the POD Star

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

the meaning of the POD "Atlantean" star.

Violet: COSMOS:: the multiverse

In the beginning, there was that which is beyond that which is. And from that which is beyond came the holy one, blessed be he, the maker and shaper, the former of all that which is. The multiverse came into existence at the same moment as the universe. It has grown while the local universe has shrunk. The multiverse of a pleroma of baby universes, formed from the oldest particles in the local universe, is the light from the surface of the dark orb of the universe, and this appears against the inky black infnity of the parent universe beyond. Thus, the "colour" we associate with the Cosmos is purple, for black-light, the closest form of light to pitch darkness.

Green: SPIRIT:: tachyons

Now, when the holy one, blessed be he, began to form and craft that which is, he took forth a basic set of principles, the first of which was comprised of Light, the second, Love, the third, Life, and the fourth, Liberty. He laid these down with a quill of Pure Will, that "higher Light" above the universal principle of the "lower light," photons. These four principles enshrined the holy one, blessed be he, as the 4 corners of a square, and designed that which is as a circle with the same area. Thus, we say the first thing the holy one, blessed be he, established was MATH, as an Idea in his own mind, and second, GEOMETRY, as the Word of that Idea. He called the square time and the circle he called space.

Blue: WATER:: gravity

Once the holy one, blessed be he, created the circle of space, and observed the four corners of time, he was pleased. He set that which is into motion. He begat the big bang, and the singularity of the universe began being. He made the corners of time to move, and to change places in an order over time. He made the great universe to churn like water. The first force to appear was gravity as a motion opposite the direction of time. In this motion God lost sight of his clear reflection in creation, and so we call this the "separation" of the waters Above and Below. Above, there is the Lord God (AHDVNHAY). Below there are the multiverse and universe as time and space, alike a square and circle.

Indigo: AIR:: electromagnetism

The next force to appear in God's crystal globe as he made and shaped the entirety of that which we know now was lightning. Sparks began to form in the evaporating mists of the waters above. The multiverse began to be pulled apart around the edge of the universe like a shell around a yoke. An atomsphere of dew and condensation, like the sweat off God's brow, began to form above the trembling darkness of the waters of the deep. This mist began to thunder with bolts of static energy. These sparks formed the earliest stars.

Orange: FIRE:: weak nuclear fission

The earliest stars were ignited when massive clouds of gas became electrically charged, forming plasma, which quickly compressed into dense spheres of flames. Thus was fission, the weak nuclear force, next to be born within the looking glass of the divine creator. As these sparks ignited, they were reflected in the eye of God, that all-encompassing bright-darkness of the parent-universe surrounding our own singularity. So we say that, like the tears of God, these far few sparks or "sols" were formed alike unto angels, forever singing the praises of their divine maker and modeler. However, these stars did not live forever. As the oldest ones burnt out, they puntured holes out of space into time, and began consuming the interior of the universe into the exterior multiverse surrounding us. So it is said that a portion of the heavens have fallen, which means that many stars stll visible to us now have already burnt out or been consumed into larger black holes.

Yellow: EARTH:: strong nuclear fusion

As the quantum foam came to a rolling boil around the outer-edges of the spherical universe, and the multiverse of time grew while the local universe diminished, God looked down and saw the universe, that it was Good, and was well pleased in His creation. The weight of his gaze penetrated to the depths of space and activated the fourth force to be formed, the strong nuclear force of fusion. This simple gesture by God united the planets together, and allowed the formation on earth of complex-macro-molecules that would give rise to the earliest known forms of life here. Just as now matter, the fusion of atomic elements, governs the local universe, anti-matter, or dark-energy, fules the exterior multiverse.

Red: MAN: the local universe

The final miracle of God before resting was the creation of mankind as a micro-cosm of all these elements. He took the red-clay dirt of the EARTH, then mixed with it his own breath, the wind. Thus mankind was set above the stars, even the black-holes, for our role in the destiny of this universe is not fixed, as is their's. For inside the hearts of living beings is the spark of life, and this connects us each directly to God. So we see, in the final design, man is the measure, stretched across the Abyss, that connects all the five elements. The white square surrounding the red star of MAN represents his spirit, which is a reflection of time.

The entire POD "Atlantean" system is colour-coded according to the spectrum split from white light by a prism. The best acronym for this is "Roy G. Biv" meaning Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Blue-Indigo-Violet. To apply this to the entire preceding description, look at the picture of the pentagram-star within a pentagon surrounded by five petagram-stars. Follow the ROYGBIV pattern from one colour to the next. This yields the progression of related attributes of:

Red = MAN
Orange = FIRE
Yellow = EARTH
Green = SPIRIT
Blue = AIR
Indigo = EARTH
Violet = COSMOS

also, although it is not implicitely labeled:
White = TIME
BLACK = OUTERVERSE

Now, the order of the elements as they are associated with the colours is different from the order of the colours in an ordinary, prism-split ray of light. Instead of the regular ROYGBIV, we find that the elements formed in the order:

OUTERVERSE = the "parent" universe's black hole containing the baby-universe we live in.
SPIRIT = superluminal tachyons, anti-matter or dark-energy
COSMOS = the singularity of our own universe, surrounded by the corners of the 4 elements and spirit as a multiverse
TIME = the motion of matter, causing entropic decay into energy
WATER = gravity (gravitons = the supraluminal "Higgs Boson")
AIR = electromagnetism (electrons)
FIRE = weak nuclear fission (stars, protons)
EARTH = strong nuclear fusion (planets, atoms)
MAN = mankind's evolution into increasing sentience from basic cells.

the pattern formed for the colours by relating them in this way to the formation of the elements following the creation of our universe (the "big bang") is thus no longer ROYGBIV, the exact split by a prism of a beam of white photons. Instead it follows:

OUTERVERSE = black
SPIRIT = green
TIME = white
COSMOS = violet
WATER = blue
AIR = indigo
FIRE = orange
EARTH = yellow
MAN = red

Thus yielding the pattern: GVBIOYR (as opposed to ROYGBIV). This pattern (GVBIOYR) is colour-coded according to the spectrum, however is represented on the above "POD star" depiction as a different pattern of connections from one colour to the next. However, also notice that the pattern from one shape to the next in the above diagram following the ROYGBIV colour-coded pattern yields a spin around the colours of the shapes in a counter-clockwise motion (beginnig rightward from the lower right), and that the pattern of elemental formation attributed to them follows a motion associating the colours of the same shapes in a counterclockwise spiral, beginning from the upper-left and proceeding downward. Follow the red star to the orange star, then around counter-clockwise: ROYGBIV. Then start with the green star down to the red star, then to the left and around clockwise: GVBYOIR. The significance of this is in the rotational direction of the colour-coded pattern: the word-colours correspond to the triangle-colours in a counter-clockwise progression.


A squared circle constructed using the ratios of earth and moon.

Imagine looking down at a sun-dial. As the sun changes position in the sky above the stationary gnomon, the shadows will revolved around clockwise if one is standing facing north (in the N. Hemisphere, or alternately south in the southern hemisphere).

Now imagine lying down beneath the sun-dial, so that your head is directed north (or toward the closest pole), but you are looking upward towards the sky. Now the sun will rise on your left, and will set on your right, just opposite a moment ago, when you were standing facing north. Just so, from this position the measure of the shadows will appear to rotate counter-clockwise.

Looking toward the pole demonstrates our planets' rotation "clockwise" around its axis (moving from west to east, thus appearing as a "clockwise" circle from above either pole. However, if we orient our own point of view toward the tropical equator of our planetary sphere, time itself will appear to revolve in reverse.


Here is a squared circle of my own. Think of the outer-square as time, the interior-most square as spirit, and the area of the square between them is the multiverse, the same area as the circle, the cosmos.

Because we have the direction of rotation followed by both the prism-split spectrum and the formation of the elements, we can orient our model of the POD star to its place on a larger spherical coordinate geometry, ie. our own globe. The four cardinal directions operate counter-clockwise to one another, so if we began in the east at dawn, and moved (south in the north, or north in the south hemisphere) counter-clockwise, we would be facing away from the nearer pole, and toward the equator. This model is meant to be viewed on the interior of a ceiling, looking upward. Thus the green star on top of the POD star model would be facing toward the nearest pole if graphed onto a globe.

PEACE!
- Jon

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

(cont. from last post)

43) would it logically be above the crown, or does the crown/nimbus/halo represent the completion of the octave?

Ayin (limitlessness), Ayin Soph (limitless void) and Ayin Soph Aur (limitless bright void) reside "above the crown." The "crown," as I assume you know already, is 10=1 or 1=10, depending on whether you're ascending the "tree of life" lattice (alike the Greek models) or descending it (alike the Hebrews'). The Crown (10) is "Above" or "supernal" to the "Octave" (of 8). You need a nap bro, you're still tripping on this.

44) Logic would dictate it is below us, connecting us through space-time as the polar opposite from our connection on the other side of the Fourier Transform?

What hoopla. I hope my sentences don't decompose into anarchy as quickly when taken out of context as some of the thoughts in your essay. Your'e descirbing, now mind you, I Understand you, just don't really CARE, the "Fourier Transform" as like a form of psychic membrane between the interior of the cosmic reality, and the exterior, ergo "God." This is the same as the Vedic interpretation of the Aura which led, eventually, to Greek Golden Age solipsism and the belief we're all just "brains on a shelf." This is, of course, utter nonsense in real use, but still fun in the cinema.

45) A TOE should include everything, should it not?

No, not only SHOULDN'T it, it CAN'T. Goedel's proof stated that, regardless of how complex and thourough, no ultimately expanded version of the "Principia Mathematica" could fully describe, predict and determine Goedel himself. Because a free mind has free will, it will always be capable of introducing randomness anytime. This part, at LEAST, can NEVER be logically, axiomatically, codedifed. And yet, it is WE, OURSELVES, who would seek to do so. Ironic at best. At worst, this is arguing in favour, ultimately, of a "GATTACA" or "Euiqlibrium" (or "Brave New World" or "Walden 2") type of scientific dictatorship, where the ones behind the books are ALWAYS right, and anyone who doesn't "fit in" is branded "useless" or, worse, "defective." Besides, assuming you WERE "God" and DID know Everything. Then, it wouldn't be a "theory" anymore, would it? LOL!

46) Will science admit anything interesting when they find that how DNA coils itself into cells as one of the many possibilities of Calabi-Yau spheres?

uhhh.... WTF? LMAO. Sorry, it's just... the words. You're not using them "right" according to my own vocabulary, and this makes seeing through this defect to embrace the heart of your argument... difficult... at least. You're talking about the "morphogenetic field" or the "Akashic Records," but you're combining super-string terms to descirbe it. These terms... do not fit. Not because the intention is wrong. It's the modern theories themselves that remain "incomplete" at best. Then again, who needs "theories" of their own, or other's, when you can simply experience God by relaxing your own ego?

47) Will anyone proficient in either of those geometries ever try to make the connection because it won’t be me?

I have. Check out my video series (here on the POD.ning) called "Religion 101."

48) have you ever wondered if DNA coils into every cell by using Calabi-Yau geometry, or is it just me thank thinks it quite probable?

it's really just you, per se. The terms you're using are combining a modern science "theory" with ancient, REAL concepts about the "Soul." Ok, A) the soul isn't only DNA; and B) "super-strings" and "M-theory" are just THAT: THEORIES. If you want to pick on any accepted science, work your way UP to modern theories, AFTER studying the older scientific principles they're founded on. You can easily SAY, "there's no such thing as zero." But are you any wiser just by doing so? Not to me.

49) Maybe then we can incarnate with full enlightened consciousness and act as true catalysts for mass illumination?

Yes we can become ghosts and try to guide the living. It won't work though. Everyone's path is unique, and all reach enlightenment on their own terms and time. Any attempt to "improve" on this is simply self-destruction. Ultimately, there is NO 100th monkey, and we are ALL the "Other 99%."

50) would that be odds against chance enough to raise the eyebrow of an INTJ?

I can't answer that, since I'm not an "INTJ" and I don't even know what that means.

51) Does that make it something he intended?

Whenever, I can speak for myself, I, as an author, say ANYTHING, it's almost ALWAYS something I've personally said before, and usually relates to every other thing I've said about that too. Are you familar with Leary's 7 rules of game reality, and have you ever compared these to the Kybalion. Quite Enlightening. One reads up, the other down, but the lists DO correspond. Anywho, though...!

52) Or, was it a Law of Fives-like connection because of enough time and ingenuity on my part?

Robert Anton Wilson invented the "Law of 5s" concept for his novels. It has no basis in facts.

53) a theory of everything should include everything, should it not?

Again, not from the point of view of the mathematician Goedel, whom it must, thus, exclude.

54) As the quote from Dr Leary above mentions ‘the game of life’, is he intentionally drawing the reader to his book The Game of Life?

Yes, as I just said, whenever any author (of more than only 1 book) says anything, it's multi-leveled in meaning, full of double entendres and inuendo, all relating to the other "intellectual offspring" of their own egos. "Plate of Shrimp," Repo Man.

55) How could I build a Pythagorean TOE without that information?

I have, and I don't have the slightest CLUE about what you're talking about in this.

56) However, is there something being said in the fact that the cells that house our DNA, share the same roots in language as hell, hall, occult, occultation, clandestine, cellar, cellular, a ship’s hold, a ship’s hull, hollow, hellfire and hulk?

No. Languages are bunk. You can't stop a rock being thrown at you by yelling "Stop" at the rock itself while it's hurling toward you in mid-air. Likewise, it doesn't matter at all to material ("consensus") reality WHAT you believe. Words are empty symbols only, like the concept of a token-exchange economy using a third-party good to substitute for direct barter-exchange. Insofar as money has NO intrinsic value, it serves as a "symbol" of value only. Likewise, words based on limited alphabets can only be recombined into so many arrangements, and these arrangements can only be assigned as many meanings as people, with their limited imaginations, can fathom. Again to quote the Mad Hatter, "you might as well say, I see what I eat as say, I eat what I see." Meaninglessness feeds "Logic," but not vice versa; Logic destroys meaninglessness.

57) in an etymology dictionary the words it says are related are connected, are they not?

Nope. (See above answer(s)). LMAO. Language is shit. Words, other people's petty theories, these are "memes," an idea-based version of a virus. Ever read anything written by William Burroughs or Bryon Gyson using Gyson's "cut-up" method? Ever heard the song "A Day In the Life" by the Beatles (off Sgt. Peppers)? Language makes equal sense as gibberish. Spelt anyway, the meaning is conveyed IN SPITE of the words, NOT because of them.

58) Shouldn’t we all be able to see those connections?

Most net nerds nowadays have studied WAY too MUCH Michael Tsarion. He's a fool and a liar. But people don't know anyone better to inspire them. Ah well.

59) As above so below, if man can choose to increase our intelligence to evolutionary levels, wouldn’t the same be occurring in the macro?

No, again this imputes man's mind onto the universal continuum in the concept of a bodyless mental God, where, in truth, none exists. We have minds, egos and free will, but nature, herself, does not. It is not "purpose directed" history beyond the "conpsiracy theories." In true physics, there is no return to unification point.

60) Won’t the Demiurge finally merge into Abraxas when he wises up?

No. The demiurge (Samael-Saklas-Ialdabaoth) is an Archon. Abraxas was a symbol of all the Archons combined. The devil, by definition, cannot "wise up."

61) Is not the story under the plot of Avatar, the most expensive movie ever made, a modern man relearning how to connect with Factor X?

Not that I groked from watching it online. To me the movie sucked, and in no way aided, but rather hindered, my own inspiration, development and evolution. James Cameron is a hack film maker. He makes over-priced B-movies. To me, "Avatar" was crap, but then, alot of people liked "Forest Gump" when it came out too. Only time will tell.

62) Were there not some moments of a literal ‘enlightenment’ depicted in the movie?

Not that I could cite for you. Off the top of my head I thought it was more about some blue-skinned Lemur-looking monkey-people on an alien planet, and the big corps were killing them for their environmental resources. I kinda took it as a Bush diss.

63) What other symbol should play in a modern attempt at an ancient Greek interpretation of the Book of Thoth than with the caduceus of Hermes?

I dunno. If you saw the "staff of Hermes" in the "Avatar" move "Hometree" you musta been on the Good Shit, because I saw the same movie and LOLed my AO.

64) What is the symbolism when the Na’vi assemble around the trunk of Hometree?

Uhhhh...... Lemur Armeggedon? That scene? Or the one where they brought the marine guy back to life by making him a Lemur too? Either way, that movie blows goats... AND smokes Lemur pole.

65) are scientists the only profession that does not have a majority of submissives?

I don't know many people who self-select into that profession, but the ones I have met are Russians anyway, so it's really difficult to tell if they were Doms due to being left-brainers, or due to growing up in "beyond the pale."

66) How will the subtleties underlying the vernacular of the r=>0, as etymologically discussed above, ever going to resonate with an ESFJ changing their core belief structure of right and wrong to be based upon that equation?

When you stop clinging to the need and desire to change other people, they will be more friendly toward you. I would give the same advice to President Obama. You don't NEED to change other people's opinions or "Save" their souls. Why try? It always backfires anyway.

67) what would be the next step but that of returning to a harmonic of the root note to either complete the octave or make it begin the next one?

That's more like "time wave zero" by the McKenna Bro.s, or like the "harmonic earth grid" and "7 moon" calendar by Jose Arguilleres. Again, we did not invent the world we live in by being born into it. It was here first. Same with the calendar. People look at the calendar nowadays, and see interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic alignments occuring on it, and say, "HOLY SHIT, WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING?" It's not the fault of reality or the calendar needing changed that younglings don't wake up to Reality sooner. It's not a fault, it's not a problem, not even an oppurtunity. It simply "is what is."

68) Is that not the same sentiment as to revalue all values?

That's the "Armeggedon Conspiracy's" objective? Sounds stupid to me. Let one person go crazy following that advice, and the rest of the lemmings will turn away.

69) Should that also not include ‘advances’ in what were once, novel ideas, such as the cipher of zero?

Advances ADD positive extra knowledge. Saying "there is no zero," is destructive of a helpful concept (in maths at least), and doesn't "add" anything to history's progress, but rather wants to erase most of it in one fell sweep. Again, I do not advocate ANY of the line of reaosning you're on now, Jayce. It's your path, I won't walk it, but likewise, I will advise you: make your own way for yourself, and do not cling to other people annoying you into thinking you must change them. They WON'T change. People are who they are. They like it. They ARE free. It's NOT your business, nor MINE, to get into anyone's private life and fuck that up for them. Even if only by proposing generalised, "progressive" reforms to education, like erasing Zero.

70) should we not also apply the same scrutiny to what the societal and psychological impact that, so-called, advances have brought?

There's no advancement in the ideas we're discussing now. This is all hot air. Tripe, sir. A waste of valuable time we could be using to discuss tachyons and gravity, or time and the nature of mind, etc. Instead we're rehashing "Armaggedon Conspiracy's" idiot theories, which are damned lies at best, and at worst full on ignorant to the X-treme. Personally, I've never really visited that site, even when my friends pointed it out to me, because I am too busy with my own mind to wander all up into somebody else's delusions and start banging on pots and pans. I couldn't care less what "Armeggedon Conspiracy" has to say, honestly. I wish you wouldn't waste your personal time on such obvious bunk bullshit, but it's your free time. You may spend it how you wish, and I have no right to interfere.

71) Where did a major idea in the evolution of intelligence come from; what type of society?

Oh christ, please dont' say "Aryan Ideals" from pre-Hindu Vedic Indo-Europeans. If Hitler is any example, those guys are only psychotic idiots anyway.

72) If we are to revalue, we had better start at the true origins of ideas, right?

Sure that sounds as reasonable as any other rehttorical moot point you've made. Ever read "Diogenes Lamp" by Adam Weishaupt? He writes alot like this shit too. Lots of empty questions, appealing to a non-existent audience who live in his head. Admittedly, Weishaupt wrote 200 years before now, but really, that's no excuse.

73) If it is truly time to revalue all values, is there any value in that which lacks value?

Yeah, the concept of it being "time to act now." That's bullshit fear-mongering porpaganda cooked up by millennarian eschatologists like RAWilson and GHWBush. Ever read the "Devils' Notebooks" by Anton LaVey? Even he never endorsed anything half as evil as using fear of the end of the world as an exuse to end the world. Depopulation and armeggedon conspiracies? Those are rotten with stupidity, self-hate and will decay in failure. Dead on the vine.

74) Since the adoption of these mathematical concepts, has the west gotten closer to complete liberation?

From maths? No. From Religions? Yes. Pick your poison, since science is the new religion, as much as religion is just old sciences.

75) Or, has the OWO had a new tool to use against man reclaiming our potential?

This OWO vs. NWO line of reasoning is also shite. There should NOT be a NWO or a global government. I fight against that reasoning. Ever heard of Ron Paul? The whole "left-wing" / "right-wing" dialectic is artificially propping up pressure down onto the "middle-class." Same with all "dualities" and dialectical "polar" opposites. Good and Evil were OWO. Science and religion are NWO. OWO and NWO are both facades for the truth, which is the crumbling of the civil liberties at the core of a truly free and open society. Once you learn to juggle, you stop caring to dress up like a clown while doing it. It's not for laughs then, it's for self-improvement. HAHAHA! LMAO! HAHAHA. lmao. ~sigh~.

76) Is the logical math to define the caste system the synthesis the west should make from Eastern traditions?

No. The caste system (slaves under soldiers under bankers under a king) is evil. It's antithetical to the free and open society my own ideals are based on. Then again, as Anakin Skywalker said about a Dictatorship: "if it works...." Right now there's TOO MUCH influence on us to return to that sort of system. Ever read Codex Alamentarius? They are planning on returning the world's economies to a global feudalism level. No joke. And here we sit talking shit about bullshit. OCCUPY!

77) If the god of Abraham is infinite then the belivers are zero, is the logical solution, then, to turn that around and call the true god (everything AC has defined as r=0) zero while the creation of the Demiurge can grow to infinity?

I won't make their argument for them, but if you think of it like a 4 spoked wheel ever circling in a cyle over all time, where the 4 spokes are, in order of their taking the top-space on this wheel of misfortunes, Adam, Lucifer, Jesus, Satan; sometimes even dumb things make some sense; especially, as Hunter Thompson wrote, "if you've got shit for brains." No aspersions on any present company meant to be cast.

78) Shouldn’t the more logical thing be to reject these very concepts (keep using 0 for computer binary, but know that it is not a part of the spiral of nature; keep using it for graphs, but know that the map is not the territory) as part of our question to transcend this hell and arrive in heaven?

So you reject the idea of rejecting the idea of zero? WTF. I have no clue where you stand on this topic. You are arguing for and against it simultaneously. Again, to me, that's childish and immature, the opposite of real logic. But even I once wrote like this too, so who am I to call it the "wrong" thing to do, or to live, or to think or be?

79) How does the continued belief in zero advance the condition of man? Is not this at the root of many suicide attempts: the feelings of having no value, or less than zero?

Zero doesn't cause people's despression. People cause that in themselves. No one is born swinging their fists saying, "I'm Jesus," or "I'm Buddha," and "I'm back to teach you all the Most Important," and then says, "forget zero." That's just pointless. Literally.

80) Is not the same psychosis of the value of the believer in Abrahamism the same we will further instill in everything in the AC’s r=0?

Man. You are imputing to some net-jerk all the power to create a religion as the first practical monotheist? That's hawt, but honestly I find it difficult to masturbate to. (sorry, net meme in-joke.)

81) If our evolutionary goal is to transcend back into the realm of the divine, shouldn’t we formulate a transcendent mathematics to accomplish the task as opposed to the nihilism of hoping to attain nothing (r=0)?

That SOUNDS good. But then again, why bother? If what is destined will come to pass regardless, and you believe in transcendence (even if only for yourself), what should it matter what other people think or believe or how they live their lives?

82) how many theoretical physicists today really take any of the paranormal that AC places in the zero to exist, either?

None. I can fucking gaurantee that. No one who is serious about maths wants to take a basic principle and toss it out along with 6,000 years of maths just for fun. They, and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with them, would likely call the "Armeggdon Conspiracy" site's host "insane." I would too, and I literally am. Now, THAT'S saying something. (just not quite sure what exactly.) LMAO!

83) Are not celebrity culture and conspicuous consumption driven by a need for image?

Yes, and, shit, I don't know if you've heard, but babies love breast milk too. Also, the sky on earth is usually blue. Oh, and there's no "God." LMAOLMAOLMAO.

84) If the point is to get everyone onto the Hero Program instead of being consumed with the false dimension of image, should we accept the imaginary dimensions of the AC cosmology?

Well, by now I expect you know where I'd stand on this. Still not sure about you, though. Which would you choose for eternity: Jedi or Sith? Cause right now, you're coming off having been hanging around Darth Nutz. Welcome to the POD, btw. LOL!

85) So, why would AC include something into their cosmology that they reject about the reality of today: the imaginary dimension of celebrity and consumer culture - image?

AHA! Exactly, another fine point. Why bitch aoubt modern reality (as though this were Babylon in flames itself) and then use your angry rants to justify kooky ideas? Oh wait, I forgot who we were talking about here. "AC" = "Armeggedon Conspiracy."

86) Are they truly revaluing every value?

Sounds like one dude with an itchy bitch-switch mis-leading some sheep to me. Not my business though.

87) Is not the underlying psychosis of zero, negatives, and imaginary dimensions worth examining as to be either synthesized or not?

I would say yes to all those. Ever read Liber Null and Psychonaut? Oh wait.....

88) Has there been a synthesis, yet?

I feel it coming: the synthesis between zero and one into a third state, neither and simultaneously both zero AND one. But that would be trinary, not nihillism. LOL!

89) Is not this one of the truest values we must revalue?

Actually yes. The quest for synthesis is like chasing a cat up a tree if you're a dog. Sure, you got the cat stuck in the tree, but you still can't climb the tree yourself. Of course, alot of dumb-fucks have wasted countless centuries trying to become the first combined cat-dog / dog-cat synthesis. It's never going to happen in reality tho.

90) Are the subtle connections to sociology and psychology of zeroes detrimental to the long-term viability to the AC equation?

More so to his (or her) sanity than to anyone else's levels of interest. When you leave a psychotic alone with themselves, they usually end up suidical. They hate themselves, and spread hate through their teachings. Now mind you, I'm no egotist. I'm a perfectionist, so I am let down by my own standards constantly. I fail at being me too. But, that doesn't make me want to spread stupid, hateful doctrines to others.

91) is there a more blatant example as to the damage of ideas current in the world than for the bottom 90% to be either 0 or less than zero?

True. Word to the reality of our modern times, sir.

92) If we must revalue all values, why would the mathematically valueless be exempt?

If zero = zero already, who cares? You can't non-exist non-existence anymore than assassinate the Presidency as an office with a bullet. Zero is an idea, as bullet-proof as any other, be they for "better" or for "worse."

93) Is that a healthy belief for man to continue to hold?

Only if he's being paid to think it. LMFAO. Damn, I'm so broke.... HAHHAH!

94) Is this not the black and white world of the OWO: you are either one of them or you are worthless?

Yes, and if "AC" rebuilds it in his own "NWO's" image, we's ah all doomed, sir! LMAO, no worries though. Show him this, he-she will shoot itself instantly. Or come knock and MY door, at least. Then they MIGHT accidentally benefit themselves!

95) Is Satan served by the societal and sociological effects of the very idea, originated around 600 CE in India, home of the human zeroes and worse - the negative untouchables, then passed to Christianity from Islam?

There is no such thing as "God." Even less so, "Satan." Myths have morals. They are not morals in and of themselves. Like money, it's just garbage people pretend is gold. This delusion wears off. I'll be around afterwards. Will this person??

96) If these effects indeed serve Satan, why would anyone accept a TOE that is founded upon a tactic serving the master psychologist?

Word. Not that I am agreeing with the concepts, but that is a fine point you make.

97) Is there not a clearer path to the God of Becoming than R= ϕ; r= 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,22 … R⇔r or R⇒r⇒R=∞?

Yeah. Pretty much ANY path would be clearer. Mine's called "phi over pi." It works for me alot better than "AC's" seems to have worked for them. At least I'm happy, SOMETIMES. LMAO. Like now. This is fun. It's 6AM now and I've been typing these answers since midnight. Now, sir, I am the one who is tripping. Off sleep-dep. LOL!

98) Is there room for Satan to pervert that message, or is that the formula that will make him begin his evolutionary transcendent quest to arrive at Abraxas, too?

Neither. There's no such thing as "Satan," per se, as he's defined in the "Bible." I would define "Christ Consciousness" or "Kether" as the same thing as channeling the "Ruler of Earth," traditionally considered to be Satan by sore luck losers. If you are in "Kether," and happy, you're a "good God," like Jesus or "Abraxas," as you're using that term. If you're unhappy, you're an "evil devil" like Satan or "AC." LMAO. "AC." Fucking stupid people and their Satanic doom and gloom fetishes. Whatev.

99) Extreme pride meaning only you have worth and all other are worthless; isn’t that the root of an exaggerated ego?

It's defintely the core of the psychologiocal "dysfunctional" syndrome currently called "malignant narcissim," but which used to be called being a "sociopath." Damn man, sudden deja vu again. Have we discussed this before at all? Seems like I'm just treading water in a circle sometimes, you know?

100) Over compensation, perhaps?

Anyone who admires hubris is ashamed of themselves, usually for good reasons.

101) And is that not expressed so eloquently simple in R= ϕ; r= 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,22 … R⇔r or R⇒r⇒R=∞?

Again, no clue. This seems like bat-shit to me sir. This whole row of numbers, their long list of coincidental "meanings" etc. It's all pretty silly sounding from my own point of view. Then again, "welcome to Atlantis." LMFAO!

102) Is not the universe of Satan destined to evolve back into that divine light in this equation?

No. Wait, Yes? I don't know. Do you mean his-her's or your own? I'm so lost now. LOL. On the other hand I'm almost done and can pass out soon. I'm not looking forward to that, since usually when I stay up late I end up sleeping through nightmares and waking up clammy. But I do it anyway, because I'm down with that. I am teh uber-Goth. HAHAH. True though, true Goths don't need make-up and wigs. You can tell a true "Goth" just by the look in their eyes as they hand you your "freedom" fries.

103) Is not the initial difference as vast a chasm as explained above as a mockery of the divine light?

Yes. In its entirety. Plus I'm exhausted, so my answers have not added much to it either.

104) If that divine light was the transcendent, NFN8 ϕ would not the approximation be the mockery?

no clue.....

105) What better manipulation to keep us from our evolutionary task than the belief in zero?

The belief in Jesus? In religion in general? In "ideal" moralities? Oh wait, that was a rehttorical, wasn't it. Oops. LOL!

106) Does my etymology dictionary reveal wisdom by exposing the relationship between zero and cipher/decipher?

Not to my knowledge.

107) If it is time to revalue all vales, isn’t it time to view everything we are taught to believe for what type of psychological impacts the acceptance of the idea creates?

That seems implied in the terms of "revaluing values." Zero is a non-value, afterall.

108) Has the God of Becoming, Abraxas, become closer to becoming since the concept of zero was introduced to the world?

There's no such thing as "God" either. God is, to me, little different than Zero is to "AC." I use the concept daily, but I dispise the fact it weakens my creative resolve.

Well, I'm passing out. I'll try to get back to you more soon, Jayce. These discussions are the first and among the best I've had, at least of this length, in years. Thanks for that. Big time. PEACE! - Jon

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha again Jayce (Mork42),

 

I just wanted to add, as it's been nearly a week since my last comment and you seem to have left off for a bit, that I hope I did not offend you. Many of my answers were, perhaps inappropriately, intended as humor, and this might seem like it was meant to be taken as my joking about you at your own expense. This was not my intention, but I was tired and feeling a bit flippant, and I realise in reading over this that some (even many) of my replied could be construed as insulting. I did not mean for my words to be barbs at you. Allow me to explain: I am not refuting your overall theory. I agree that what you've postulated is possibly true, and probably more true cumulatively than "Armeggedon Conspiracy." Even if you added up all my answers as to whether I agree or disagree with the point of each question, it would not be meant to reflect as a cumulative on the validity of your theory. I want you to know that it should go without saying, from here on out, that I do not reject anyone's theories, nor endorse my own, as being right for their creators or even people other than myself or them. I am open-minded to everything. I do not want people thinking I intend to force my "ideals" expressed in the POD down anyone's throat. I do not want to share my ideals with anyone besides myself 100%, nor would I want anyone else to want to share my ideals 100%. Likewise, I am hesitant to 100% endorse anyone else's ideals as being right for me or right for anyone or even everyone else. I will say I believe we're each unique, so no exact set of ideals can be applied to any two individuals. I will also say there is only one truth, comprised only of facts, but that these facts, while verifiable as objects, cannot be verified objectively, because each perception comes from its own, unique, point of view, and no two points of view can overlap exactly 100%. No one's point of view works better for anyone else than the other person's point of view works for themselves already anyway. But, I do promise I will always listen and, at least try to, understand everyone else's point of view as thoroughly and as respectfully as I can, and to answer all questions as honestly and completely as I can. Again, I apologise if my terse answers were too much so, and offer the explanation this was only due to being sleepy at the time, not that this should be an excuse for it, nor that it should be held against me either. It's simply my point of view on facts, and the facts are true, even though it may later prove my present point of view is way off. PEACE! - Jon

[Mork42]

Aloha Jon, glad to  be back with you, just sorry it has taken me so long. Firstly, as I think I told you this was not my theory. The gentleman in question is William and he has shared some good links and been generally a good sport with not too much of an ego problem going on. I found your responses hilarious but I've only got round to reading them today as the real world had gotten pretty hectic and I could only manage some pretty trivial web based reading. You've certainly given me the taste for it again so I intend on jumping back in with my own contributions.

There were some elements that I like of Will's theory. Mostly that it opposed AC because I was having a battle with them at the time. One that I have now withdraw from because they are more or less irrelevant to the things I want to do, though a great many are still besotted by them despite their hypocrisy, narrow mindedness and  all round bad attitude. My views have well transcended them but I have learnt a great deal since last we spoke, none of which may have any authority or relevance but it definitely helps me to feel a little more confident and more sure there is no absolute and the most important thing is to enjoy the experience of thinking and living and most of all interacting. 

So I did like the concept of removing zero because it should really be a Void or Egg to some extent. It is the zero or omega point, it is from where all things originate as unmanifest potentials before they proceed through a material existence and eventually return to the unform state.My thoughts have been more on the uneen realms of the otherworld or anti-verse and how this state of pure mind or Supra or Cosmic Mind could be all important. Maybe it is the Abyss or Unkind, I really don't know but this is along the lines of which I have been philosophizing of late. Reincarnation, Panpyschism, Astral Projection and such things. I am with you on the Phi/Pi theory. That resonate and works for me too. 

To clarify I am over AC and they have no hold over me, I even read a little of Hubbard's manual to see how they have used the techniques. Remember William was addressing the AOI community with his posts and hece this is why he may have come off the way he did. 

Pleae tell me more about Tachyons and how you view these faster than light particles as relevant. Phosphenes and the Photonic Being of Adam Kadmon have come up as has YHVH and YHSVH being the same with an added 'S', God and Jesus and apparently 'S' stood for life but light works even better. 

I also like that you have a slight disregard for Memes. Though I was initially allured the concepts of Spiral Dynamics and Memetics I do see how if over-used they can become dogmatic and my philosophy is all about flexibility on some matters and rigid on Humanism and things that actually matter. 

Great speaking with ya. I will send you a PM with other stuff and I'll post some links I hope you will enjoy. 

Peace! Jayce

P.S. Watched a LIber Null video and am very impressed with that line of reasoning. That is the type f  thinking I can appreciate fully. 

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

I am glad you are back to posting here. I hope your time will permit you to continue. No worries about any absences. I am not the only one here. I am happy to hear from you. Let me answer some of your questions, as always, the best I can:

Thanks for clarifying it was William's theory that was posted. I am happy, also, you did not think it was too critical a review. I have suffered many ad hominem attacks in my career, and know how bad they feel. It was not intended to insult anyone. The concepts in the theory about "zero" non-existing ARE important, but the argument could easily be more toned down about it and make the points more successfully; for example: zero = zen, tao = one, chi = infinity. Thus, we bring in old concepts as new axiomatic variables. Then we apply math to sort them out: chi is between zen and tao, within zen, within tao, and yet there is tao without chi, yet no zen without chi. Thus, zen is imaginary: a mental state. Tao is the process of enfusing zen with chi. Tao is ourself, zen is our own aura, the energy-field surrounding us, and chi is the universal energy-force. All of this argues very simply and positively in favour of the non-existence of zero; it does not attack anyone nor base its points on defending against anyone else. In short, the premise for the theory is fact: I agree. There is no such thing as "zero."

I also liked your expression of the concept of an "anti-verse" or "under-world." I wonder, however, if you've ever investigated how such a parallel-dimension to our own, that seems to reflect ours as though through a mirror, actually forms and occurs? I have. I believe in the concept of three parallel dimensional M-branes, which permeate our reality and reac to one another to cause events to have certain effected outcomes in our reality. One is a "heaven" dimension, one is a "mid-gard" or "limbo" dimension, and one is a "hell" dimension. In heaven, all is ideal; we live in a perfect world where not only survival but creativty is easy and fun. In hell, our lives are ruined and we are forced without choice to earn back our right to survive from an uncaring draconian society. In limbo, on earth, all is torn between these twin parellel M-branes and thus half of all events succeed, while the other half fail. Such is the compromise in struggle here between universal entropy and biological neg-entropy. It is my experience that every time we make any choice, it forms a division in the time-stream, such that, in another, parallel-dimensional world, we made the opposite choice. Over time, the "good" choices and the "bad" choices pile up, and our lives assume a balance between the choices we benefit from and those we regret. However, all the choices we regret are awaiting us after death in the "heaven" dimension, and all those which we make to benefit us while alive are weighed against these in the "hell" dimension. When we die, which can happen randomly at any time, we will go to whichever dimension we choose, based on how we view the majority of our choices.

This segways well into the topic of tachyons, however first let me ease us into hard-science by way of alchemical-analysis of ancient vague myths. To address the concepts of "Adam Kadmon" and of the relationship of "Yeheshuah" to the "tetragrammaton," let me begin thus: In Pistis Sophia, Christ describes himself being present during the events in the Garden of Eden. If we remove all the roles of those we know where present there and then, where, then, was Christ? He claims to have been "Pigera Adamas," a mental-state of satori, called nowadays "Christ-consciousness," that possessed Adam while he was in the garden of paradise, but which was removed from Adam by God's curse during the expulsion. Thus, "Adam Kadmon" meaning, essentially, "Adamas" crowned (by "Kether" = "Kadmon") "Pigera" ("Christ"). Thus, in Pistis Sophia as in the Secret Gospel of John, Jesus was claiming himself to be one and the same with "Christ consciousness," that is, "kether," or the crown of the mind-state of satori, called in Catholicism the "Holy Ghost" of the deified "Trinity." Elementally speaking, as the tetragrammaton, YodHehVavHeh = the 4 prime-elements, so too do the 3 "mother" letters, ShinAlephMem, symbolise the 3 mixed-elements. In this case, "Shin" is sulfer (gas), "Aleph" is mercury (liquid), and "Mem" is salt (solid). So, when we take the name of Jesus, "Yod-Heh-Shin-Vev-Heh" we are taking the 4 prime-elements, and inserting into the middle one of the 3 mixed-elements, thus: fire, air, sulfer, water, earth. This is symbolic of the tree of life in the garden of paradise because it inserts the 3 mixed-elements between the lower 2 and the upper 2 of the 4 worlds of ha QBLH: giving us the triskele model for the periodic-table between the worlds of Beriah (below) and Yetzirah (above).

Let me also say, briefly, I disagree with you about there being "sure there is no absolute." There is. I can see how you would be missing it however, since you have buried your nose in L Ron Hubbard. Hubbard is bullshit. His "methods" and his "myths" are bullshit. Same with Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism (modern "Latter Day Saints"). I know for a fact. I have read their original source works. In the case of Joseph Smith, I have read the book of Mormon, written by Smith, as well as the Spalding Manuscript it was based on. In the case of L Ron Hubbard, I have read the Theta level manuscript, the highest and most secret document in Scientology. It is not so hard to find: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/03/13/ot3.jpg I can say definitvely, both these men and their religions are bullshit.

I will launch my salvo on "tachyons" soon, but my friend is here now, so I want to get this out to you while I can. PEACE! - Jon

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

I apologise for the brief delay in my returning to this reply with a more thorough explanation for your request for more info about tachyons. I would be pleased to give you as complete and thorough an explanation of them as I can now:

There are 4 elemental forces that govern the material, the universal and the ethereal realms, with 3 sub-elements that occur on the borders between them. The 4 prime-elements are, in the order they occured following the "big bang" that began our cosmos: 1) water / gravity; 2) air / photo-electro-magnetism; 3) fire / weak nuclear fission; 4) earth / strong nuclear fusion. There is a fifth element, and here is how it is comprised: the 4 elements can be seen as levels or layers, and between each is a sub-element. The combination of these sub-elements occurs as the layer upon the upper-most surface of the highest-level prime-element, such that it can reconnect to the lowest-level prime-element layer. Because the 3 sub-elements are known also as the three "alchemical" conditions of matter, their combination into a single, new and unique substance must also be counted as the "5th element." The conditions of matter-energy are the same as those of water in earth's atmosphere: solid (quantum matter with mass), liquid (massless radiated waves), gas (ion clouds). So, when we combine these three conditions of matter (solid, liquid, gas) into one form, we arrive at a symbol for the "5th element," insofar as the "5th element" combines quarks, fermions and bosons. We find this is possible only for the element of water on earth (as liquid water, water vapour or steam, and ice), and so we can apply this to the study of quantum/astro-physics thus: the terrestrial element of water corresponds to the universal elemental force of gravity. Thus, the "5th element" effects gravity to assume the forms of the 3 sub-elements (solid, liquid, gas). This "5th element" is tachyons.

Or, to approach the topic of tachyons from another angle, we could say from the modern point of view that the "force carrying particle" of gravity remains undiscovered. Because modern quantum/astro-physicists do not see the sub-quantum attraction of electrons around atomic nuclei as being due to the same force binding planets around stars, they consider the hypothetical "graviton" to be a very large particle, yet none exist that would fit this bill. This is why modern scientists are drooling over the Higgs Boson at CERN's LHC. Instead of being a unique category of "attractive" rather than repulsive particles, the force-carrying particles of gravity are, quite obviously, tachyons. They cause gravity as an attractive (negatively entropic decay) force as friction by travelling against the standard arrow of time (defined by entropy), that is, backwards in time.

Or to phrase it another way. What is the force that allows telepathy? Tachyons. Tachyons are also known as ZPE (zero point energy), as anti-gravity, as limitless free-energy, and in star-wars as the force. Religious people pray to know their will and claim they are the dreams of God's universal brain. They assume regular forms, such as 4-d solids, across the inter-galactic super-string filaments when spiral galaxies core black-holes' align.

[Mork42]

Aloha Jon, 

Just logged on to Facebook this morning and read an article posted by Iona Miller on the Light Higgs Particle. I didn't agree with the feel of the article as it was a bit ambiguous and gloomy. However, it is an area of immense interest and though I have an idea of the direction I wish to go I can't quite articulate the details... Perhaps you can add to my thoughts. I think you will as from the diagram you posted on the creation of the universe, I think this will fit.

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/light_higgs_discovered_and_abou...

The Arrow of Time found in the Vesica Pisces and leading to the Separation and Duality is an important starting point. 

I search led me to the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis and this seems to fit with your theory of Gravity as the significant driving force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_curvature_hypothesis

Entropy is a concept that I find myself regularly countering against and promoting Extropy because as I understand Entropy it is 'leakage' leading to collapse of the system through imbalance. It is not just disorder because chaos and discord can be positive when it shakes up the system and allows it to find a new equilibrium. Entropy is not like that because it keeps going in the one direction with no return to balance. 

Imperialism and imposed order lead to Entropy and I find Asur/Osiris to be representative of the extreme orderliness and Seth as the positive chaos. I also identify Osiris with Nimrod the Hunter or Sagittarius and the risen Horus as Scorpio so the fact that the 'Arrow' is pointing to the 13th constellation between Sagittarius and Scorpio as being highly significant. 

I am sceptical of Wilcock's theories because they are 'loose' to the extreme. Nassim Harramein and Dan Winter among others are slightly more substantial but one thing Wilcock has mentioned is the End of Time and I do agree with this point and find it related to what I've already mentioned and the approaching Omega or Convergence Point. Have you read Julian Barbour's End of Time, if so is it worth purchasing?

http://www.feandft.com/index2.htm

http://www.smeddum.net/articles/matter.htm

http://boneoracle.com/Cosmology.htm

http://scienceofwholeness.com/how-the-vesica-pisces-explains-creati...

It does seem to support your theory of tachyons as the 'life' element that I would have previously considered pure aether but it is true that all is vibration, all is mind and all is light so I am coming round to your theory though still struggling to connect all the dots. My brain works in more of a mythos and symbologogical way than pure logos but I am open to alternatives if I can grasp them. 

Here is Iona MIller's site. Some of it resonates, other parts not o much and the way it is presented discredits the text but the Photonic Cycle Band is the area of Wilcock's speculative hypothesis that does resonate strongly. Interestingly enough for me it fits closely with your concept of the Great Burner. 

http://photonichuman.iwarp.com/whats_new.html

http://ionamillersubjects.weebly.com/photonic-human.html

This site sums up what I am trying to convey. Hopefully you can help me understand it or suggest I spend my time more effectively though I must confess I have a strong pull to understand this. Take your time in replying my friend. Irie

http://www.esotericonline.net/forum/topics/th-rp-t-b-ar-r

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

I want you to know I do not mean to be snide in what I am about to say, and most importantly, I do not like to adopt the tone in which I am about to say it: It is NOT "my tachyon theory." A) it is not mine, I did not discover it first, last, only nor best. I did not invent or create it out of other parts or my own imagination at all. I am not the properietary owner of it; it is not an "intellectual property." B) it is not a "theory." Just because the monkies on planet earth don't admit to knowing about it, does not make it less the obvious fact about reality. If you stop listening to these monkies for advice, you can discover the truth for yourself as well. Then you will understand the difference between "Reality" and a "theory." C) I object to the entire mentality that would express this in this way. Einstein did not "invent" atomic energy. Columbus did NOT "discover" America. The difference between a genius and the "common man" is that the "common" man has his head up his own ass in purusuit of money and social status. The genius ignores their modern social fame-game, and simply seeks the truth until they find it. Then they are content. Only those who believe "no one can know everything," and that thus, "there is NO Right answer" are neither "common" nor "genius," but they are 100% evil scum. If you want to thank the "giants" whose "shoulders" you "stand" on, then you are a blasphemer against God. What is God? Who could know? God is the "prime mover," the "first cause," and ANYONE can compreend the truth about these things for our own universe's cosmology; all they have to do is deny their lie that "God" is simply a "giant" on whose "shoulders" they stand. I may be in the wrong for this rant, it might not help the cause of spreading the "gospel" of "tachyons." Who cares? It pisses me off when people point up at rainbows and say things like, "that is not real, it's only a theory," or "see that up there? Noah invented it. It is pact with God." What bullshit. ~ Sigh ~

If you want to learn more about the factual reality you live in, which includes the true nature of "tachyons," please watch:

I will advise you also of the fact there is no such thing as the "Higgs boson." You can call this massive real-particle any name you want to make it seem more agreeable to the facts about reality, but it doesn't matter if it fits "in theory," because it does not occur or exist "in reality." If modern physicists need to chase down anti-particles so badly to justify their lust for the act of "discovery / invention" that they have to invent imaginary excuses for them to search for in specific, like a dog trailing the scent of a cat up one tree while the cat it's chasing escapes up another, then "science" has become as empty as "religion." Consider the CERN LHC. If it explodes, it would take out at least north-eastern Europe. Yet these petty, greedy, materialistic and myopic little wanna-be "Einstein" celebrity-scientists are willing to risk something like that in pursuit of "finding" or "creating" a particle that does not exist. They call it a "Higgs Boson." The so-called "God particle." They are playing God, if they invent it, it could kill us all. Supposedly the "Higgs Boson" is a real-particle whose anti-particle is repsonsible for carrying the force of gravity. But there is NO such thing as a "Higgs Boson" in reality. Instead, in reality, there are tachyons. But they won't admit that in any "physicists" communities I've ever been to. Instead they snidely deride me personally and tell me it's just my own insane imagination.

PEACE! - Jon

[Mork42]

1) Just want to give a few corrections. I have never buried my nose in Hubbard's work. Someone recently shared a copy to make sure I was aware of all the tactics. I actually think they are the scum of the earth and that is something for me as I am not generally a judgemental person but they are a devious bunch.

2) I did not mean to say there is no absolute. The story I am writing is about discovering the absolute but my point was that it is beyond ordinary consciousness. When one reaches Christ or Cosmic Consciousness they attain an experience of the Absolute. Total and complete connectedness beyond all dualities. We effectively become One with the Source, This is something to aspire to but few people experience the absolute state of being unless they are in deep meditation or using psychedelics but even then it is a fleeting experience. That is my understanding at least. 

3) Like you I think, I am of the opinion that there is an omnipresent field of information and though we can create ripples in the field, for the most part we are subconsciously receiving information from the field. So when we have a thought it is probably originating from the field but it is our minds that hold information close and make something of them. That is what I mean by 'your theory' but I understand the sentiment of what you're saying. I may have shared about the emergent system of spirituality I've been working on and I am against describing it as MY system or MY theory because I see it as having a source outside of myself but the conductor of it into this world is within. 

So I'm saying I appreciate your understanding of a fact in the universe and the way you have brought it into the open.

4) You may have seen the reports today suggesting that they are close to discovering the Higgs Boson. What are your thoughts on the most recent developments?  Do you think it is a cover up? 

http://www.dailytech.com/CERN+Scientists+One+Step+Closer+to+Elusive...

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

thanks for not misunderstanding my points about Hubbard's scientology and about modern theoretical sciences. I find Hubbard, Smith, Blavatsky, Ayn Rand, and others of their ilk, Sitchin, Moses and even Jesus, to be the worst scum of the earth. They imagine up some story, and then like a glacier moving mountains, they acquire massive numbers of followers, all ready, willing and eager to die for this random fuck's fictions. It appalls me. There is no honesty in mythology. I see a similar trend in modern theoretical physics. In lieau of reality, liars lead the blind, who then kill each other over differences in details. If you can't tell truth from someone groping in the darkness, I have no time to guide you.

That being said, I do believe you, personally, are suffering a single, serious delusion. There IS an Absolute ONLY Because There Is NO Duality. You can't take two people, and say about one of them that, "this person can achieve Christ consciousness, this person can achieve Nirvana, this person can spiritually evolve to become one with God," but then say about the other person, "but this other person cannot." You can't say on the one hand, there is the "Absolute Source Field" and on the other there is "you," or "me," or "I" or the "self." They're all the same thing; like fingers on a hand. For example, I refuse to say "it's not my tachyon theory" not because it is intangible or irrelevant, but because, beside it, I am. The "tachyon theory" isn't a "my theory" becuase it is not a "theory," but also because, "there is no me." I AM Tachyons.

PEACE! - Jon

[Mork42]

The system I'm working with is multi-layered and though the early phases discus Duality, the middle phases cover Tonality and finally the 'myst' reaches a point where they can appreciate the Non-duality we read of in eastern wisdom and this is the Absolute or what some describe as Abraxas but we could equally say the Source or something similar. How we phrase things at this level are not as important as being able to teach the lessons of how to get there. 

You don't have to guide me, I am more than content to find my own way but I had hoped there would be a possibility of collaboration in the future because I respect you and your works very much. I hope this will still be an option in the future but you may have too much on your plate or are suspicious about my motives and level of understanding, both of which I'd appreciate.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

I don't mistrust your motives; I am ambivalent about them. I do not care. I was joking about your "single delusion" regarding the nature of matter / mind "dualism." I assume you know. I was testing you to see your reaction. It is not my intention to "guide" you, Jayce, but you will experience it accidentally regardless. The fact is, I am a metaphysician and by answering all questions, I heal the world.

Now, you might be saying, "this guy's a pompous ass," and your "bullshit meter" should be telling you to lose patience and bail out. But, if you're hard-headed enough about being open-minded that you won't hurt your pride to stoop to my level of trolling, then you will listen now and, in time, understand what I am telling you now even more fully:

You don't need to project onto me at this stage your impression (that I imputed to you) of my mistrust of your motives because I do not care about them. Do not worry; this means nothing relative to you, personally. The reason you do not need to worry about my seeming to mistrust your motives is simple: because I am only provoking you to set you free.

Look, imagine for a moment that nobody NEEDS to "guided" by "lessons" on "how to get to..." Nirvana / Heaven / Satori (the Absolute Source Field, etc.). Imagine, just imagine for a single instant, that we are all already there. Now, open your eyes. Where are you? Are you where YOU want to be? Are you trying to escape by changing yourself? Are you trying to change yourself by "guiding" others? What makes you think ANYONE "needs" ANY form of "guidance," let alone "lessons of how to get there"? Because, if no one NEEDS it, then only Fools would ever WANT it. It's like money, which in turn is a fabricated substance with zero intrinsic value meant to symbolise the opposite of what it actually is: bullshit.

I don't mean to come off sounding rude. However, it behooves us all for me to be frank and blunt. I hope you see that all I intended in implying "dualism" is a "delusion" was to draw out your reaction to this macguffin premise. I hope you see that I did not do this because I "mistrust your motives," but instead to teach you a lesson: if you refuse guidance, you cannot guide, because you will not be able to teach anyone anything they do not already know on their own. This is simply because you are mistaking the delusion that causes all human suffering for the need to intervene and guide other people (who are actually only your equals, sometimes even betters). There is suffering without end; there is NO "need" to intervene to prevent, postpone or prolong it. All we think, write, teach and leave to history is for our OWN experience first. If it does not improve the author, the information cannot improve anyone else to read it.

You see what happens when I try to give personal advice. I come off sounding the ass. This is merely meant to demonstrate the lesson: Listen More, Imagination Better, Project creatvity and Manifest your insights; but do NOT trust ANY of your own basic assumptions to be universally applicable to anyone else. Making generalisations about the mass populous is the steepest slope down-hill into the lake of fire that burns on pride, prejudice and above all ego.

PEACE! - Jon

[Mork42]

Phew! Fantastic response Jon. You are certainly talking my language. I am reading Somebodies and Nobodies at present by Robert Fuller and it is all about the abuse of rank. This is something I know a lot about having endured intimidation by superiors. I on the other hand prefer to take people as I find them, to be non judgemental and interact on a level with respect and interest for varying degrees of perception. When I was a young man studying law and criminology, my summers were spent travelling around army barracks and working as a kitchen porter. I picked up bits and pieces of cooking but the most important lesson I learnt was "application". I was told that if we applied ourselves to a situation we could invariably produce a positive result. 

I've come a long way since then and though I am constantly learning from everyone I come in to contact with there are certain things in terms of knowledge and experiences I want to share with people. The whole guidance issue is an wrong and so to is liberating people's minds but essentially all I want is for people to expand perceptions and consider all sorts of things and to be creative in what they are doing in life. I don;t want to mentor anyone nor do I want to be mentored but creating feedback loops is a very positive thing and social media has potential to be a positive place for social interaction and education. 

The occult is an expansive field of knowledge that has been demonized by the establishment to keep us bound by our own limitations. Until I experienced a dark night of the soul brought on by my work situation I had not seriously considered esoterica as a worthy field of study. Nor science either in truth but prior to university and to full time employment, I had excelled in studying of religion and philosophy, communicating with people and creating imaginative concepts. I was lucky enough to have a good group of friends and we would make short films and art projects but as is often the case people went their separate ways. 

Just as I was discovering about the veiled mysteries, emergent sciences and conspiracies my 'friends' were increasingly indulging in computer games, making fun of people and generally drinking and acting the proper ass. I walked my own path and was lucky to find the mother of my child who has to this point supported and indulged all my fantasies as things with genuine merit. Now I feel like it is time for my imaginings and research to manifest and that certainly is realistic but I am not in any of it for myself and I do not expect to earn money from any projects but being part of a community and having some synergy is what I have craved. Facebook is imperfect and TLM is all too quiet so I will be trying to secure a virtual space where a collective vision will hopefully bud but all members will be able to plant the seeds. It is definitely not driven by my own ego as I am conscious of being humble and the first gate is about destroying the ego. 

You are so right though and you don't know how much I appreciate your blunt honesty. It is exactly the reason I enjoy our chat. I know you never mean to be hurtful and are offering your own form of wisdom and constructive criticism. We are indeed made of light as is everything but the realization that mind trumps matter is all important. I learnt this a while ago after reading some Law of One and other non-channelled writings. Jon Black's Secret History of the World was an important book as was the Tao of Physics and the Holographic Universe. I just would like to out a lot of articles and media together so people can learn these different perspectives. They may not have the motivation as I did to seek and discover and I have already found that my own philosophy is growing. I will start a new topic where I will outline in depth what my plans are and hopefully you will provide more constructive criticism and give me an ego check if you think it is necessary. 

Peace! ~ Jayce