever they want.
Again, this guy isn't saying, "these are my beliefs".


I wouldn't mind arguing free will further.
I spent the majority of my life believing it. It makes good sense.
But it isn't true.
One can divide it into two categories - the ego and non-ego.
If one studies the ego enough, one sees it is a closed loop/system.
You can call what happens in this loop choice, but it is choices in a very small box
that don't amount to anything, especially don't amount to will.
The ego can only use the past so it is limited. Choice inside of limitation is not free.
There are boundaries to what can be chosen.

Category 2 - no ego. Then who is there to choose? There is no separation; no choice, chooser and chosen.

I could elaborate more, but I'll leave it there for now.

I understand how important it is to believe in free will.
Like i said, I have the fortune to have seen both sides of this argument.
I doubt that I will burst anyone's bubble, but i want to encourage people to be open
to the alternatives. There was a time i would have argued/defended free will to the death,
but I did not see at that time. I just refused to allow that we are automatons.
But it isn't really like that. It's really a pleasure to not have choice and will - to be one with the All.
I might be merged with the One now if it weren't so frightening to the self.
Is it my choice to be afraid? Of course not. I don't get the luxury to decide if I want to fear disintegration or not.
It just happens. Is it my choice to keep pushing against this fear? No, it's not. The other "options" are not options for me,
so I push. Someone else may say i have options, but what do they know about me?
What do they know about the point of no return?

anyways - no offense and none taken. :)
Let's call it a discussion for posterity. :)
Really nothing personal.
I don't intend judgement on anyone.
But that guy's logic is incomplete.
And when he says if you don't get it now, you will when you grow...
well - I would have agreed with his logic 10 years ago.
Am I growing backwards? :)

And i too did not disagree that life has a design.
I disagree that this is proof of a Great Designer who used
its intellect and gave thought to what creation would be.
He's using it as an argument that Life didn't create itself.
Why not? He imagines there is something separate from Life
that created it. Again, he doesn't even define Life.
What does he think is not Life? I don't know anything that isn't Life.
Do you?

Seth-Ra
11-24-2010, 10:18 PM
anyways - no offense and none taken. :)
Let's call it a discussion for posterity. :)
Really nothing personal.
I don't intend judgement on anyone.


None meant or taken here either. :)



~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
11-24-2010, 10:33 PM
"The Creator having a plan, that is good for us, and us choosing to not accept it, or even want it, and doing what is not good for us is not proof that there is no purpose, or plan - it is proof that the one who doesnt want it, doesnt want it. "

This is not an argument against what I said about there being no plan.
What I said is that the Void didn't think it through when it contemplated itself;
it didn't plan to create anything. It just did what it did. It's not like a God with human qualities
that can make decisions.
Does a magnet decide what to attract?
Are magnets not life?
:)

Seth-Ra
11-24-2010, 10:59 PM
The magnet by its very design and make up attracts what it is designed to.
What makes God, God, is that he/it - whatever you see the Creator as - is All knowing (because it is All, around All, and part of All), All powerful (again, with All, is All, part of All), and everywhere at once (repetition of All). So to presume that it didnt know wtf it was doing when it created everything that we perceive and that which we dont (presently), is to diminish what it means for it to be God - it then, is not God, but is some freak mechanical accident - which doesnt hold up, because if youre merged with the All, hell, if you ARE the All as One - then how can you be ignorant - having lapses in judgement, not thinking something through - when you are all knowing - when you are All?

Either God is incomplete (not likely/possible as God is All and One and well, what more to say...) or it is the creation and its understanding - being fallen/leaden to start with, having to learn and grow etc... We are the ones trying to re-connect to that which Is Truth - God, and it had to be by design or it wouldnt be, because the Creator would not have made it - nothing is made by an all-knowing, all powerful All/One Being and it just be some half-assed thing. Half-assing and half-thinking is what we do, is what the leaden and lesser than God do - only the perfect/perfected do not - and we arent there yet, but the creation is designed to get that way. That is the point of the Alchemical Pattern, the Pattern of change, purifying, raising it better than what it was - the point of helping and healing the world, the creation, and the people and beings, life, within it.

Again, no offense meant or taken - simply replying. :)



~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
11-25-2010, 05:09 AM
Hi Seth-Ra.
No offense taken. We're good. :)

Okay. Let me put it this way.
God simply doesn't think.
The way that God is All-knowing has nothing to do with thinking.
God's "design" is not a thought-out design like a man would think out a house,
which is why this guy gave a bad example and is wrong.
Houses come from men, or the All manifesting as a man; whereas Life comes from "God",
or the One unmanifest.

Any Gnostic can tell you that knowing isn't thinking. So it is completely possible for "God"
to birth Life without thinking, judgment, planning, designing - and still be All knowing.
But houses, on the contrary, are birthed from thinking, etc.
So he's comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not presuming to know that God didn't know what it was doing.
When you become self-aware, are you knowing what the result of that will be?
Are you self-aware to create some specific thing?
And remember, intending to be self-aware and then observing the result is not
the same as the Void becoming self-aware. The Void didn't DECIDE to be self-aware.
Decision would mean it was ALREADY AWARE.
The Void just happened to notice itself, just like we sometimes happen to notice ourselves.
And when we happen to notice ourselves, it isn't to create something known, planned, decided, designed, etc.

We are made in God's image.
If you want to know what happened when God, the Void, became self-aware, you just have to practice it.
If you make a Void in your "mind", that "vacuum" will be the very Magnet that attracts "something";
and that "something" will be "Light". Not because you think, intend, design, or whatever... "Light".
"Light" just happens to be the first born son of God. (I put Light in quotes because I do not mean visible light
as we are used to thinking of light.) "Just happens" does not equal half-assing. Just happens = no mind/thinker.
Do you not acknowledge the Zen and a dozen other practices on no-mind as part of man's waking up or enlightenment?
And if it is so for man, do you think God has mind in the "beginning"? Aye, aye, aye!

Bottom line of my argument - God, "in the beginning" is not a thinker.
I don't see how anyone can argue that. Thinking = fractured/divided/not whole.
Thinking = thinker, thought/thinking and the thing thought about.
God was not that complicated in the beginning.

This seems air-tight to me. Do you find fault with it?
I probably won't keep on after this - not because of any bad feelings or disappointment...
I just can't say it any clearer. But please feel free to respond, hopefully trusting that I have no judgment about you.
If I've showed judgment towards the author of this work, I honestly don't feel that way towards you Seth-Ra,
or Ghislain, or anyone who likes the author's book.
I don't think/see any of us saying, "well, you will grow to agree with me one day."

This may be a technicality, but you can't really say "what makes God, God". How can anything make God, God?
For something to make God anything means that thing is more God than God. God isn't God because of...
There can be no cause to God. This is a projection of thinking again - like comparing houses to life.
It sounds like logic, but it isn't true.

I guess I can't say that without implying that you're wrong. But again, I mean no judgment or disrespect if you can
see that that's possible, which i think you do. :)
I won't leave this conversation holding you in my thoughts as fixed in any certain way.
I really appreciate the opportunity to eloquate (not sure if that's a word, but hey - we're alchemists! or aspiring - speaking for myself)
these thoughts, and i love discussing REAL issues with sincere people.

solomon

ps - I'm adding this late, but it belongs in there somewhere. :)
The only things we can think about are the past - things already known.
You can't think about the unknown as a design or plan or purpose.
Therefore, the Void - having nothing pre-existent, no past - did not think.
Most people are not aware that they can only think about the known/past.
So it is a simple mistake to imagine God as a thinker, planner, with purpose.
But all those word connotate/imply something already known to the Primum Mobile!
That's not logical.
Nothing pre-existed It, so there is no material to think on/about or design with, etc, etc.
So if there is a plan, it didn't come from the Source.

Again, this is very air-tight logic.
But i'm really not coming from logic.
I'm applying logic after my experiences.
Anyone can experience directly that there is no future (planning, thinking, designing)
without a past, and the Void has neither.
If one wants to argue that God is the past, present and future, then God came after the Void
and is not the true God, which is exactly what the Gnostics declare!

Seth-Ra
11-25-2010, 05:21 AM
Indeed we are good. :)

That does clarify what you were saying more, i'll agree to that. Im not sure i agree with some points - but i do understand now where youre coming from - and to that end, a good deal i can agree with. :)

Will need to meditate on it more...

Thanks for clarifying and sharing - if i can "eloquate" my thoughts better after some meditation and such, i'll see if i can formulate a better explanation of my own - perhaps a coherent combination of the two thoughts to blend/merge into the mercury/chaos of our minds, eh? ;)
(Another reason also is that my cat has died tonight, randomly, and i have something i have to do in a few mins and its on my mind more...)



~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
11-25-2010, 05:41 AM
Aw man. Sorry to hear about your cat.

I look forward to your formulation when you're ready my friend. :)

solomon levi
11-25-2010, 06:01 AM
Forgive me for beating a dead horse, but when we then take something from the author, like this:

"Intellect and Intelligence had to exist before any Life existed.
Why? Simply because Life had to be IMAGINED and then
designed. Like a house."

He is then saying Life did not come from the Source/Void because the Void, Source,
Primum Mobile had no pre-existing material to imagine with.
He is really accrediting the Demiurgos with creation of Life,
which is a false/incomplete view according to Gnosticism and Seers.

I find so many mistakes that i haven't gotten past the 9th page. :)
I'm hoping i can find something I agree with, but so far he is correct -
if you don't agree to the first premise, there's no point in reading more.

I don't like the author. I find this kind of wording suspect:
"Remember - you agreed, when reading the previous chapter,
that even a house cannot be created without Intelligence. And
you also agreed that Life required far greater intelligence to be
designed than a house."

If it was so clear and true, why would we need reminding?
Why does he feel compelled to hold us to previous agreements?
He's saying, "Don't think outside of the lines I've marked for you."
He's a creep! :)

Hey! page 13. I agree - there is one nothing.
Ok. I'll shut up until I finish.

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

Ok. I can't shut up.

"Is it possible to “record” or “transmit” intellect from one living
creature to another? If it was – we would be teaching monkeys
and chickens at Universities."

And we are - smart monkeys, smart crows, etc.

"Can one person learn and another become more intelligent as a
result? Not really."

Yes really. It's called the 100th monkey. There's also the butterfly effect.
This guy is not very scientific after all.

"From this simple example, we have to conclude that
consciousness as well as intellect (which is a certain aspect of
consciousness), exist independently of the material reality that
is composed of atoms."

Wrong! Material reality is composed of atoms that are composed of quarks that
are composed of whatever, that is composed of whatever, and so on, and so on.... It's all consciousness.
Every level has its corresponding consciousness. Matter is coagulated spirit...

"However, it is clear, that using material technology (any
instrument made from atoms) to study consciousness and
intellect may not be a very good idea.
The MIND should be our instrument. Let’s use it."

Big mistake! :) This is like scientist who use carbon dating to determine how old things are.
Carbon dating is only accurate for times when the sun shines directly on earth as it does today.
The oceans of the earth used to be in the air (similar to Venus now covered in clouds) and the climate
was tropical everywhere and the sun did not shine on the earth as it does now but rather the light
was diffused, and carbon dating cannot apply past (prior to) that point. Same with the mind.
It didn't always exist. It cannot know the origins of consciousness.


Due to the author's incompetence, phrases like this have no meaning save whatever we project on them:
"The only necessary condition for development of intellect
seems to be the INTENT of intellect ITSELF. Nothing else is
needed – only the intent to think."
---------------------------
"Communicating it to you is the most difficult task in my life so far."

Yeah. I guess so.

"Well, we have just discovered, by examining certain aspects of
ourselves in one of the previous sections of this book, that
intellect CAN and actually DOES develop itself. You have a
proof of it within your OWN intellect."

Right. And that proof applies to life developing itself as well.
Like you said, One process, from one nothing.
He's contradicting himself. Are there one or two processes?
He's now claiming two, whether he realizes it or not.

Aye! Even greater confusion due to incompetence:
"From awareness - consciousness of "being", intelligence and
Intellect developed - all by ITSELF and with ITSELF. Nothing
else was needed - only the INTENT of Intellect to think by
itself – at every stage of its own development."

Awareness, consciousness, intelligence, intent, intellect... what's the difference?
These could be 5 names for the same thing, or 5 different things.
The author provides no clear definition and has no idea how to communicate,
but he understands the origins of Life??
No. If i had to draw a conclusion, I'd say he's totally self-absorbed and unaware of his audience,
or he is intentionally vague to sell something he knows is false. Based on the "creepiness", I'd go with
the latter, or both. This seems like intentional disinformation to me, the way it is leading and vague.

Seth-Ra
11-26-2010, 10:26 AM
Ok Sol', i think i have my reply now, and in a relatively short manner. (maybe... lol :) )

I can agree with the idea of God not "thinking" - per se, in the sense that we do, but rather, much much faster - unfathomably so. Its like in martial arts, we are told to learn it all, to forget it all. It relates to what Musashi called "fighting in the void" - but the void is not really void or empty, its a moment where you quit consciously thinking, everything in your head is moving so quickly you dont have time to think - EVERYTHING is being registered so quickly, that it all becomes one, clear, "perfect" moment of "thoughtlessness" - but isnt thoughtlessness, its just exceedingly quick thought fuzing as a single "no (one) thought". ("all thought as one thought")
Its equivalent to raising the vibrations pattern to a point where its going so fast it appears to be still - but deeper still.

Also, i myself do not believe in a primeval "void" that became "self-aware", but rather, in the beginning - God. I think God wanted to create it all, and did exactly that - now, because He is All and One, His thought is higher/faster than ours, while we try to reach those moments of "no-thought", His is there, and thus is everywhere, thinking and knowing so much more and faster - and yet its all one single ongoing calm clarity of mind, for Him.
The only way i can see a "void", would be the same as "nothing" = "no (one) thing" - or a type of "antimony" (not alone) - but All as One. (One being misleading in some respect, as it isnt just one - but all, fuzed as one/none at once... and it gets redundant here i think...)

So to try and sum up - we are probably agreeing on basic concepts, but difference of term use, and most likely difference of perspective/belief on particulars of the subject matter are causing the "tripping up" of us over one another. (which is to be expected when various diverse people come together to talk about anything, especially these sorts of maters. lol ;) )

Now, what i will say (and this is where my "short" post stops being "short" lol ) is that just because Life came first, and you are correct it stating it is more primal, i do not see it as being easier, then, to create then to create a house - and i'll explain my reason of why not:
Life was made by the Creator, not the creation. We perpetuate the life that is here (reproduction is furthering the life we hold inside ourselves, and even death of one thing furthers the life of another as food sources and such), but furthering of life, does not equate to raw creation of life. Building the house, on the other hand, is a mater of simply manipulating matter in order to manifest a thought - its not raw-creation, just manipulation of the creation to make a desired outcome. I will agree with you, he is comparing apples to oranges in that respect, but it we do not create raw energy like that either, and Life permeates all that we know. The creation as a whole (universe and all) may not all have "life" in the sense of plants and animals - but where there is matter, light, energy of any kind, there is Life in some manner, for life is a quintessence of the energies. As for our own creating skills, this is why we use Nature and Art, for only the Creator Himself may use only Art to define what Nature is, we being the creation, but in His image, by then use Art in coherence with Nature. (while the rest of nature uses Nature, Art coming in where He and we act on it to as it requires thought/no thought - see above. lol)

As for God being past, present, and future - when God contains the power to create whatever He wants (an unthinkable amount of possibilities), and has said power to create, before He has created (He must posses this power first in order to act on it, "no-thought" or not) then its not hard to fathom that with a Being/Source that contains All power and All creation abilities within (as it wasnt manifest/made yet) then ofcourse He can think/know all of it beforehand, during, and after the fact, as it was all within in the first place. See the funny thing about the Creator, is that its hard for us, as parts of the creation, spiritual or physical, to fathom JUST God/Source/Creator, outside of the creation itself. He is part of all the creation in the sense it all came from that one source, but that being/source exists outside of that also, thats how He could make it. (He had to come first.) We being parts of the creation, who are still learning and developing, cannot place our inabilities to see past the laws of creation (philosophical or otherwise, Art or Natural) onto the One who made it All in the first place.

Its similar to Narnia - Jadis, the White Witch, (a piece of the creation) knows the "deep magic from the beginning of time." - thats as far back as the creation can go, but Aslan (in our discussion, God/Source/Creator) knows the "deeper magic from before the beginning of time." ;)

I think i covered everything we were talking about. I know you've said you said your piece as plainly as you can, and im happy to call it agree to disagree on somethings, while shaking hands on others. :)
Ive enjoyed our discussion thus far. (even if i did fail to keep that short. lol :D )



~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
11-26-2010, 02:38 PM
Hi Seth-Ra.
Yes, I'm seeing more that I agree with now. :)
Especially the difficulty of us trying say how God/Source was "In the beginning".
Then there's the difficulty of agreement on terms - when does one start calling something "Life".
When do we start calling It "God". When do we begin to call ourselves "human".
There has to be some template which we agree upon in order to discuss such things.

For the most part, I came to a point in my life where I had to rebel against all authorities and use my first-hand experience
to tell me what I can know and what I can't. In Buddhism, Right Knowledge is also relying on the sages and their scriptures,
which I'll still do a little at times, depending on the sage. :) I do consider portions of the Bible Right Knowledge, but not when
taken literally but understood Cabalistically.

Anyway, in questioning everything, how do i know God is all-knowing? What does this even mean?
Certainly not "knowing" the way that man knows in time - past, present, future.
We have to consider two Gods then - the Unmanifest pre-existing time, and the Manifest in time.
The Unmanifest, I maintain, could not have known or predicted or forseen the result of its awakening, stirring, becoming self-aware,
because that would involve time. God, the manifest - consciousness, the result of self-awareness - now has the luxury of "looking back",
and existing in very, very quick time. That very, very quick time did as it's Father did, in His image, and became self-aware which resulted
in a further densing down of spirit towards matter. This process is repeated until a degree/speed of densification which we call matter is attained.
This densing down is reflected in the electromagnetic spectrum - Cosmic rays are the shortest and quickest, then gamma, x-ray, uv, visible, infrared
and hertzian as the largest and most dense. (The pic below emphasizes different terms. Radio = Hertzian. Microwaves are part of infrared/heat.
And they leave out Cosmic rays. But that is not really important.)

http://www.andor.com/image_lib/lores/INTRODUCTION/Introduction%20(Light)/IntLight%201%20Small.jpg

Given that preamble, perhaps one can understand where I'm coming from with my Ouroboros experiences, and that consciousness can experience
itself on many levels simultaneously, as man, as DNA, as atoms, as light, as galaxies....

So for me it is also pretty concrete that the first unawakened God is not, and needn't be, a knower - consciousness is not aware yet.
The "second" God, manifest as consciousness, is the knower and creator and dreamer. The first God still remains unmanifest and unknowing - no plan.
I still don't see that the conscious God knows the future either or why it should need to. The process (becoming self-aware) is known, but the result is
different each time, just as when we evolve, we are repeating the same process, not knowing where it will go, who we will be.
Another name for it is "making known the unknown". That's the only plan I am aware of. It isn't a plan/design in which the outcome is forknown,
otherwise what is the point? Where is free will? If God is all-powerful and makes a plan or has commandments, choice is not "more all-powerful" to
go against this plan. So one has to decide IMO, free will or all-powerful pre-designed plan.
Better than deciding (logically, like the author), one should see it directly. :)

So when you are speaking of God, does it apply to either of the two Gods I mentioned? Maybe we can get more clarity and agreement.
When did God start? :)
Maybe a little more clarifying - the unconscious unmanifest God is power as Potentia(l). It is not the doer. God #2 is, in my "version".
And God #2 is not different than us, save subjectively as we define ourselves. So our choice is God's "plan" - then there's no contradiction
of going against the All-powerful.

I'm enjoying this very much as well. I've heard you don't really know something until you can teach/convey it to someone else.
If anything this is good exercise. :)

Albion
11-26-2010, 03:56 PM
There is no point of origin.



Reminds me of the title of a book [which I own but have yet to read]:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WMDF033HL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Book:

http://www.amazon.com/Ever-Present-Origin-Foundations-Aperspectival/dp/0821407694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290786595&sr=1-1

Synopsis:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14424985/The-EverPresent-Origin

Summary of synopsis:

"The focus here has been Gebser's approach to understanding the unfoldment of human consciousness.
The first part dealt exclusively with the model examining each of Gebser's structures of consciousness
in turn: the Archaic, Magical, Mythical, Mental, and Integral. We saw the Archaic structure could best
be described as a zero- dimensional, non-perspectival world which could be likened to a state of deep
sleep. It was characterized by non-differentiation and the total absence of any sense of separation from
the environment. This was a world of identity between self and surroundings; not a world in which we
could speak of consciousness in any terms that would be meaningful to our modern understanding of
the term. By contrast, the Magical structure was characterized by a certain separateness, but not a total
separation by any means. Dimensionally this could be described as one-dimensional; a pre-perspectival
state of timelessness and spacelessness. It was likened to a state of sleep. Magic man was much a part
of his environment, to be sure, and felt secure only within his group, his tribe or clan. It was the
transition from the Archaic to Magic structure of consciousness that has probably been mythologically
captured in the story of the "Fall of Man." The clothing of knowledge in myth is what characterized the
transition to the Mythical structure of consciousness, the two-dimensional, unperspectival state of
consciousness that can best be likened to a dream. Imagination and attunement with natural rhythms
became important factors in man's life. The separation begun in the Magic structure reaches a tensional
climax in the Mythical. This structure is superseded by the Mental structure, whose appearance
coincides with the rise of Greek civilization. In this regard, it can be seen that modern thought
disregards a good deal of mankind's history, for it is to the Greeks that we most often trace our
intellectual roots. By comparison, the Mental structure of consciousness is a three-dimensional,
perspectival world that we described with the term wakefulness. The polar tensions of mythology are
replaced by the analytical separation of duality and opposition. Thinking is primary, and in its latter
phase rational thinking is primary. But this structure, too, is yielding to a final mutation which Gebser
identifies as the Integral structure of consciousness. This is described as a four-dimensional,
aperspectival world of transparency. This is a time-free, space-free, subject- and object-free world of
verition.
Finally, we examined the methodological aspects of Gebser's approach. Here, three fundamental
notions were involved: systasis, synairesis, and eteology. The first term, systasis, best describes
Gebser's approach. It was seen that systasis goes beyond mere synthesis, which is a mental-rational
concept, to achieve a total integration of all parts simultaneously. Synairesis was the means of
achieving the end just described. It emphasized the how of such total grasping, namely by the mind or
spirit. It is synairesis that enables us to achieve the transparency that is indicative of the Integral
structure of consciousness. Finally, eteology replaces philosophy as the way of knowing and acquiring
knowledge. Eteology becomes the statement of truth in lieu of the philosophical statement about truth.
We saw that this approach goes beyond the limitations of space- and time-perception to a complete and
liberating understanding of the whole. It should be noted that this transition is in process; it is not yet a
completed act."
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

I'm not intending to link your statement with the trajectory of this book. It's just interesting that we tend
to think of an origin as having happened in "the past." I include the synopsis and summary for those who
might be interested.

solomon levi
11-26-2010, 05:39 PM
Yes, Albion.
I've said elsewhere, if there was an origin, it doesn't exist now.
The One the All is fractal holographic in my experience. Everyplace in the
spectrum/Ouroboros is an origin practicing the One process of self-awareness/dreaming. :)

Albion
11-27-2010, 01:37 PM
Yes, Albion.
I've said elsewhere, if there was an origin, it doesn't exist now.
The One the All is fractal holographic in my experience. Everyplace in the
spectrum/Ouroboros is an origin practicing the One process of self-awareness/dreaming. :)


I’ve enjoyed your Ouroboros posts, Solomon levi. I printed them out to re-read.

Perhaps individual awareness is the first [or final] twist in a strange loop.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/images/hermetic.jpg

I’m sure this must have been worked out by others, but I’m wondering about Awareness stepped-down, in a succession of twists, down to survival-mechanism programming. At each loop level there are programming loops.

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3p29xkwpauy98/t9updo/caduceus.jpg


Your positive insights aside, seeing the image of the Ouroboros reminds me of the quintessential image of absurd futility: a dog chasing its tail…

http://www.sit.ac.nz/insitu/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/corbis_rf_photo_of_dog_chasing_tail.jpg

…although, to be fair, the Ouroboros illustration more likely refers to an open-ended loop - even as the caduceus is open at the top - with wings.

So, perhaps there is one, grand, open-ended loop/feedback system, with twists that allow for a interrelated chain of feedback systems which include various programming loops that one can get caught up in via identification…

http://images.forbestraveler.com/media/photos/inspirations/best-lists/canadas-attractions-08-g.jpg

I understand that the study of Alchemy calls one’s attention to natural cycles.

And there may be, as some cosmologies propose, larger grand cycles of consciousness - although I tend to consider these as speculative.

Also I think of primitive tribal societies. They primarily view life in terms of cycles. They dance around the fire. They are really in touch with nature, but they can’t solve the sewage problem in their town, their health care is limited, they don’t have a University, and they can’t make a musical instrument more accurate than a bone whistle, because the concept of open-ended progress is off their collective conceptual map. Their imaginations have been coached into the direction of placating astral demigods and nature spirits but are stunted in terms of individual initiative toward progress. So their world may seem larger, at first glance, than that of New Jersey suburbanites, yet it really goes nowhere because the plexus of loops ties into natural cycles, rituals, festivals, rotational appeasement of astral entities, agricultural cycles, etc.

Sorry, just free associating here... I'm a bit "fried" at the moment, so it'll be awhile before I can tie these odds & ends together.

solomon levi
11-27-2010, 02:10 PM
Yes. I agree with your thoughts.

If i can slightly amend my initial view of the Ouroboros, at first I emphasized the ability of humans
to self-reflect or be self-aware, but actually any stage of the Ouroboros is self-aware.
Human self-awareness is one loop, but there are many loops - I'd say every frequency has its loop.
Recall that for Don Juan/Castaneda the filaments of light that compose the Eagle's emanations are self-aware.
As I described in this thread, self-awareness is this turning inward, the looping; and these different sized loops
are the different frequencies/speeds/times/consciousness/matters/worlds....
:)

Did you ever have a Spirograph when you were little?
I think these show some interesting Ourobori and how different parts of the spectrum communicate to create many worlds.

A 3-d spirograph:
http://www.jotero.com/bilder/maxwell/maxwell_v_1_1/spirograph_3d.jpg

http://swopedesignsolutions.com/portfolio/content/Spiro-Graph/Spiro3.jpg

the "spirograph" nebula:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0212/spirograph_heritage.jpg


Another way to see it, that I'm not sure how to search for a picture of, is if you draw a circle and put
360 dots on it to make 360 degrees. Then draw a line from dot 1 to dot 2, dot 1 to dot 3, and so on...
And then Dot 2 to dot 3, dot 2 to dot 4.....
You can imagine how complicated, yet designed, this will become
And Dot 156 could make a line to dot 120 travelling "backward" in time, etc, etc...

Something interesting would come of this if we had 7 dots, or 7x7 dots, and connected them according to musical thirds, fourths, fifths...

Albion
11-27-2010, 03:31 PM
Solomon Levi wrote:
Something interesting would come of this if we had 7 dots, or 7x7 dots, and connected them according to musical thirds, fourths, fifths...

?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41nsNK0DEVL._SS500_.jpg

http://books.google.com/books?id=-aGKxu4X5_MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Martin+Duff+a+different+future&source=bl&ots=QOChCUCERa&sig=qWEfnq8vQnQxqajaaRkWMPhlrt8&hl=en&ei=_yLxTIG1KcOBlAfe88D8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Some graphics on final page. More, and clearer, illustrations in the full edition:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/a-different-future---an-introduction-to-an-esoteric-form-of-raja-yoga/275994?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1

EBook version:

http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/a-different-future-%28ebook%29/296133?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/4

Overview [free PDF]:

http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/the-harmonic-mer-ka-barthe-complete-enneagram/290781

Andro
11-27-2010, 05:41 PM
Self-awareness is this turning inward, the looping.

Indeed, there can be no self-awareness without a self-feedback loop.

This is expressed, for example, in the technique of becoming aware in a dream by looking at one's hands.

This is also expressed in the possibility of evolving matter by means of a looped circulatory vessel, such as a Pelican (for example).

III
11-27-2010, 07:51 PM
Yes, Albion.
I've said elsewhere, if there was an origin, it doesn't exist now.
The One the All is fractal holographic in my experience. Everyplace in the
spectrum/Ouroboros is an origin practicing the One process of self-awareness/dreaming. :)

I've said elsewhere, if there was an origin, it doesn't exist now

I find that I must disagree with this statement. The most primal primitive form of initial consciousness is now, always was and always will be eternally available. The limitation is of those who seek to look. Going from that state in which there is no awareness of self or of self-awareness or any other awareness as there is NOTHING at all to be aware of and then the sudden accidental reflexive awareness of something, of one's existence as there is no thing else. All of the problem is in the mind of the beholder. There is no thing to observe or decode or understand. And this point is in an eternity containing all and everything compressed at the speed of light to another point. And it appears that the eternity containing that point is once again subject to a speed of light compression down to another point. Needless to say the finding of a needle in an infinite haystack is trivial by comparison. So all the problem is locating that point of dawning self awareness and being able to "play" it, to "run" that part of the program. It's very compact, and like all things eternal the shift happens with no "between" state. And once it happens there is a huge explosion of creation happening at the speed of light or maybe C^2.. The creation happens in stages with a feedback system applying immediately what was just "learned". There is clearly no "prior plan" of any kind. The newly awakened consciousness just trots along doing it's thing and learning more and engaging itself in all sorts of "games" such as chemistry and physics eventually leading to life and all those complexities. Everything is tried more or less simultaneously and some things work and the others are discarded. The intelligences created by prior activities continue creating and correcting the creations, just as happens currently. Creation is ongoing.

solomon levi
11-27-2010, 08:19 PM
Looks great! I would endorse this. :)

But is reminiscent of Castaneda - domestication of infants into society and persona,
and something DJ mentioned briefly but i think is of great importance -
"we learn to think as we see and to see as we think" - a loop; similar to what Mr. Duff
is saying about the senses.

The persona is indeed a vital creation for survival and more.
It is an error to assume that we could protect our children and raise them
in an environment free from this and that that would be better.
The "shell" must be created and the chick must hatch out of it of its own strength.

"The virtual self (persona)" - I like that!

#109 - "internal safety devices", Gurdjieff's "buffers", Castaneda's "shields"...

#112 is a really good observation as well - recalls Krishnamurti on responding to
thought 'images' (past) instead of the actual present.

#119 = CC's internal dialogue!
essence = Nagual; persona = tonal.

I'll stop commenting for now. I like this work alot. :)
Thanks Albion!

solomon levi
11-27-2010, 08:22 PM
Androgynus! You have an amazing mind/no mind... whatever.
I love that you applied that to the circulatory vessel!
Thank you.

solomon levi
11-27-2010, 08:29 PM
Hi III. :)
I didn't see how what you said disagreed with what i said.
Could you narrow it down for me? Point it out?
How does what you say argue against a holographic fractal universe where the "beginning" can no longer be located?

Seth-Ra
11-27-2010, 09:06 PM
Hey Sol', sorry for slow response - apparently my familiar kicking the bucket was only the beginning - has been a hectic last couple of days... lol

Anyway, yeah you make a good point, trying to agree on the defining of such terms, which is mostly a thing of perspective/context of how we mean it, can get tricky and missing any part of it makes for the non-agreement/misunderstanding. Perhaps tis best to do as the magicians and leave the principles/concepts "vague"/"open" and let it manifest to each in context as it sees fit - thus allowing for those ever so lovely... how do yall spell it... "wyrd" moments? ;)

As for the God(s) you mention - i dont see a confliction between the two being the same One - nor a confliction between God knowing the future - just because it is known, doesnt mean you dont choose it. Kinda like if i know someone well enough to predict their behavior, so i give them a choice between two objects, but i already "know" what they will pick, it doesnt mean they cant pick the other one. Its a bit difficult to think about, choice or design - tis a fine tension hold between them as both are there, much like the "unmanifest God" and the "manifest/creator/thinker God" being the same - "Let Us make man in our image..." plural, but One. ;)

And all of it is One giant(and small) Ouroboros. :)



~Seth-Ra

Ghislain
11-30-2010, 09:56 PM
Not been here for a while and so this post needs to be two pages back :) as the thread has moved on somewhat.

It has been a long time since I read, “The Freedom of Choice”. To some extent I agree with Solomon’s
critique of it as, when I read it for the first time, I found myself picking holes in his arguments...I read on
even when I did not agree...curiosity I guess :)

Some of Chalko’s comparisons left a lot to be desired. House/Life wasn’t his best choice, but I got the gist
of it.

I dont agree with Chalko’s conclusions in the book. I have my own (temporary) beliefs I feel there is no
similarity between thinking and knowing...I am a thinker and I would like to know. I believe that it is by the
act of not thinking that knowing will come, but how does one stop thinking :)

There may be some of you out there that have reached “Enlightenment”(not me), and will disagree with
what I have to say next but in the words of Seth Ra here is my 2¢ worth

We all look at things from different perspectives...and come to, sometimes similar and sometimes completely
opposite, conclusions.

As I am not a great one with words I have included some inserts from those that are. :)


Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) Polish-American philosopher and
scientist.

Korzybski's work culminated in the initiation of a discipline that he named General Semantics (GS).
Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the
structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings
cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal
impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators
expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages
actually mislead us as to the "facts" with which we must deal. Our understanding of what is
happening sometimes lacks similarity of structure with what is actually happening. He
stressed training in awareness of abstracting, using techniques that he had derived from his
study of mathematics and science. He called this awareness, this goal of his system,
"consciousness of abstracting". His system included modifying the way we consider the
world, e.g., with an attitude of "I don't know; let's see,"

Korzybski's most famous premise, "the map is not the territory".

The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of
that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Korzybski remarked
that: "the map is not the territory," encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from
something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. For example, the pain from a stone falling on
one's foot is not the actual stone, it's one's perception of the stone; one's opinion of a politician,
favorable or unfavorable, is not that person; and so on. A specific abstraction or reaction does not
capture all facets of its source — e.g. the pain in one's foot does not convey the internal structure of
the stone, you don't know everything that is going on in the life of a politician, etc. — and thus may
limit an individual's understanding and cognitive abilities unless the two are distinguished. Korzybski
held that many people do confuse maps with territories, in this sense.
Source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski)


Gregory Bateson, in "Form, Substance and Difference," from Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972)

We say the map is different from the territory. But what is the territory? Operationally, somebody
went out with a retina or a measuring stick and made representations which were then put on
paper. What is on the paper map is a representation of what was in the retinal representation of the
man who made the map; and as you push the question back, what you find is an infinite regress, an
infinite series of maps. The territory never gets in at all. […] Always, the process of representation
will filter it out so that the mental world is only maps of maps, ad infinitum.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation)

Chalko has postulated a theory of that which he might otherwise have no viable alternative explanation. It is
his map and perception of a territory. If he has observed and described as he perceived
the territory. Is he stupid or is he doing as we all do? Is there only one way to plot a map?

Sol’ in this thread for example you have used Krishnamurti, Gurdjieff, Don Juan and Carlos Castaneda,
Gnosticism and Seers as your measuring stick...Chalko may be writing his map using a completely different
type of Scale and Legend

Maybe we are the creators of God; He may only exist in some of our maps. For some there is no entry of
God in the map at all.

I believe it is because when thinking we use verbal indicators
expressed and derived from language we limit ourselves in the realization of Tao.

‘What Is’ cannot be expressed in words...I found Sol’s arguments in this thread hard to follow as he was
using words to express what he feels...I could feel the passion in the words but the words themselves failed
to explain the feeling.


Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words.
It can, however, be known or experienced
Source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao)

Ghislain

III
12-01-2010, 04:58 AM
Hi III. :)
I didn't see how what you said disagreed with what i said.
Could you narrow it down for me? Point it out?
How does what you say argue against a holographic fractal universe where the "beginning" can no longer be located?

I agree fully about the fractal/holographic nature of the universe. The difference is that the "beginning" can be located. It is merely difficult to locate and more difficult to perceive because of the unfamiliarity. However, as one could argue that the dawning of self awareness and the beginning of creation isn't the creation of that which became conscious of it's own existence. The consciousness of before self consciousness has nothing to differentiate duration if such existed. The first event can be experienced/remembered as can the "state" before that, consciousness without an object. I hope I have narrowed it down but it is slippery.

Andro
12-04-2010, 03:18 AM
The beginning is the easiest 'thing' to locate, considering that it's also the end, and that it's 'everywhere' simultaneously.

Locating my keys can prove much more difficult sometimes :) - and I asssure you, I am not at all being ironic.

AZOTH

solomon levi
12-04-2010, 05:33 AM
I guess it depends on what one calls "the beginning" and what one means by "locate".
What reference does one have to say "this is the beginning"?
That is, what reference would be required to know the beginning?
The demiurgos looked around and seeing nothing proclaimed himself god - due to poor reference point.

Every level is an origin to the following level.
So what "post sign" or feature tells one that they are at the true origin that nothing precedes?

Why is consciousness without an object the origin? Didn't unconsciousness precede that?
And how does one know that consciousness did not precede unconscious - so even if you can experience unconsciousness,
there's no knowing that that is the true origin. This may be the 51st time that unconsciousness has become conscious and unconscious again, etc, etc...

Which is why I say it doesn't matter - any place is an origin, just as good as any other origin.

And I have heard from one who knows that even what I would consider an origin - Point Zero - one can go through it; it has another side
like a black hole/white hole. So if you can go through it... well, that's my whole point - it's an Ouroboros; not a ladder.
But it's sometimes helpful to talk about it as a ladder.

Andro
12-04-2010, 09:58 AM
It's an Ouroboros; not a ladder.
But it's sometimes helpful to talk about it as a ladder.

I very much agree with both statements above.

And we (while immersed) have to invent a linear ladder to climb, in order to eventually find out that it's actually a 'Penrose Ladder' :)

This is highly simplified, but I hope the point comes across - and why shouldn't it? It's already there, before/after all...

Salazius
12-04-2010, 03:15 PM
A ladder, touches the top and the bottom, exactlylike the Snake's head, touches the end of the tail.

Andro
12-04-2010, 03:51 PM
A ladder, touches the top and the bottom, exactly like the Snake's head, touches the end of the tail.

Exactement :)

solomon levi
12-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Yeah, kind of like looking at the Milky Way - it looks like a linear stream from the earth
but it's actually a spiral galaxy.
Thinking of the Ouroboros as a river is also helpful sometimes,
or the cascading fountain of alchemy...

Aleilius
12-05-2010, 02:09 AM
A ladder, touches the top and the bottom, exactlylike the Snake's head, touches the end of the tail.

I think this symbolism is really nice. I actually had something else posted here, but realized it was kind of off topic.

III
12-16-2010, 07:38 AM
I guess it depends on what one calls "the beginning" and what one means by "locate".
What reference does one have to say "this is the beginning"?
That is, what reference would be required to know the beginning?
The demiurgos looked around and seeing nothing proclaimed himself god - due to poor reference point.

Every level is an origin to the following level.
So what "post sign" or feature tells one that they are at the true origin that nothing precedes?

Why is consciousness without an object the origin? Didn't unconsciousness precede that?
And how does one know that consciousness did not precede unconscious - so even if you can experience unconsciousness,
there's no knowing that that is the true origin. This may be the 51st time that unconsciousness has become conscious and unconscious again, etc, etc...

Which is why I say it doesn't matter - any place is an origin, just as good as any other origin.

And I have heard from one who knows that even what I would consider an origin - Point Zero - one can go through it; it has another side
like a black hole/white hole. So if you can go through it... well, that's my whole point - it's an Ouroboros; not a ladder.
But it's sometimes helpful to talk about it as a ladder.

Hi Solomon,

Let's consider what "the creation" means.In the context off what we are speaking here, it could be the actions that cause this entire perceived universe to come into existence. Or perhaps it is the product of those actions or perhaps it is both of those at the same time. Because it is where we think we exist I will limit it to this specific creation including those portions on the other side of the "speed of light" barrier(s) and including all apparent portions of creation that may or may not resemble this portion of it constituting "known space", all of our physical stars, galaxies, planets etc. and all other "sub-creations". As the whole of creation contains a whole lot more than just this part we can observe in any physical way it is not limited to only this "sub-creation". What would not be included is the hypothetical other "bubble universes/bubble creations" in the quantum foam if such exists.

As "creation" is a specific occurrence or the result of that specific occurrence it is not the point of origin of the Absolute. It might be looked at as the fractioning into harmonics of the Absolute. There is only one unique chamber that has no exit other than it's fractioning into harmonics; no trap doors, no turn to a different dimension, nothing at all.

And I have heard from one who knows that even what I would consider an origin - Point Zero - one can go through it; it has another side like a black hole/white hole. So if you can go through it

There is one chamber, and only one as far as my experience has taken me, in which that is not true. There is no through. For that to be true one already has to be including all dimensions leaving nothing at all to go through. I can't prove it too you. Perhaps you will be shown said chamber if you should ask. The origin of "creation" can be seen. If there is some other origin of the Absolute as such,, I couldn't tell you that. There is only one chamber that has no "next step" in any way, only the same way out as one entered.

The demiurgos looked around and seeing nothing proclaimed himself god - due to poor reference point.

I agree. That was likely the root chamber of a section of the broken tree. An easy enough mistake to make.


Why is consciousness without an object the origin? Didn't unconsciousness precede that?
And how does one know that consciousness did not precede unconscious - so even if you can experience unconsciousness,
there's no knowing that that is the true origin. This may be the 51st time that unconsciousness has become conscious and unconscious again, etc, etc...

In following along the axis of the"cosmic tic" the creation cycles, blossoming over and over. It always starts in that same unique chamber, and it always fractions into harmonics. I can't prove a thing. I've experienced it, multiple times, always the same.

All views are virtual. So in a sense any view can be used. Some views however, are more useful than others, more predictive of what will be found. A view that includes all of the creation as a single object in all dimensions shows that it is self contained with a single point of origin. There is no anything feeding into it.

Every level is an origin to the following level.

True for all chambers except one. It is also the only "level" having only a single chamber incorporating all dimensions.

That is the best I can do on this. I have traveled extremely widely and been guided to see much for whatever reasons. All I can report is what I have observed.

Andro
12-16-2010, 08:26 AM
So the only 'escape' is a surrogate escape, i.e. reset/reboot of the entire 'system'.

And the only thing the Universe apparently can't do - is die :eek:

Reminds me of the CUBE movies, only in those movies there is only one chamber which DOES have an exit :)

So I agree there is no true exit. Until one is found, that is... Like a 'crack' in the secret chamber that appears only at implosion/reboot...

And if such Crack/Exit/Tazenda should be ever 'located' - well, then we would have the only opportunity to exercise TRUE 'Freedom of Choice':

Remain in the 'Origin' chamber of the imploding hypercube and be reset, OR jump through the crack and find True Death... or something beyond comprehension from within the system...

The secret is how to die... not a surrogate death, not a reset/reboot - but how to really, really die... (or awaken... to ? ? ?)

That's the only 'Point' (the end of the circle) where I see a real possibility of 'Freedom of Choice'.

What would you chose?

III
12-16-2010, 09:36 PM
So the only 'escape' is a surrogate escape, i.e. reset/reboot of the entire 'system'.

And the only thing the Universe apparently can't do - is die :eek:

Reminds me of the CUBE movies, only in those movies there is only one chamber which DOES have an exit :)

So I agree there is no true exit. Until one is found, that is... Like a 'crack' in the secret chamber that appears only at implosion/reboot...

And if such Crack/Exit/Tazenda should be ever 'located' - well, then we would have the only opportunity to exercise TRUE 'Freedom of Choice':

Remain in the 'Origin' chamber of the imploding hypercube and be reset, OR jump through the crack and find True Death... or something beyond comprehension from within the system...

The secret is how to die... not a surrogate death, not a reset/reboot - but how to really, really die... (or awaken... to ? ? ?)

That's the only 'Point' (the end of the circle) where I see a real possibility of 'Freedom of Choice'.

What would you chose?

Hi Androgynus,

So the only 'escape' is a surrogate escape, i.e. reset/reboot of the entire 'system'.

It's worse than that. The system does a "warm reboot", like ^C on the old CP/M OS. It does this on the tic and this is when real changes in self, such as those in the WORK make, take effect. It appears to be timed along with the "Breath of Brahma". So the details way down in the fractioning, where humans are, completely out of resolution from the high levels, can change because it isn't observable from the highest levels. Change travels up the tree each tic and then down the tree. It is my opinion that is why we are here, at a level on which change is possible. Because of these changes, "quantum variations" (or maybe entropy) as seen from above because of the highly compressed nature of the information going up and down tree, we can evolve and since there are progressive differences to the discerning observer, a subtle versioning occurs so direction towards original state is observable. If there is a "before cold boot" or "between cold boot" state I haven't found it or seen it. There is what can look like a cold boot for inside the speed of light barrier only, but very rare. One survives that by having a consciousness self existent base on the other side of the speed of light barrier. However, such a cold reboot doesn't help, it simply resets to the original and all that evolutionary work has to be done over.

The secret is how to die... not a surrogate death, not a reset/reboot - but how to really, really die... (or awaken... to ? ? ?)

Die to the dream, awaken to the real world. Sounds very MATRIX like. All roads lead to Trantor.

Andro
12-17-2010, 09:14 AM
the other side of the speed of light barrier.

III, you are using this term quite frequently, which 'light speed barrier' are you referring to?

If you mean the commonly accepted 'speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)' - I have not found it to be a barrier at all, while travelling without my physical body.

Jerry
12-17-2010, 03:20 PM
If you mean the commonly accepted 'speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)' - I have not found it to be a barrier at all, while travelling without my physical body.

Where did you go "faster than a speeding bullet"? You didn't go to the mountain. The mountain came to you. You just think you went somewhere and you need to create a goofy explanation on how it was done.Ergo...science is wrong.

All you did was access a secondary memory bank of information from a past existence or your mind created a composite set of images based on your memories and fantasies. You didn't beam yourself to the outer limits of the universe. You are dealing with a closed system, although it might be possible that it might be multi-dimensional.

solomon levi
12-17-2010, 06:03 PM
Hi Jerry.
As a moderator, I find your tone a little offensive.
Anytime we act like we know someone better than they know themselves, we're setting up a fight,
and you know we like to avoid those things here.
It would be more conducive to make suggestions of alternative views than to say "That's not what you did - this is what you did."

I like the content, the views you gave. Please be respectful of others in the WAY you give them.
I know, we're not babies here. Some of us can take it. But I think the forum as a whole wants to avoid these types of confrontation.

You and Androgynus had a little exchange in the practical section, and this makes it look like you're following
him around to antagonize, which is , of course, not allowed.

solomon

Jerry
12-17-2010, 08:53 PM
You and Androgynus had a little exchange in the practical section, and this makes it look like you're following
him around to antagonize, which is , of course, not allowed.


Are you saying we can't have a debate and exchange ideas and information? Is it his way or....'Mommy, Mommy, Jerry threw a spit ball at me and almost hit me in the eye and now I can't see!'? I only responded to the thread.

As a good Christian did you qestion Androgynus' claim that he could travel faster than the speed of light?

Am I to believe every ridiculous claim that is made on the Internet?

Here is one where some guy Mercurius claimed to talk to trees and they told him how to transmute metals into gold!

http://pub24.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2028456797&frmid=646&msgid=428394&cmd=show&cp=2

You want me to believe that also?

solomon levi
12-17-2010, 10:17 PM
Haha! I'm not a christian. I said these people think I'm a good christian.

I'm just a messenger, in the truest sense of the word. My main perspective is one of non-duality,
so in my nature, I am against moderating others and proposing rules and such. But I can learn the system
and pronounce it as I know is expected of me as a moderator, without attachment.
Personally, I know Androgynus can take care of himself, and would be entertained to watch this play out. :D
Just be respectful, please.

I don't want you to believe anything. I just think really intelligent people can use some tact in their criticism.
Don't you know what people respond to and what they don't?
Do you think you are really communicating with that post?

Well, to each his own. I'm just saying, you might not be around long if the moderators see you as a trouble-maker.
I'll convene with the others and see if they share my view or not.
There is no right and wrong about it really. This is Deviadah's website and he like things to go a certain way -
personal conflicts distract from the flow and sharing of knowledge. We're always going to run into things we don't believe.
We don't always have to be vocal about it. If we choose to be vocal, we can do so with tact.

Like your 'Mommy, Mommy, Jerry threw a spit ball at me and almost hit me in the eye and now I can't see!'?
That seems inappropriate. No one asked me to defend them. I just see the potential for a mess and wanted to warn you.

About the claim to travel faster than the speed of light... I have no argument with that. The wording is relative.
Obviously when out of the body we can move places, sometimes in time, sometimes instantaneously. How long does it take
for you to place a thought on the North Star? You can say there is no movement, and I would agree with that as well.
I've experienced each of these perspectives. I don't need to validate one and invalidate another. Things go in and out of "true"
depending on where you're looking from.

Again, I guess it depends on your heart - do you seek separateness/difference or unity? :)

Anyway, debates are allowed. Just keep your head. You don't have to attack a person to debate an idea.
Know what I mean?

III
12-18-2010, 12:24 AM
III, you are using this term quite frequently, which 'light speed barrier' are you referring to?

If you mean the commonly accepted 'speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)' - I have not found it to be a barrier at all, while travelling without my physical body.

Hi Androgynus,

I'll try to explain. The "speed of light barrier" I speak of has nothing to do with physical space-time, travel between stars or anything like that. It has nothing to do with "astral" travel or "out of body" travel of the usual sort. One literally has to let go of the specific version of life and rise into eternity and when returning is sort of "reconstituted into the version of life that fits best now. It's more a travel in the direction of divine information. Here we sit in the apparent physical universe which also has Kundalini, chakras and the like. I've called this an "incubator", a "change generator", a "sub-creation", a "subset" of creation, a "virtual holodeck" among other things. Within this "subset" we have time as we routinely experience it. If one steps outside the time stream and perceives time as a linear dimension, one is doing this from an "eternal"view. The eternal instant outside of time contains all of what we call time in the same instant. I'm calling it "speed of light" because of the dilation of time experienced as one approaches the speed of light. So the eternal instant is "stretched out" to be billions of billions of billions... of space-time years. It is in essence a "speed of light" data compression. So put this together with the chakras and all these energies often called LOVE. The chakras have subchakras called petals. Each petal is sort of one optic fiber or maybe bundle of optic fibers, carrying an information steam. When we can't "decode" it, we perceive it as "energy". As soon as we can decode it, stretch out each pixel (packet, microdot), it becomes information. Each pixel (packet) carries a lot of information. While this can happen in all sorts of dimensional directions, one of these dimensions is one of ascent along the the "greater eternity to local eternity to space-time axis"

From the eternal view into our subset creation one can again step outside of that eternal instant to another level of eternal instant with what appears to be yet again another speed of light compression. So it's "as if" a single pixel of eternity contains an infinite amount of information. The same happens again going from "local eternity" to "greater eternity". Getting out into "local eternity" is relatively easy. That is taught by all sorts of methods. However, making the next step in which the entirety of "local eternity" is seen to be on the order of a single pixel from within the "greater eternity" is more difficult.

I hope this helps.

III
12-18-2010, 01:01 AM
Are you saying we can't have a debate and exchange ideas and information? Is it his way or....'Mommy, Mommy, Jerry threw a spit ball at me and almost hit me in the eye and now I can't see!'? I only responded to the thread.

As a good Christian did you qestion Androgynus' claim that he could travel faster than the speed of light?

Am I to believe every ridiculous claim that is made on the Internet?

Here is one where some guy Mercurius claimed to talk to trees and they told him how to transmute metals into gold!

http://pub24.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2028456797&frmid=646&msgid=428394&cmd=show&cp=2

You want me to believe that also?

Hi Jerry,

As a good Christian...

This assertion in this context is ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, of any kind of out of body travel, astral travel or whatever.. There are other or could be other topics discussing "Christ Consciousness", not that "good Christian" has anything at all to do with Christ Consciousness either, and other similar forms of consciousness. At least it might give the superficial appearance of being relevant.

Am I to believe every ridiculous claim that is made on the Internet?

If you want to!. I prefer a large amount of discernment and critical thinking, believing very little and using "working hypotheses" subject to change with additional information, instead of beliefs.. Perhaps you prefer a different source for your ridiculous claims? Perhaps there is something to learn being expressed here. Have fun. Maybe you would find sexual Alchemy more to your liking.

Aleilius
12-18-2010, 01:05 AM
Maybe you would find sexual Alchemy more to your liking.
I think we could all use a healthy serving of that. Oh, yeah, I know I would. :D

Albion
12-18-2010, 09:53 AM
It is in essence a "speed of light" data compression. So put this together with the chakras and all these energies often called LOVE. The chakras have subchakras called petals. Each petal is sort of one optic fiber or maybe bundle of optic fibers, carrying an information steam. When we can't "decode" it, we perceive it as "energy". As soon as we can decode it, stretch out each pixel (packet, microdot), it becomes information. Each pixel (packet) carries a lot of information. While this can happen in all sorts of dimensional directions, one of these dimensions is one of ascent along the the "greater eternity to local eternity to space-time axis"

I haven’t read all that many books on Kundalini but your post is the most clear and believable rendition I’ve yet to encounter. Most authors, it seems, merely cut & paste the “petal” metaphor when describing the thousand-petaled lotus experience. When it happened to me, I perceived a 360-degree ring of petals of [what I called at the time] “dancing/flickering flame.”
Now, after reading your post, I realize that “light-energy/information” is a more appropriate/sophisticated/potentially useful rendition. From the practice of sun gazing I learned that energy conveys information.

Very informative post. Thank you. Love the greater contextual perspective.

Albion
12-19-2010, 03:05 AM
The Superlight Theory of John V. Milewski

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/milewski.htm

“SuperLight was identified scientifically over 100 years ago when James Clerk Maxwell solved his famous wave equation. This occurred shortly after radio was invented by Nikola Tesla, and theoretical physicists tried to find a mathematical model to explain radio waves. When using positive numbers in Maxwell's Equations this explains radio waves and also all forms of electro–magnetic radiation such as light, radio, TV, microwaves, x–rays, etc. What his equation also explains 100 years ago was SuperLight but because it was the solution that comes from the use of negative numbers, "this second solution" was ignored for over 100 years. Remember when you were taught algebra and were told to ignore imaginary numbers (e.g. The square root of –1) because they have no meaning in this world. Well, times have changed and now we have a very valid second solution to Maxwell's equation and it is SuperLight.

In the mid 70's a scientist, Dr. William Tiller, at Stanford University took another look at Maxwell's equation and asked; "What does this second solution explain when interpreted in our world."

To understand this second solution, we must first review what the first or positive solution explains. The first solution is as follows: Radio waves leave the antenna and radiate out into space from a point source (the antenna) equally in all directions into space toward infinity traveling at the speed of light. The wave is composed of a large electrical component and a small magnetic component 90 degrees to the electrical component. Thus named, electro–magnetic radiation.

The second solution describes a particle wave of just the opposite structure. It explains that from infinity traveling toward the point source from all directions radiates SuperLight. This new radiation is composed of a large magnetic component and a small electrical component, thus the name, magneto–electric radiation. When the equations are looked at more closely, one finds that "SuperLight" travels at the speed of light squared ! 1020 meters per second, or 10 billion times faster than light.

It has a frequency 10 billion times higher, and has a corresponding, shorter wavelength. It therefore has a higher energy density.”

The question one asks immediately is, "if it is so powerful, how come we do not feel it, or how come it is not detected scientifically?" Well, the frequency is so high, its wave length so short, (4 x 10–8 nano–meters, or 4 x 10–17 meters), its velocity so fast, that it goes through everything as though the substance was nearly completely transparent (like glass).