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

[Mork42]

From the Theophysics site I really liked this:

 

The elements are Fire, Water, Air and Earth, all 4 of which derive from a single creating Spirit.

Between them, and in their interplay, the 4 basic elements reveal a comprehensive inventory of possibilities. They explain the four ways that God - the creative force - is omnipresent in Creation. The tetragrammaton offers possibilities that vastly surpass binary logic.

The elements are symbols expressing the fundamental forces in Nature, and tell how human mind indivisibly bound to « spiritual realms ». The sorcerers of Mesoamerica spent years in contemplation. They particularly focused their attention on observing - and then considering - how human beings are interacting with the consciousness-at-large, the mainstream.

They are laid out in a 4 x 4 grid wherein the creating Light molds 12 basic windows of perception in a complex relationship with individual human brains.

Everything in the universe - including the human persona - can be examined as elemental magic. Tetragrammaton is a map telling how angels get to Heaven.

FIRE is the creative urge - Consciousness.  WATER is our emotional impulses and their (energy-in-motion) power of attraction - Biology. AIR is the element meaning abstract alchemy, discourse and communication that result from intellect. FIRE + WATER = AIR - Mind - so then EARTH is the symbol showing how the creative urge embodied can attract elements, transforms them into ideas and projects them in a material world - i.e. Paradise regained.

That creative movement across the ages is recorded in the Astrological sky where Fire and Air signs are more naturally extroverted, optimistic, active, freedom oriented and focused on “out there”. While Earth and Water signs are naturally more introverted, pessimistic, passive, insecure, home oriented and focused on “in here”.

Most of us are a blend of those elements but others have them heavily stacked one way or another.

          Modes

Astrology's 3 modes are called FIXED, MUTABLE and CARDINAL and they show how we act out our urges in the world.  They represent our most basic response mechanisms to face life.

Similarly, the mind has 3 apprenticeships modes: We receive information from life, we process that information and we store it to later draw wisdom from. How we do it? What cognitive mode we'll use distinguishes us.

We'll be kinesthetic, auditive, visual - all 3 - but individuals favor certain modes of cognition for certain tasks more than they will others.

The cardinal mode planets show direct expression and they favor STALKERS of information - kinesthetics involved with physical action. They have leadership ability and strength. 

Fixed mode planets in a chart show aspects of the DREAMER mind - i.e. auditives and deep thinkers of possibility. Dreamers are comfortable with their intellect - consistent, persistent, with signs of endurance and stubbornness. 

The mutable mode planets in a chart will show the mind of SEERS of opportunity. They are visuals who blend their personal vision with creative malleability, forethought, debate and wisdom. 

The following are examples of the way those modes might manifest in a mind.

Cardinal signs: When many planets in those house are active, you are able to choose a direction and go your own way in life.  You are stronger than most people and this gives you a natural desire for leadership.  Be aware, or you'll act impulsively and this can be either a strength or a detriment... depending on your intent.

Fixed signs: If you have 20% of your planets in the fixed mode, you don't have as much stick-to-itiveness as most people.  Still, if circumstances require it, you can put forth great amounts of energy in a controlled way, and patiently wait for new opportunities to act present themselves.

Mutable signs: If you have 30% of your chart in the mutable mode, adjustment to new circumstances is relatively easy for you.  Part of your nature is very stimulated by change.  You like to think about experiences so as to accommodate any new information that occurs.  This is not your only way of being but a favorite mode of operation that can be reactive.

---

 

SELF-MANAGEMENT AND « CREATIVE CAPITAL » (top)

There's a creative management system at work in the center of the chaos. Big Bang is a result of the process but as you know, Light is first and faster. That explosive beginning called Big Bang is preceded by Light and a creating Intent.

God is hidden where no man can find Him... say the wise. But God hides where 12 men (or women) can easily find Him if they look WITHIN. At the center of ALL, we find HUNAB KU: God outpouring into black hole and inpouring as CREATIVE LIGHT, or PURE INTELLIGENCE. Then that soundwave hits with a big bang... and all the rest.

That INTELLIGENCE interacts with nervous systems, organizing minds.

At the center of each noosphere, Light can be perceived as magical forces - as limitless oscillations of vibrating energy (l.o.v.e.) contained in a theophysics. God's creative Ørder has pre-determined that the ideal way to manage HIS 12 windows of perception into the world is with plane geometry, from the square at the center of a DODECAHEDRON. From there, gravity exposes a hierarchy of intelligence arranged along planes of consciousness.

Dodecahedron and its squared circle.

Quantum more efficient than the hierarchical management system exposed in the pyramid form, the DODECAHEDRON gives a perceiver instant access to 12 pentaplanes of information that open unto infinity.

The Dodecahedron is a universal platonic, an ideal form, and it allows 12 individuals to open portals through hyperspace. See how Cubic management systems can correct the whole Earth destiny.

Infinity is then centered in a plane square (philosophy's squared-circle) which is divided into a 4 x 4 grid called the sacred Tetragrammaton.

The grid shows God's universal Mind as a creative whole... cosmos - as 16 separate pieces chaos.

The Magicians of Old understood how the « individual mind » is indivisibly linked to a higher creating Intelligence.

They evolved a language to explain how there might be billions of human brains on Earth, they only have 12 ways to connect to the creative Source and only 4 ways of becoming aware of its POWER.

We are - individually - spheres of Light connected to the Source of Light and we are being acted on by external and internal forces. We should see ourselves as amorphous energy fields containing biological forms. Our sphere will react to 4 elemental functions - the Ancients called FIRE, WATER, AIR & EARTH - by animating 3 specific modes of functioning - they said were called STALKING, DREAMING & SEEING, people can become magic BEINGS.

 

I've found the Olmecs to be a fascinating and mysterious culture and one that I connect to an Atlantean culture. Evidence is sketchy but there are arguments that connecting the language and style of art with the Mande of West Africa and the symbols are common to elsewhere. 

 

The way I see it all the myths and histories of ancient cultures often interact and though we may deny it because of lack of evidence, I would suggest there exists enough evidence to raise serious down over the orthodox and reductionist views of history. 

 

The cultures of America or Meru-ka are fascinating for their architecture and use of sacred geometry and archaeoacoustics. This should be evidence that they advanced on different lines of technology and science to us but that they were a sophisticated people who appear to have laid the ground work for the Mayan Calendar.

 

Since I began reading about the Tzolkin and other calendars I was pretty stunned. In particular because of a correspondence in the date that three specific calendars began. The Mayan and Egyptian calendars began on August 13th 3113 BCE and this is also the date given for the death of Krishna. As I tend to use coincidences as markers this got me to look further and it turns out there is some fascinating theories out there regarding this period of time. 

 

The Great Burner may be something in reality and to be honest, my intuition for a number of years has been tingling regarding a plasma cloud or neutron star existing beyond the Kuiper Belt. 

 

With technology accelerating as it is, the world could become such an exciting place but it is seemingly our consciousness that holds us back. 

 

In your models of the temples and initiations, I absolutely love the rotating floor plans. Truly an incredible idea and stylishly realized I must say. It is these ideas of vibrations, oscillating, revolving and transforming matter and mind through the processes that most cultures share in some way because they are mirroring the passage of the heavens. As above so below....

 

Here is a youtube channel I've followed and found is more based in science than most theories out there. Personally, I am inclined to lean towards plasma universe cosmology along with harmony of the spheres and I think this guy brings the key issues together quite well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/Lightdescent#p/u/1/ExD7HM-HVgY

 

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Mork42 (Jayce),

 

First let me specify that nothing in any of my own literature that I have written myself so far about "Atlantean Democracy" or the "Lemurian Church-Bank," etc. is based on, quotes from or borrows any inspiration from any prior movement's position on the concepts of "Atlantis" or "Lemuria." To be honest, that's not 100% true. Aside from "Egyptian Masonry" being borrowed, obviously, from the sources implied by its name, there are only three obvious references to other schools of thought influencing the constiutions of Atlantis and the charter of the first church-bank of Lemuria. The first two occur in the Atlantean Constitutions: one mentions the "Law of One," and one quotes Crowley's statement "Do What Thou Wilt," etc. The third occurs in the Lemurian church-bank charter: it cites the Protocols. The only works to have seriously inlfuenced my thinking about "Atlantis" per se are the "Lost Book of Enki" for the oldest historical texts and a work called "The Atlantis Bueprint" by Collin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath. This began my basing the geographical context for designing the capitol city of Atlantis in Anarctica. I imagined what the Australopithocenes who'd lived there would have wanted to have as their own ideal form of government, and that is where my designs for "Atlantean Democracy" started off.

 

Secondly, although I do not speak on behalf of every member of this group personally, I do have some strongly negative opinions about certain authors and videographers in the "New Age" field and genre. Most of them I consider about "knee high" to a "neo-Sethian," since some "neo-Sethians" even I admire (Jim Morisson, William Burroughs, Crowley). But there are others who I consider out-right con-artists and liars. For example, I do not like Madame HPB, and many, Many, MANY other "New Agers" would disagree with me about it, but I think every word she ever wrote is pure bullshit. Same with Ayn Rand, and I hope you won't think that I am being sexist because of that, or even anti-Russian. When I say I don't like David Wilcock, I mean I do not like him, and I would consider him about "knee high" to someone who is honestly evil, like Derren Brown. Being a self-hating mammalian mini mouse is not better than being a self-centered reptilian snake in the grass. Pretty much anyone who presents their statements as being partially obvious truths and partially obvious lies, but who does not specify which are which, and who has a large fan-base who believe that, without exception, absolutely everything that person said or says is Gospel, or Absolute Truth, etc. I believe is full of bullshit. Personally, I'd prefer to talk about "Mugwumps" or the "Serpent King" or things people can at least admit are fictional than talk about "terrorism" or "conspiracy theories" or "Theosophy" or "Catholicism," etc.

 

However, when I write, I will speak about any topic I know anything about, to the full and most honest extent of my knowledge on it, and with only the caveat I might learn more or different data later. I try not to include value judgments where none are due, ie. in the context of stating simple facts, or in the context of an essay on philosophy, for example; but I do have strong (often negative) opinions, and I am very honest about which parts of my writings are meant to be fictions. For example, it is easy to observe the difference in language and applications of terms between my novels and my physics textbooks. Unlike, for example, L Ron Hubbard fanatics, ie. Scientologists, who believe in both his novels and his "Dianetics" philosophical musings, I can honetsly say that my novels are placed in one potential future reality (ie. post-transhumanist cyberpunk), but that they are meant only as fictional possibilities of what could occur later here on earth. All of my writings dealing with the interpretations of myths have also attempted to exclude the concept of alien intervention, as is plainly stated as true in all the earliest original myths, in my ultimate asessments of historical facts. If I can explain the same story as occuring on earth as they explained using space-travel between planets, then I will tell the story as I can see it my way, and we will see which eventually proves true once historical evidence is dug up by archaeologists. The concept of "aliens" does not bother me in the way it does some people. Whether we "know for sure" in our own life-times or not, other species have lived, do live, and will continue to live, throughout all inhabitable space.

 

Which brings me back to the comment I made about Hoagland being "on the right track" toward realising the concept I mentioned, but which I didn't mean to imply as being "of the belief already that" the concept I mentioned was / is true. If Hoagland were an old hound dog, barking up a tree at a cornered frightened fox, then the notion of Blavatsky's Theosophical "7 Rays" as expressed by the 7 neighboring planets to us in our solar system would be Hoagland's fox. I don't disagree it is possible for us to find artificially constructed structures on neighboring planets, but I do not see these as evidence of ancient, now long extinct, lost civilisations of old. These are merely door-ways at intersections between a dimensional time-line where one world is inhabited and a parallel dimensional time-line where the next world over is inhabited instead. In short, there is a world of inhabitants living on Mars right now. There is a world of inhabitants living right now on Venus. There is a world of inhabitants living right now on our own earth's moon. These are divided from us by a distance in both space AND time. Our present moment and their present moment are simply off-set by a small amount.

 

In any event, I have rambled off-topic too long. To address your interests in my concepts of "cosmogeny" and "the basis of consciousness," after checking out your links, I can only recommend you read some of the source material I have found in books, that I believe you may have mentioned yourself having been exposed to somewhat elsewhere, that being the primary texts of ha QBLH, such as "Sefer Yetzirah" (but no less so "777"), as well as others I don't mean to harp on, but are worth mentioning again, such as Aliester Crowley's "Liber Legis" - containing the 1 "Law" of ultimate liberation: "Do What Thou Wilt." I've, obviously, read more than these as well, but these form the corner and key-stones of my entire bibliographical background. To be blunt, I believe entirely in nobody else's "cosmogeny" who has gone before me, and thus I assert as the "basis of" my entire reality, my own "consciousness."

 

Well, time to go, so, peace out to you, wherever you are, and hope to hear from you soon. - Jon

[Mork42]

Hi Jon, yes I am with you entirely. It is much better to identify and speculate on potentials rather than certainties. Trying to come up with an objective system is impossible so the best we can hope for is diverse and imaginative subjective systems. Yours should be a shining example but there are more but often they are much more convicned by teir own subjective perceptions to see beyond them. I can see with you that is not true.

 

Like you I am suspicious of Wilcock and there are some that I cannot abide and others that I have indifference towards. Always I will try and discern for myself the ideas that hold merit and not make prejudgements. Take Blavatsky for example, she talks a lot of shit about the root races and because of the context she was writing it was plainly wrong but someone like yourself could come along, reinterpret and salvage the concept by giving it a modern perspective.

 

The two HPB concepts that do resonate with me are the Mundane Egg and the Fohat but only in a loosely symbolic sense that relates to the wonders of the unseen, unformed world of spirit and mind.

 

I really liked this:

 

 These are merely door-ways at intersections between a dimensional time-line where one world is inhabited and a parallel dimensional time-line where the next world over is inhabited instead. In short, there is a world of inhabitants living on Mars right now. There is a world of inhabitants living right now on Venus. There is a world of inhabitants living right now on our own earth's moon. These are divided from us by a distance in both space AND time. Our present moment and their present moment are simply off-set by a small amount.

 

This is what I have been trying to integrate. Much of the speculative research into stargates already exists and quantum tunnelling to some extent may add to this. It was reading about Montauk and some synchronicities relating to that which drove me to look at Crowley and the LAM entities in detail. From speaking with people who claim to have experienced abductions and reading about the Embryonic Archons I think they may exist as one way of interpreting it. 

 

The Seven Rays is an interesting concept but a bit too simplistic. I find it most useful to think in terms of the Law of Octaves and all that associated with the Harmony of the Spheres and in that video I think I sent you, the author talks about the solar system almost as if it is an instrument or that is my interpretation at least. Thus I was left wondering if it is important that the earth is in tune and if the earthgrid and noousphere respond to the changes that are occuring not just on earth but in the entire region of space that our system occupies.

 

What do you think could explain the hexagram auroras on Saturn for example? It would appear that there is some for of cosmic cymatics at play and if this is true then consciousness may be the key component.

 

On one of the facebook walls of the Illuminati they have been discussing the concept of Nothing or Zero and I wonder if you have any thoughts on the topic? I found this article which expressed some of my views effectively.

 

 http://www.tarot-rota.net/pdf/ch_06.pdf

 

The site is interesting and I do think that chaos magick as being similar to shamanism can be effective. I know not how or why but my intuition suggests and the reading I've done supports that sigils and servitors are important but I'm wondering if you could explain how magick can be performed?

 

 http://www.tarot-rota.net/

 

Is it language, consciousness the otherworld or spirit which takes primacy? Or does it come more down to will, intention and ritual? How can it be explained in anyway that relates to science?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

 

As you say, and rightly, I do try not to come across overly "Objective" nor "Subjective" in any of my writings. My style or tone of voice in most of my writings is too dry for my own tastes, but it is what the subject matter calls for all too often. In short, to retain an "objective" / scientific point of view on "subjective" subject-matters like "magick," "mysticism" and "metaphysics," which are what my specialities, it is needful that, for the most part, I remove my own opinions and lift my own skeptical suspicions and simply let my writing flow forth.

 

Again, also, allow me to thank you for being so inquisitive about such interesting topics in which I have some learning and experience. To be asked my opinions and suspicions about modern "magick" and "secret societies" is somewhat of an honour considering how rare and pleasing it is for me. Honestly, as I say, I can only tender out what I have learned from studies, and try to remove my own point of view from the equation as much as possible, but, as I say (and mean!) I am flattered and happy to answer any and all questions. So, if you will allow me to now, let me get to your 6 in the above message: 

 

What do you think could explain the hexagram auroras on Saturn for example?

 

Honestly, I have no idea. It seems to me it is likely related to the ECS of earth, where it is implied that the chakra-like "karmic centers" (including all ancient megaliths) are natural locations corresponding to a naturally occuring geometric pattern in the earth's "auric" EM-field (or "soul"). If this "geometric pattern" (technically a "truncated cuboctahedron") is a natural EM-field phenomenon on earth, and not induced by man-made technology, then other planets would have a similar sort of static shape as a skeletal structure. If it seems we have not noticed this before, it could be because it relates to the sunspot cycle, which influences our perceptions themselves (thoughts are preceded and caused by tachyons). If the local star of a planetary system is increasing its number of sunspots (as ours was from 1999-2010), then it would cause additional auraric radiation to become visible in pre-existing, but otherwise invisible, EM-patterns around the poles of all the planets in its system. This, of course, likewise precipitates ice age cycle changes and EM-pole reversals occuring system-wide, including not only moons and planets of a star, but even all stars in a galaxy, and even between two galaxies at once. But then, there has not been enough data accumulated to be able to predict when such could occur.

 

the concept of Nothing or Zero and I wonder if you have any thoughts on the topic?

 

Zen is Nothing. None. It does not exist, because it cannot exist, because it is un-existence in itself. What can reverse the relentless pull of gravity toward black-holes? Yet there are tachyons in the gas jets of black holes in spiral galaxies. So, if "Zen" is the Great Destoryer, the Great Burner, etc. then "Tao" is its dialectical opposite. So, if "Zen" means "Zero," and "Null" means "Nothing," then "Tao" means "the path" or "way" and implies also "Taro" meaning the "Royal Road." If "Zen" is "Null" then "Tao" must be, in the "Binary" language of "Basic" and of statistical probabilities, "One." So, if there is One, it must surround and conceal Zero, alike a squared circle at "one" on 4 intersecting number-lines surrounds the central, "Zero-Point" of the graph's origin. And, if One contains Zero, then all similar "ones" along the chart must also equally "contain zero." Insofar as "zero" can contain "infinity" (all possible such "ones"), then each "one" must also be able to contain "infinity" or "all." Thus, we find arithmetic fractals of fractions, exponential gnomons of decimals and "chaotic" strange-attractors in the spaces between the integers on the graph of "real" numbers. Each "one" is, thus, "three" layered: At the inner-most core: "All;" surrounded, in its midst, by "Zen;" in turn encased within an external membrane, "One." Mathematics, thus, at its Pythagorean core, expresses the solution to the question: "What is the Soul?" most easily: "All In One" is three layers, a "shell," an "umbra" and a "yoke," as is the soul: an "aura" surrounding the 7 "chakras" animated by the "mind."

 

how magick can be performed?

 

"Magick," as it is traditionally defined, is the same result attained using "Psi" (mental energy) to harness "ZPE" (limitless free anti-gravity) to "manifest" (co-create reality) either by simple telekinetic acts, using invisible "servitors," or by literal "manifestation," the ability to make matter appear out of nothingness using only one's own mind alone. Telekinesis is a "parlor trick" compared to the "miracle" of manifestation, yet both are potential capacities "Psi" can apply "ZPE" to use. To paraphrase Frazer, "what people call magic is often only unrecognised use of a new form of science." This seems ubiquitous across the history of our species. Personally, I don't believe in "magick" nor do I think it exists.

 

Is it language, consciousness the otherworld or spirit which takes primacy?

 

According to my own definition it would be "mind," and could all be defined in terms of "ESP" concepts. Thus, "Psi" and "ZPE" are one and the same, because "all is one" / "one is zero" and thus "zero surrounds, penetrates and permeates the all at the level of the all-in-one." The line drawn, for the most part by everyone alive today, between the "psychic" and the "phenomenal" realms is based on self-centric notions about time. If we believe in or want for ourselves any given form of future, we CAN end up living in just exactly what we've imagined for ourselves, if we TRY. Thus, "theoretically," we can plot graphs of "imaginary" and "irrational" numbers to correspond to the "unpredictable" statistical "chaos" inherent in attempting to predict the future. In short, we can phase out the noise, delineate a most likely outcome, and act in accordance relative to that prediction, and even attempt to cause it occur. For example, if "psi" and "ZPE" are one and the same, which they are in reality, then there is no line between them that occurs specifically to distinguish where our "inner" mind stops and all other "outer" minds begin. This means, all minds exist, do so solely because they are in denial of the fact that, individually, they do not exist. So, likewise, if the "past-present-future" timeline is all already one, unified sequence of pre-determined events, then there must be not only dimensionally "parallel" possible time-lines, but also a temporal force pushing opposite the regular entropic flow of all such possible parallel-dimensional "time-lines" in a "future-present-past" direction. This energy-field or psychic-medium force is the "mind" of God, and all matter will break down into this superluminal form of energy over a long enough period of time.

 

Or does it come more down to will, intention and ritual?

 

Comparing "invocation" to "evocation," the answer to your question would be absolutely "yes," one (invocation) deals more with "language, consciousness, the otherworld and spirit," while the other (evocation) deals more with "will, intention and ritual." "Magickal invocation" occurs when one draws forth from interior to themselves any intention to accomplish some specific goal, using "magick" as an intervening mechanism. "Magickal evocation" occurs when one draws down and inward toward themselves from the energy-field of the universe surrounding them in their environment. Thus, if you move units of thermal energy away from you, you are "invoking" and if you are moving thermal units toward you "evoking." Thus, "invocation" is alike high pressure and heat and "evocation" like low pressure and cold.

 

How can it be explained in anyway that relates to science?

 

Essentially, it can't. It's called "magick" because it is not yet understood by "science." Once "science" can explain "magick" in "anyway that relates to science," as you put it, then it ceases being "magick" and becomes, simply, part of accepted "science." Well, anyway, hope I've provided some thought-provoking, mentally stimulating answers to your 6 excellent and exemplary questions, Jayce. I'll let you go now, but again allow me to thank you for posting questions. I love helping other people find answers to their questions. PEACE! - Jon

[Mork42]

Sincere gratitude Jon. They were exactly the sort of well thought out answers I was hoping for. With the last question I should have know the answer really because the root of science is scire 'to know' and this is exactly where the important issue arises. 

 

Science is generally knowing through experimentation, the scientific method and having replicable findings. This method used for magick would be extremely dangerous for all so my thought is that within magick there is this variable chaos that makes it entirely unpredictable but in the law of the cosmos there is no such thing as absolute certainity so the magickian or shaman is one who works to develop the chaos and merest probability in to something that has genuine potential for manifestation under the rights circumstances. 

 

This underlies alchemy in relation to spiritual as well as spiritual alchemy but the same could be true of chaos magickians, shamans, Druids or Sadhus, monks and anybody else who seeks to work with cosmos to continue the story within the extended realms of possibilities. Time and again it is the 'knowing' that is identified as the important factor and this is knowledge beyond belief and more related to intuition and the heart brain connecting with the right hemisphere to engage the left and activate the pineal gland. This somehow interacts with the great web of being and non-being I imagine to give the mind the power to manifest. 

 

This sacred knowledge is beyond my grasp and I do not even seek it but to know it is there, to be respected and protected is enough. I am not just speaking for myself but a whole lot of men and women on facebook and elsewhere who appear to show the typical signs of awakening kundalini. I am not talking in the new age sense of the word either but the actual science of biology and consciousness that is increasingly accepting the existence of the subtle body. 

 

Now quite a few things you discuss, particularly the PSI-PHI point is reminiscent of a discussion I was reading on the Ancient Order of the Illuminati facebook page. It could very well be you and if so well done, I appreciate it very much but if it is not I recommend you read it. If you detest facebook and would rather avoid I'd happily paste you the text or invite the author here to converse. 

 

The reason I mention it is because you mention Zero and Nothing and this is the topic of the writings but you do seem to have taken it to the next level and for that I am extremely grateful. More than ever I feel in the flow of the Tao and actively trying to do my part as the facilitator and communicator. 

 

My knowledge and understanding may be sketchy because it is largely gathered through intuitive web research and discernment of what is the most interesting and reasonable explanations or theories.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

 

yeah, I'm not able to access any facebook platform based pages now, because recently I deleted my own facebook account and now I can't log in to view any of the pages they host. Long story short, if you would like to excercise either or both options B or C on that front, please, as always, feel free to do whatever you'd want. Reposting someone else's texts you admire is admirable itself, and I would be pleased to be introduced to anyone or their works whom you do admire, or whom you think I could benefit by knowing, and possibly even learn from. As a possibly entertaining marginal note, I pissed off some guy once on facebook who was a friend of a friend. I commented on my friend's page, and his friend went nuts on me, because what I commented was to premise the essentially obvious statement, "zen means zero." It would be amusing if it turned out the person on facebook maintaining the "Ancient Order of the Illuminati" were or knew the friend of my friend whom I pissed off that one time.

 

On a straight internet research tip, I've found wikipedia to be a highly beneficial social-tool, but more importantly personally to be a highly effective learning tool. If anyone says, "you don't know shit about shit, nyer," to you on a forum, you can just go read about it on wikipedia before coming back to post any comment as an answer. If you use wikipedia to defend yourself, thus, you end up learning about topics determined for you by the crowd. This is generally how I use it, however occassionally I also have the pleasure of free time in which to deep search some topic on wikipedia. My friend in real life manges to spend a great deal of his time researching encyclopedias, both online and off, for general absorption of their content as a means of improving his overall knowledge base. I envy him that, a little bit, but with the caveat to this end that "information in encyclopediae changes over time," meaning that, as old encylopedia book collections needed revision and update annually, so too now is wikipedia updated perpetually, and its community of data-collectors and text-coding information-updaters are, to my own personal experience, quite an exclusive and limited intellegentsia elite. Most of the data on wiki is seived through a pro-CIA filter.

 

Anyway, glad I helped you find some reasonably stimulating answers for your questions, and please feel at absolute liberty to ask me anything any time. I do love questions. PEACE! - Jon

[Mork42]

Yes, I do know how you feel. I've been on the Unexplained-Mysteries forum for almost two years and I've had some ups and downs. Wiki has indeed been an invaluable source but the standard there particularly on the Ancient Mysteries board was pseudo-scholarly and I at least had to attempt to go beyond wiki and try and familiarize myself with journals and more academic resources. 

 

In the end I pissed them off by posting too many good old sources that supported my point of view and they couldn't break from the established theories. Usually I was arguing a case for strong Matriarchal cultures in Africa, Europe and Asia that survived by being integrated into mystery religions. Perhaps Matriarchal is incorrect because it is much more balanced but it is contrary to the Patriarchal city states and religions that did grow up after. 

 

Little mysteries like Orellana, Col. Fawcett and the good ol' crystal skulls had some of the experienced debunkers floundering. Fortunately there were some amiable people there from whom I could learn quite a lot and it defnitely helped me to retain a healthy skepticism and how to research for some decent material online by scratching the surface and perservering. 

 

Sadly I have some friends of the female gender who have received serious bullying and victimization on forums for doing little more than presenting an opinion with scientific evidence supporting it. It turns out you can't be a woman and do that because it threatens the faith and masculinity of those guys. You'll be pleased to hear I mentioned to her about the Atlantean Democracy and that they are genderless. She wasn't quite thrilled because she would prefer people to be accept regardless of gender without  having to conceal the truth but she did appreciate the sentiment as a woman that there are people who do consider the sexes as equally capable. A true meritocracy does have to operate beyond conventional groupings and look at merits of individuals themselves. 

 

Any way, I did hear wiki had a CIA filter and also that facebook was COINTELPRO. So you are best out of there. I will probe the author a little further and drop in Zen being Zero if I can and see how he reacts before I am too open. Loudermilk is his name and I don't know him until he presented this theory. 

 

I guess one of the things the LM forum is attempting to do is to become an educational resource and we are developing our own wiki. This is to complement the community and the projects we are trying to work on but there was a recent split. A group of guys calling themselves the Crucible have gone alone and are seeking the same goals. I hope that some of them might find their way here in time but it is amazing how many young people are intuitively being drawn to the mysteries in all the many forms. 

 

Here is the blog and I'll post the first part of the theory below.

 

http://crucibleofhyperion.blogspot.com/

 

 

Pythagorean Interpretation of M-Theory

The laws of science relate, overwhelmingly, to the physical universe. The EPR paradox and Bell's theorem give the first scientific glimpse of the interface between mind and matter. In the future, a new science of this extraordinary interface will emerge. In the far future, physics (the science of the dimensional universe) and metaphysics (the science of the dimensionless universe) will come to be seen as one. (Illumination prefers the term "transcendental physics" rather than "metaphysics".) 

In one mind - that of God - physics and transcendental physics are already one.
The Armageddon Conspiracy’s ‘The Strangest Truth’
http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Strangest-Truth(1413675).htm

I do not claim to be an expert at anything other than trying to connect the dots, as such I am more of a jack-of-all-trades, or polymath, instead of a narrow-field PhD. This appears to have been one of the points of the ancient mystery religions: to create polymaths that saw a sacred relationship weaving the ancient seven sciences into a cosmology. Is this not the opposite of today’s academic standard of knowing an extreme amount of information upon such a narrow field of vision? I found the Armageddon Conspiracy early and had exchanged a few emails when it was in its infancy. I was already writing a ‘Bible’ for a science-based religion when I encountered AC, which I was writing to be just a metaphor, that would be subject to change on better evidence or better metaphors. I am still in process of creating a new religion’s perpetually malleable ‘dogma’. This interpretation of M-theory was what I intuited while reading Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe, and it has developed further in the years that have followed. I offer this as an antithesis to the r=>0 theory expressed on the AC website. I trust it will be appreciated for what it is: the evolutionary dialectic at work.

Obviously, if there are any books authored by the ancient master I have not been privy to them, but to what I knew of Pythagoras’ world view in 1999 when I first read about string/M-theory I intuited it was a modern, secular interpretation of the Harmony of the Spheres, that left out the spirit and consciousness. To the best of my gnosis, zero would be a foreign concept to a true Pythagorean. Am I the only one that has ever had the thought experiment about trying to explain the very concept of ‘nothing’ to a Gene-I-Us of the highest degree, like Pythagorus, Socrates or Hypatia, before the idea was generally believed, let alone trying to persuade the Egyptian Hierophants that built all those monuments of its truth? According to my memory of school and NASA’s grade school video (http://www.nasa.gov/mov/178729main_075_ksnn_3-5_thezero_cap.mov), it - 0 - began in India, around 600 of the common era, and was brought west by the Arabs. Zero as a word is Arabic in origin, and was one of early Islam’s ‘gifts’ to the west. As the NASA video states, zero was invented by man and that invention allows the creation of negative numbers. The critical question of reality then is: just because a human can invent something on paper, does that automatically make it part of nature’s reality? What math can be observed in nature, for their must lie the answer for the math of the universe; that is a value that will always retain some value.

If we accept the Gnostic position that the god of Abraham was the Demiurge, or Satan, and that Islam is a scourge to the evolution of man towards godhood, then why would Gnostic Illuminatus reject Pythagorean mathematics to embrace one of the most evil ‘spells’ ever cast to cloud the minds of man? As the AC explain the difference between the Infinite (Abraham’s god) which automatically makes the believer equal zero, why would anyone aspiring to become infinite (evolve into God) ever want to embrace the very idea of zero and the negatives that follow, especially as the Omega Point of evolution? That would mean you could be even further separated from the divine than just a master-slave dialectic; instead of being worth nothing to the infinite worth of a god, you could find yourself separated more because somehow you have taken a path further from the true god. How much more separated from the divine can we be but in the physical world our senses tell us exists outside the container of those sense instruments? Is living in NYC, the US seat of greed, taking you a negative distance from divinity? I might concur if we called ourselves zero to the Omega Point being NFN8T and that any path: secular or religious, that was leading mankind further astray from consciously evolving into illumination would be the negative. That would be the only place in ‘nature’ zero and negatives could exist, but it would still be setting a conscious interpretation on something that may not be noticeable in any other species instead of examining life for what mathematical patterns that are observable. They say they prefer ‘transcendental physics’ yet they offer no inherent mathematical transcendence and that is what I am going to offer.

Once the very idea of zero was accepted, it, like most anything, was utilized to suit the agenda of the OWO whom had accepted its merit because this idea was accepted in the age of mass illiteracy. The OWO had probably not found a more effective ‘sleight of hand’ as the perfect mechanism to enslave the masses since the advents of Christianity and Islam at such a basic level of the accepted ‘game rules’. Zero and negative numbers became the ways and means to perfect the ‘voluntary’ slavery of humanity - psychologically making people think they have no inherent value - worth zero, or even better (for the OWO) get them into debt so they will be less than zero: slaves! What if? Just what if, the very concept of ‘zero’ came directly from the Demiurgos and his Archons as the final deceit necessary to entrench the power of the OWO even further by using it to erase any idea of there being an inherent value in the rest of the world not born into these ancient ‘privileged’ families? Is there a single other idea that has caused as much damage today as the very idea of debt, which logically descends from the manmade negative numbers? Does anything else signify the lure of celebrity culture than for someone to think their lives are worthless to the roles their favorites play? Is it a surprise that even NASA says zero came from the home of one of the greatest evils against mankind - India - with the unquestioned, insanely inhumanely evil caste system? Is it not obvious how the archons that influenced the creation of the caste system would need both zero and negatives? Is that not how the two lowest classes would be mathematically viewed? And then it was delivered to the West as one of the first influences of a jihadist cave religion demanding complete submission of intellect - a religion where the devout are worthless in comparison to whom they submit making the infidel the negatives worthy of death. Has the mass acceptance of this concept been to further our evolution towards godhood, or has it shackled our potential by how the very concept has been used as a psychological weapon of the OWO? If it is truly time to revalue all values, isn’t it time to revalue the impact of the very idea of the valueless? If we truly must shatter everything about that cave religion is about (and its siblings), would we have no ‘zero’ in our vernacular because its etymology is Arabic in origin?

If, indeed as my logic indicates, that zero and the negatives it creates are directly from the Archons, will adapting them into a dialectic cosmology ever lead us to enlightenment? Does Illumination lie in an imaginary dimension or a transcendent one? Once a man accepts he is zero, while the OWO are the infinite, he is willing to become a negative number by accepting debt on the dream he can become one of them. In the same way as AC explained why that master/slave dialectic between an infinite god and humanity being the zeros, is it not logical to see zero (and negatives) as a tool of the deceiver? Is it not the same tactic? My etymology dictionary tells me to see Cipher in its entry under Zero. For Cipher it states that cipher descended from the Arabic sifr which meant empty, hence zero in English. The only words related to cipher are either relating to deciphering, or ciphering and zero. Under Transcendence it tells to see the final paragraph of Ascend where one finds it coming from the Latin ‘to raise oneself beyond’. 

One thing I have found wisdom in my etymology dictionary is to construct a sentence with all the related words (in bold italic). Here is one for Ascend: “The OWOs greatest scandal to insure descendance is to slander with condescension those who are willing to scale the transcendence into ascension.” The ancient mysteries also taught the sciences of grammar and rhetoric, shouldn’t a careful consideration of language be incorporated into a true Theory of Everything? By playing the above game with words all sharing the same etymology I notice a science to language construction. In a defense of a modern interpretation of the Harmony of the Spheres the vibrations of spoken words will have no choice but be examined. Will the vibrations of the words that we must decipher that were ciphered into zero be better than defeating the slanderous scandal of descension to scale upwards in our ascent into transcendence? Will zero ever yield God? The very nature of the syntax describing specific numbers is not by accident because nothing is accidental in mathematics, nor language, nor the language of mathematics.

The mathematical definition of zero is illogical, too. Yes, as the denominator approaches infinity, the ratio will approach an insignificant amount, but the numerator will always be 1. I am only 1 out 7+ billion humans on Earth. For all practical mathematics, that ratio is determined to be zero; the Plank value is essentially ‘nothing’ or ‘zero’, but yet look at how exciting reality is there for the observer. Yet, I still am a finite example of an ‘infinite’ species. If we colonized all of inhabitable space and grew to an infinite number of humans, the ego of persona would still reject being considered zero. There is no ‘I’ in zero, but every human zero, and the negatives in debt or outcasts in India, still have their individual identities. Do they have an inherent worth? In India, is not the concept of karma based on the idea of debt as the driving force behind incarnating as opposed to gnosticism which says you incarnate to achieve illumination? 

Instead of trying to divide, treat it as a story problem: what do you get when you take the inverse of infinity? How can the inverse of infinity be anything other than a finite piece? Finite/Infinite yields 1/in because the ‘finites’ cancel out. The ‘in’verse of the ‘in’finite cancel out leaving the finite (and only one) verse. We are individuals, but yet part of the divine. The ‘I’ is the finite of the infinity of ‘God’. Just because a mind can conceive something does not make nature do what humans think. We can impose our will on nature but that does not mean we can change nature’s laws. Our binary computer codes are not as complex as the genetic code that uses no zeroes. The inverse of an infinite universe can only be 1, or a finite number - Abraxas, the one true God, the ‘I’ we all identify as being the interpreter of the reality we experience. Practical uses aside, it is illogical to believe in a natural zero, but, especially for graphing, computing and cartography, zero and negatives serve a great purpose in expressing nature in communicable ways. Newton’s formulas can send the Voyagers out of our solar system, but only because they were not propelled at speeds approaching light because then we would have needed to use Einstein’s equations instead of Newton’s. Just because something can yield practical results in the abstract does not mean it is more than just a metaphor created by an observer that influences the observation or accurate for all relative view. Just because 0 is used in the binary language of computers does not make nature talk in binary. Mother nature speaks in vibrating spirals

The other thing to first address about zero is that AC invested a whole lot of effort and words to describe nothing. Please do not think I am quibbling over semantics, but there sure is a whole lot of something in the nothing (zero) of r=0 and a TOE should include everything, including semantics, should it not? Maybe being the E instead of I in my NTP is the difference, but of all the things described as existing in the zero dimension, I just cannot see how, in the long-term defining all that as nothing (for is there a difference between zero and nothing?) will not be psychologically damaging to any intellect accepting it. Just as science tries to separate itself from consciousness and have a conscience, these words all share a common etymology so the latter two must be incorporated into a living science. The idea of One = Unity (Abraxas) being everything AC defines as r=0 appears the better agreement between the philosophy, semantics, math, and science of defining ‘god’ to my processing of the data. I have no problem accepting, as the NASA video shows, the idea of 0 being O as in the Origin of a coordinate grid. But, that is a manmade metaphor to describe reality and not reality itself. The map is not the territory. Zero as a reflection point to establish a coordinate system is logical, but not fundamental, nor observable, to the spiraling of the observable universe. Would we ever call the leaf stem that is the line of reflection zero? But we could apply a coordinate grid over a maple leaf and measure exactly how mathematically precise the symmetry of nature truly is for that one leaf just as Greenwich Meridian and the Equator are not truly zero, or nothing, but a system of logic imposed upon paper to interpret nature by conscious beings. Conscious beings create a science to justify their conscience.

Another reason why defining the foundation from one instead of zero is Nature’s (or the demiuge, if you prefer) approximation of the perfect math of Abraxas. The true ϕ spiral is an infinite fractal , but Fibonacci recognized how everything alive approximates the Golden Mean starting from a finite beginning of 1. This deviation and approximation from the truly transcendent NFN8T is the math of this world. The realm attributed as r=0 is the infinitely transcendent ϕ, while r>0 is the approximation that Fibonacci recognized. The approximation of NFN8 ϕ is how the descending into matter after the divine suicide from the transcendental realm mathematically occurred. We may very well make it impossible to consciously evolve enough for mass illumination of humanity to occur if the formula for achieving it is impossible to solve. How will the r>0 ever become, at the end of evolution, r=0? How will that NFN8T ever equal nothing? Once the physical merges with the zero, isn’t it suppose to remain as such until Abraxas gets bored with the zero realm and results back to another divine suicide? How does the cosmological solution represented on AC, in terms of the Genesis Singularity and the Divine Suicide get from being equal to zero to being greater and back again? 

I offer as an antithesis this equation:

R= ϕ; r= 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,22 …
R⇔r or R⇒r⇒R=∞ 

The capital R = everything the AC describes as being ‘nothing’ (r=0).
The little r = everything the AC describe as being greater than zero (r>0).
They both yield the other. R will eventually yield r via the divine suicide, which will eventually become indistinguishable from R by the evolutionary dialectic of intelligent DNA evolving back into God in an eternal feedback loop. The disharmony from the true transcendence creates a universe to evolve back into harmony with the transcendent.

R is the final destination of r, but there is a vast chasm between those realms in the beginning. The difference of having an infinite recursive beginning (ϕ = (1-√5)/2 - which is geometrical in origin) and having the starting place be 1 and 1 is as extreme as the difference between what lies in R and what lies in r. Not only have I mathematically separated the realm of Abraxas from the material existence our senses convince us is outside us, but I have shown how there is not any other Omega Point possible but to return to where there is no observable difference between the realms - where the approximation is no longer distinguishable from the transcendent NFN8T. It takes several turns of this spiral in nature to achieve a close approximation. It starts as opposite to the infinite recursive as possible, with a finite ‘1’, but it will evolve back to that divinely irrational number. If I can begin to rationally explain some irrational numbers, and I can present a positive, philosophical, mathematical, scientific cosmology that has no other place it can evolve towards but a return to harmony with its source, that requires no zeros, negatives, nor imaginary numbers or dimensions, would that convince anyone of its merit? What if I define the dimensions of M-theory? Is the concept of zero too entrenched as a control mechanism over the minds of man that a return to a world where it does not exist is impossible? Ancient minds had the thesis that there was no zero; its antithesis arose. Has is completely been synthesized, yet? Would mass illumination be more probable if it were rejected?

Scientists don’t always follow through with updating their views on the world by the most accurate data. Just like it is difficult for one of the believers of Abraham’s god to question what they have invested their heart and soul into for so long, sometimes before a scientific idea becomes commonly accepted it takes a generation of those who could not yield their life’s work to accept that data to die. Disproved concepts go extinct more than people admit their life’s work was wrong. I know every time I have had the programming of my youth shattered it sends shocks to my system. This is one of the reasons illumination is not for everyone. My path has not been easy nor always fun, but I would not change it. As a code ciphered on the back cover of Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol says: “All great truths began as heresies.” Scientists and philosophers can be just as protective of their belief systems as followers of religions.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

As always, thanks for your post. It was, to say the least, an entertaining read. I am a little curious as to the author, because of how you worded it; I am unclear if you wrote it all, or if any of it is a block-quote from another author, where it begins. Aside from this, I have no difficulty in comprehending the meaning of the terms the author is using, except for "NFN8T" which I have no idea what it means. As far as their premise that "zero does not exist in reality," or that "the number zero was invented solely to enslave humanity," I can neither endorse nor disapprove of such notions, because to myself I see no relevance in them at all. Likewise, the questions that were raised I can answer all of easily, but I do not believe the author could say the same, nor that they would want to hear anyone's reasonable answers. They seem to have posed all their questions solely rehttorically. I can't answer rehtorical questions, not because they have "zero" answers, but because they have zero "right" answers. They're not "bad" questions, just mainly irrelevant. Consider the significance to a sun-flower of a baby writing a thousand cries essay about how it deserves the lollipop hung over its head in the cradle and you will see my point quite clearly. Anyway, sorry if this review seems short or too blunt. I can't really think of much else to say about it right now though. Maybe I will come to back later with more. We'll just have to wait and see. LOL! Peace! - Jon

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

PS. sorry if that was too harsh, honestly the first impression I got was that it reminded me of myself when I was in highschool; my writings were almost entirely rants back then, where I'd get all angry about some extremely obscure concept I had hit upon while day-dreaming. It is NOT "bad," either the writing or the concepts behind it. It's just not "good" by my own standards for my writing nowadays. It was, I admit, a bit of a shock to read something in my same old style from so long ago, but that was written by someone else more recently. Good effort, I would say, to my own younger self if I could.

[Mork42]

Hi Jon, my apologies I only sent you the first part. The rest will follow.

 

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,22

These eight numbers all have importance placed upon them by numerologists and occultists following in Pythagorean tradition. I am going to postulate how the demiurge used those 8 numbers to manifest the physical world, which will finish in my reasoning for a rational interpretation for what mathematical principle accounts for ∏, and how that is related to reincarnation. How did physical reality manifest from R= ϕ? Most people do not think about it, but there are two opposite definitions of ‘1’ and both seem to be reflected in the monad. 1 was considered an androgyne, or both masculine and feminine. The universe and the individual. The macrocosm and the microcosm. It does indeed indicate a finite amount, but the idea of the ‘uni’-verse is not modern. Can there ever be a product of 1 if finite parts unify? If we all began from the Divine Suicide and will all end in becoming the true god at the end of our dialectic evolution, then we would not be inaccurate in saying that becoming ‘1’ is the opposite of the finite 1. Is this not the definition of a singularity? Where ‘everything’ has been compressed into a single ‘point’. The first 1 in the Fibonacci Sequence is what was the divine spark of ϕ that has been imprisoned in matter. So from the 1 of the NFN8, our next 1 is that of the finite: 1 photon of light, 1 human, etc… The two ones are the NFN8 and the finite: the macro and microcosms. But, as above so below. They are intimately related.

Of course, these two definitions of 1 create 2, or duality. But, every time there is a duality on one dimension, it is seen as a trinity on another. Just like if you were to ask me to ‘call it in the air’ as you went to flip a coin, I would answer that it was a coin and be correct every time. Heads and tails is a duality, but they are just opposite extremes of yet a third thing. Is it + or -? Neither, it is a battery. Is it male or female? Niether, it is a human. The dialectic dictates that every duality, every polarization, will yield a synthesis - 3 - a trinity. 

The first number considered odd (the monad is alpha and omega), 3 also is equilibrium. 3 is synthesis. Its keywords are peace, justice, friendship, virtue, temperance and piety. It represents wisdom. It represents time being tri-fold: past, present and future. Composed of unity (the Pythagorean monad) and duality made the 3 a sacred trinity. The triangle encases the tetractys. The Christian trinity of the ethereal monad to impregnate the duad and yield a virgin birth that completes a trinity. 

5 = air, earth, water, fire and ether (4 = the four elements, 5 can mean all five elements or just the ether specifically): 5 fingers, five senses. The connection between the macro and microcosms, union of odd and even. A symbol for nature, but also for the hierophant and all beings, superior and inferior as a divine pentagram. Some keywords associated with the properties of five are marriage, alternation, reconciliation, sound, immortality and Providence. And the Discordian Law of Fives also apply, of course.

The 8, the ogdoad, is obviously related to the octave. A cube has 8 corners. It relates back to the monad by being divided by two three times (8/2=4 4/2=2 2/2=1). It completes the seven notes, but vibrates in proportion to the original note (or returns to monad in a harmonic sense). Associated with Elusian Mysteries in Greece; it is still possible to see its shape originate in the entwined snakes of the caduceus. Dr Leary’s 8-circuit model of consciousness is, of course, the same division into the four terrestrial circuits and the four post-terrestrial circuits. 8 has always been a sacred number, associated with it are these keywords: law, love, prudence and counsel.

13 = Jesus and the 12 disciples, the Sun and the 12 constellations. 6 is the number of man and 7 is divine perfection, combined they yield 13: illumination, the seven steps to climb the six rungs of Jacob’s Ladder and achieve perfection. Cabalistically, it equals 4 (1+3=4). Which also brings in the properties of perfection associated with the tretad like being an intellectual having an emergent order and encircling the world. 4 is the last line of the tetractys, as well as symbolizing earth, air, water and fire.
22 = Major Tarot Trumps, Leaves of the Book of Thoth, Letters in ancient Hebrew. The same relation to three octaves as 8 is to one octave. In the Tarot Trumps, the 22nd card can either be 21: The World, or the unnumbered Fool. The importance here is that 22 can be either The Fool or The World: illumination - the Fool reincarnates out of necessity, if you achieve illumination it can be a choice. You, the newly enlightened, can either collapse into a circle or continue in your spiral to return to the realm of god. It shares the same cabalistic 4 as did the 13 (2+2=4). But, maybe these principles of the four do not have to be sympathetic? Maybe those energies can be brought into dissonance where dissonance is revealed in the collapsing back into oneself of singularities, like the one that created the physical world our senses tell us we inhabit. If one were to find the Harmony of the Spheres between the identical properties of the 4 shared between the 13 and 22, then maybe the physical realm disappears as you cross the Fourier Transform back into the realm of Divine Light: ϕ?

Because of the disharmony of the ‘octave’ of the first eight in that famous sequence, I am going to posit that it is no coincident that the ancient ratio to calculate ∏ can be found using the Fibonacci Sequence. Because this is a theory for everything, I will also have to get a little involved in transcendental physics. As an expert of nothing, but an interest in everything, I delegate the details to the INTJs to figure out so I can follow the next thought and project. What if the experiments have been done with the scientific method that verify M-theory if only M-theory would apply consciousness inside their multi-dimensional framework? This was what Pythagoras seemed to do with his Harmony of the Spheres; what if the double-slit experiment, if properly understood, turned out to be describing how a resonance of harmonies (which, as we shall see will be defined as different dimensions we consciously process) influences anything perceived as out of phase with the wave as a particle, but for light to be in phase with the other vibrating dimensions it would appear as a wave. Before we move much further, we need to discuss a fundament element of reality that is either unique or misunderstood. Without discussing the reality of plasma being a fourth state of matter, are we so sure that light is without multiple stages of materially existing? What would make light so special that it would not have liquid and solid stages, if we took a photon in space as being the gas phase: hence why nothing can break the speed of light what would be its other states? Except for the ionized photons that compose a cosmic plasma that would explain non-locality and entanglement, what would be its liquid and solid forms? These ionized photons in the plasma field would be nonlocal and entangled in nature: vibrating photons all harmoniously vibrating faster than the normal photons in the gaseous state of space.
Light: the only game in town

In as many ways in as many corners of the world, light has been used to describe the truth of the soul. Even the relationship between sol and soul may be of import, but if we understand the ancient science of the divine light trapped in the physical with a new view to current science we may have found our panacea. As this NASA report says: “The secret to this self-sufficiency is that green or purple photosynthesizing organisms generate their own source of life from the energy in light.” (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/msad10may...) Will will have no choice but apply a transcendental physics description to the significance of that NASA study, but it is of the utmost import to grasp that plants have their own DNA code. However, plants, take photons of light to break apart the molecular bond of carbon dioxide and the energy released from that conversion is what creates the nourishment and growth of the plant. The DNA of plants take an increase of energy of receiving and collecting photons of light to break down a molecular bond to feed themselves. Just as DNA has evolved to take the byproduct of that energy exchange, oxygen, and use more energy from photons to break the oxygen back from its molecule do being a dioxide with carbon. The color of visible light that is involved in that process is green. The DNA expressing photosynthesis is perceived in the spectrum of green. I postulate that light, indeed, obeys these four states of matter.

We have already mentioned light in space being the gaseous form, with particles of ionization being the nonlocal plasma of the realm AC says r=0 that would answer the EPR paradox. The ionized light would be plasma. So what, then, would be the solid and liquid forms of light? The sun appears to be the container that ‘evaporates’ the light into space, so would not stars be the containers of liquid light that evaporates it off into space? Then what would the solid form of light be? DNA is the answer. DNA, is the matrix that has encompassed all living light. Is not this the most up-to-date scientific theory of the ancient mysteries? We will eventually return to how the difference between the realms comes from finding the irrational number of gravity or reincarnation, ∏, can be summarized in the 22 and how it keeps the first seven numbers of the Fibonacci Sequence from continuing its spiral growth.

DNA via a simple viral code has survived space via being sneezed onto a lens exposed to the vacuum of space. DNA can have simple code or highly complex. DNA has created periods of evolution leading towards creating brains capable of vibrating in harmony with the non-physical realms of the divine light: Abraxas - ϕ. DNA is the intelligence of the evolving God. We have DNA in common with every form of life as we know it. Since everything material is the incarceration of the divine light, DNA appears to be the jailer, communicating with the RNA ‘parole board’. Francis Crick not only helped discover DNA, but he also developed the cosmology of panspermia. If DNA is solid light, this helps further the thesis of intelligently directed intention panspermia. DNA, as light, gets sucked into a gravity well that pressurizes the gas, or plasma even, into its frozen, or solid form. The DNA code that creates all life as we know it and are related from a little to a lot, was captured in Earth’s gravity well billions of years ago and has tried to get back off world ever since - the teleology of evolution.

Like ‘zero’ was a concept from the archons, thinking that DNA, or the divine light trapped inside, cannot communicate is a false belief. Is this not what is really happening on natural sacraments? Are the voices and ideas that can be experienced from specific neuro-activating chemicals cellular communication between the psilocybin, for instance, and your brain be examples of DNA to DNA communication? Especially with ayahuasca, could the intelligent entities encountered be the intelligence residing in the DNA strands of the natural elements that comprise the brew be communicating their intelligence in the only way that the DNA of the human brain can interpret it? If we accept, at least for the thought experiment, my postulation that the divine light is imprisoned inside the double-helix spiral of DNA (or that it is DNA that is that divine spark of the NFN8 ϕ imprisoned in the cell), then at the level of imprisonment the intelligences trapped could communicate - between cells. Certain sacraments help you access your higher self because you provide the brain necessary to interact with the vegetative or fungal intelligence’s higher self. Since every intelligence is evolving to become Abraxas, wouldn’t my higher self, be the same as the higher self for any imprisoned intelligence? Are not plants still reaching towards the light, although they have a more permanent umbilical cord to our host Plan-It: the Earth, with their roots? Mushrooms grow to the stars and the moon, but plants chase the sun’s rays. But yet, especially with the amanita musacaria mushroom, is the out-of-body experience attributable to certain sacraments again - just the imprisoned divine intelligence in that fungal DNA trying to communicate where the common intelligence of divine light desires to return? I am not suggesting that plants are more intelligent, but that does not mean they do not have a wisdom to share with those that are willing to communicate by a ‘consummation’ of the relationship: consuming the intelligent, post-terrestrial sacraments.

I have said much, but very little, thus far, scientific enough to satisfy the INTJs; however, nothing usually satisfies their skepticism except for what catches their enthusiasm. It has been essential to express a different starting point, first, before it would be prudent to discuss M-theory; otherwise, you would never have a chance of grasping the simplistic elegant points I am attempting to address. String Theory began as an attempt to create a TOE, a theory of everything, because physics had come to an impasse in the 20th Century. What one considers to be everything will dictate the type of theory of everything one would have to present. In my questioning of ‘reality’ I have determined that some well accepted ideas are never questioned because, like your parents’ religion people accept what has been accepted prior to your life by society and family without question. If the god of Abraham deserves serious questioning, why would it be folly to question if zero exists in nature? The Equator and Greenwich Meridians are CONSIDERED to be zero, but they, obviously, are not nothing. My epitaph shall read, “If you don’t question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything.” As you can see, I have even questioned nothing in my questioning of everything.

Newton’s formulas still worked well enough to send man to the moon as well as Voyagers 1 & 2, but Einstein showed that at speeds approaching the speed of light, Newton’s formulas won’t do you any good. Cosmologists, as confirmed by astronomers, know Einstein’s formulas for the large, massive, or fast - the math of the macrocosm, can accurately solve and predict things like the bending of light by gravity observed during solar eclipses. However, the science of the macrocosm: Relativity, cannot be describing the same universe as that of the microcosm: Quantum Mechanics. Although Quantum Mechanics has become as an accurate, if not more so, predictor of the reality of the world at the minute level of the quanta, as Einstein’s formulas work for the world of galaxies, neither one can be a TOE. In theoretical places such as black holes, where both systems of interpretation must be used, the answers become nonsensical. Neither Relativity nor QM can be accurate of the universe, but they both are as accurate as Newton’s laws are to calculate a mortar’s parabolic path. And ask the dead from that mortar round if the equation to kill him wasn’t accurate enough for his Relative view? String theory tries to bridge this chasm, but, so long as theoretical physics denies consciousness from their equations, they will never find what they seek. This is where the r=>0 equation presents its merit because it not only accounts for the fringes of heretical physics today (and over a century of attempts to scientifically investigate psi - ψ - see Dean Radin The Conscious Universe or Entangled Minds), but allows for more heresies to come forth in the future in a continuing evolution.

Smaller than the quanta, which is at the Plank’s Number small - vibrate strings that compose reality. Is this what Pythagoras meant with the Harmony of the Spheres? He is reputed to be able to calm the enraged with the playing of a specific scale. Musical marches are music to make the docile ready to march into battle. Jerry Garcia’s file in the FBI, according to Jim Keith, said that he was not a problem in stirring up protests, the Deadheads left a show with less angst than they had before (still true through the end in 1995). The ancient Greek philosophers attributed different attitudinal properties to different musical scales, and they were aware of string instruments. From that information, you would think Pythagoras would embrace the possibilities of proving his Harmony of the Spheres. However, String Theory is not perfect, but it still could evolve. It may have already demonstrated its ability to evolve itself better than any other attempt of a TOE by morphing into M-theory.

One of its weaknesses is that no one has posited a realistic way to scientifically test it to determine whether or not it can accurately make predictions that are experimentally verifiable. String theorist Brain Greene admits that it might take centuries until man would be able to build a piece of technology to prove or disprove String Theory, if ever. Another is that it calls for more dimensions to reality than we think we observe. When you are done reading, you will have to determine for yourself if I have presented logic in defining these dimensions to where a type more suited to designing scientific studies (not my ENTP) could not be inspired (hello INTs). Is my definition the simplest to satisfy Occam? If by using R= ϕ; r= 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,22 … and R⇔r, (R⇒r⇒R=∞) as a foundation from which to explain how each vibrating string could be observed, and that, not only defines the extra dimensions but also account for quantum non-locality and entanglement, would the hardcore INTJ that has never questioned how they would try to explain the concept of Zero to any of the ancient Greeks, especially Pythagoras himself, actually complete the task of questioning everything they believe? Am I the only person that has thought about how I could counter all of Socrates questions if I tried to inform him of the very concept of zero or nothing? Or, would they scoff their INTJ skepticism because I would be violating Ayn Rand’s axiom of the ‘is of identity’? Is not that the same logic Jehovah defined himself to Moses? Is “I am that I am” or “I am who I am” any different than the Objectivist’s ‘is of identity’ axiom? To this ENTP they are the same, but maybe true to my type I am making a connection others can’t see?

(There is no greater sign of ignorance than the ‘is of identity’: A = A. The INTJ, in particular, like the false idol specifically to keep their type from acknowledging any other world other than the objective, scientific materialistic was even possible - Ayn Rand, has a contempt for dictionaries. The prominence of the logic and reason they place on math and science is neglected by them when it comes to definitions and language. To define a term, you are never suppose to use the term in its own definition. Even as bad as public schools are in the US, unless you were a star athlete, you would not pass a vocabulary exam if you defined each word by the very word. In algebra you always begin with defining your variables, not as the very letter itself, but as the piece of information you are trying to solve. The final product of a proof is not the root cause of what is being proven. You solve for x, and then you prove that what you found for x is correct. The answer of a proof should always be equivalent to A=A, but that is not the first part of the problem that first defined and then solved what A represented. Rand and her followers, although exuding contempt for common people, succumb to the least common denominators of definitions. My Webster’s Ninth Collegiate has the second definition for altruism be a sacrifice for the survival of the species. Both Rands plebeian definition of altruism and her simple axiom defy the logic of the laws of communication: the ‘is of identity’ is in contradiction to the reason, and logic, behind not defining something by that very something. There might be a rebuttal that rejects this thesis as a violation of 0=0 - how dare I question its validity! But, at least AC did not define 0 as 0, because they know better than to base anything off such a break from the logic and rules of communication. How does the ‘is of identity’ differ from ‘I am who I am’ Moses heard? The laws of language are less prone to antitheses than math or science. Languages evolve, but the rules and laws remain true throughout that evolution.)

 

In 1999, when I first read The Elegant Universe, when I encountered the Calabi-Yau multi-dimensional spheres, I saw in the exhibits a possible mathematical solution for, not only the folds of the human brain, but how MRI scans show that the neurons are firing in a non-localized fashion. When I reread it several years ago, not only could I see a geometrical representation of the human brain, but also the same geometry that goes into entwining a six-foot long strand of DNA inside every cell of our bodies. By adding an eleventh dimension to the five competing String Theories, it became obvious that they were all describing the same thing from 5 different positions like five blind people surrounding an elephant and describing what they think it is. So, there might be two ways to prove M-theory - to those that are suited by their personalities to pursue: does either DNA or the human brain meet the definition of any of the 10,000 or so Calabi-Yau spheres? If either, or both, met with a theoretical geometry for coiling those extra-dimensions, would that just be coincidental, or proof? Would the odds against chance matter if two of those thousands geometrically define DNA and brains, then the question would be if it was chance that it could have been any other way? As Brian Greene discusses this 11th Dimension as one being the one where the Heterotic-E string, a two-dimensional membrane, cannot vibrate. This new dimension “that is locked within the structure of the ‘strings’ themselves … Now we see that this is but an approximation to an eleven-dimension universe containing two-dimensional membranes.” (p310 The Elegant Universe)

M-theory, then, is composed of the three spatial dimensions we know, woven with a fourth dimension of time, leaving us seven to define where one, by being locked in the string’s structure is impervious to a two-dimension membrane. Now to define these dimensions that are eluding scientists. As a three-dimensional graph depicts two dimensions are perpendicular, but the z-axis appears at a 45-degree angle to symbolize a right angle to the original right angle. Life, again, is our exemplar and teacher of how these dimensions appear. Eyes and ears are perpendicular to each other. The nostrils appear much like the z-axis on paper to the x and y of ears and eyes and could rightly be thought of as the right angle to the plane of sight and sound. Although the orifice of taste faces parallel with the orifices of sight, the taste buds themselves are again at a right angle to the opening, as well as sight, sound and scent. Finally is it really wrong to think that the only other dimension that could be perpendicular to all the others is the sense of touch is perpendicular to the outside dimensions? We know that visible light and audible sound are just different frequencies. Can we be so sure that scent, taste and touch are not other frequencies? What if they were all just different octaves? How many different dimensions is a rose vibrating through? Where exactly does the scent of a rose reside? Scent is a common sense for mobile life, can we be so sure that it is not a property of the electro-magnetic spectrum like visible light and audible noise? Applying the five senses to the seven curled-up dimensions leaves two to define. One of these has to be the dimension that is locked in the structure of the strings that is impervious to the vibrations of a two-dimension membrane.

The reason there were five competing 10 dimensional string theories, was that no one was taking the observer into account. The role of consciousness was excluded. That was the missing dimension, the ‘I’ of individual ego, at the very structure of the strings themselves. Since this is an universal concept at the very level of the structure of strings, it indicates the universal identity of the ‘I’ of individual consciousness, as well as why your ‘I’ is just as valid as mine. Is it the difference between my E and the I of AC’s NTPs that this is about? They, as the introverts, are truly seeking the scientific answers external to them, while I, as the extrovert, am seeking those answers internally? (There may be much wisdom in that thought.) I will be using several quotes from Timothy Leary, PhD, as we proceed and will start with this one from Design for Dying. After discussing the simulacrum , Dr John Lilly’s deprivation tanks, self-reference and feedback loops he addresses the self as an interacting fractal with this: “I, as a person, am similar to you. Yet the juxtaposition of us and millions of others into a fractally organized system results in the apparent complexity of the system as a whole. The interconnectedness of the world as it appears to humans in certain mystical and pharmacological states comes from a direct appreciation of its fractal nature. It’s particularly amusing that nearly every LSD user who is shown visual representations of moving fractals exclaims over his or her astonished recognition: ‘That’s what I see.’”

The mathematics that will create the new paradigm are not abstract concepts like negative and imaginary numbers, but in describing the transcendental numbers and fractal patters that exist in both the micro- and the macrocosm. This eleventh dimension describes the idea of self by being a structure built into the other strings; is there a better gnostic interpretation of the divine spark imprisoned in a material world? And before I can get back to explain the descent (as opposing transcendence) of ∏ by the Fibonacci Sequence, I will also fit those eleven dimensions into Dr Leary’s 8-circuit model of consciousness. He was always a scientist, first, which allowed for replicating his data as has been done by Johns Hopkins and UCLA, and was always well-read on many aspects of cutting-edge science and math, but he was more a mix of Socrates and Bruno in an age where he could only be imprisoned for his ideas and not killed. Not only was he well-versed on the cutting edges of the sciences, but was also well-traveled as a free man - let alone as an escapee fugitive, but well versed in the occult sciences as well. Traveling will always be more educational, at least to my ENTP, than anything - including a journey into the mind, which would be a close second. A trip into the mind while traveling - good luck seeing the world the same as before!

Declaring the eleventh dimension as the definition of self-identity leaves me yet with one more to declare. The dimension in the structure is impervious to a two-dimensional vibration: the duality of consciousness that separates ‘me’ from ‘you’, the inside and outside of the consciousness that defines self individually. Self-identity is part of the recursive spirals and fractals, when it chooses to vibrate in relation to ϕ instead of its approximation, it vibrates that polarity into a synthesis. Can an INT design a scientific study to test this because I will get bored with the details and move on to the next idea as a typical ENTP fault? 


So, to reiterate, the 11 dimensions are:
Length
Width
Height
Time
Sight
Sound
Scent
Taste
Touch
Me/internal
You/external

The math of reality is defined by the curled-up double helix of DNA and the vibrations it detects, as well as the visible use of approximating the NFN8 ϕ. To fit these eleven dimensions into the 8-circuit model will require defining the Fourier Transform as the human bio-computer. Because ‘self’ is a fractal pattern, there really is just one organism experiencing space-time materiality with many types of processors to experience the vibrations interpreted as the complete fabric of sensuous existence. At the moment of enlightenment, consciousness shifts across the Fourier Transform of a physical body ‘self’ consciousness, but of a consciousness where space-time is internalized while the five senses have now been externalized and individual ego is nonexistent.

Applying this interpretation upon the measuring device for the macrocosm, man, we have the seven ductless glands, represented by the rainbow body chakra system with six of these radio transmitters inside the body: the crown, the halo, the nimbus, the Fourier Transform, is above the head. If we are to locate where an eighth would be located, would it logically be above the crown, or does the crown/nimbus/halo represent the completion of the octave? 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? The polar connections should well be thought of as opposite ends of a torus circulating the same variables for vibration. Our subconscious would collective create the reality we interpret every day tying us all together like a common umbilical cord of the external reality the “I” interprets as external. We are linked in a fractal spiral of vibrations of the belief in identity that under the right substances, used under wise conditions, DNA communication can happen between different versions of the DNA program. We share more DNA with some things than others, but the spiraling elements composing the DNA code will always have a little, even if it is just molecules, in common. Consummation of sacraments is not the only way to achieve some of these effects; however, it is the best scientific tool to experience replicable states yogis devote decades to accomplish. Research now proves Dr Leary correct with his work at Harvard about helping terminal cancer patients face death as well as create long-lasting psychological benefit and spiritual states of import to the volunteers.

The more we are connected via the umbilicus of physical matter, the further our vibrations are away from where we could be connected at the crown where we would be vibrating in harmony with the NFN8 ϕ instead of vibrating in harmony with the Fibonacci Sequence. This is that two dimensional brane, as above so below, the spiritual connection via the Fourier Transform above the head and the space-time below the dimension sensor machine of man. There are six internal vibrations, the sense of identity and the five senses. The two opposing forces that connect us all, has one above and below, as the Hermetic axiom dictates. The spiritual connection on the other side of the Fourier Transform above the head, and the physical world created by a ‘sequential’ disharmony from the NFN8 ϕ. Illumination is the crossing back and forth at will. And I will mathematically define illumination as the determinate to controlling the 22 to continue to 35 instead of finding some 7 to divide by in a circuitous recursive of incarnations represented in the circular, gravitationalesque pull of ∏.

To apply the dichotomy of brain hemispheres to these eight circuits of 11 dimensions: the left hemisphere interprets survival in the umbilicus of ‘man’ to space-time and is obsessed with the dimensions of space-time survivability. These were Dr Leary’s terrestrial circuits. I say they represent the vibrations of disharmony. When humanity finally, en masse, reaches a hundredth monkey syndrome of ‘tuning in’ to the NFN8 ϕ the right hemisphere can, eventually, become as enmeshed in the post-terrestrial umbilicus of harmony with the NFN8 ϕ on the other side of the Fourier Transform known as the esoteric crown chakra. This is the secret to the mystique and new age talk about how love can change the world. It explains, when people don’t just take the first sentence out of context, the explanation to Crowley’s Commandment: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Love under will.” This is not hedonistic free love, but intentionally tuning from the disharmony of the Fibonacci Sequence into the NFN8 ϕ of, what the AC has defined as, r=0 while I define it as R= ϕ. The external dimensions below us, connecting us to physical reality is truly our umbilical cord, if we learn to vibrate what, in the chakra system is the heart, in the endocrine system would be the thymus, in the visible spectrum would be green, then we could earn our way towards the enlightenment of crossing the Fourier Transform at will. Once we truly anchor our base vibration with, what the ancient Egyptian would call the ‘wisdom of the heart’, or are thinking with our hearts and feeling with our heads, then we begin the transcending climb of ascension and can sever the umbilicus to external matter. It is far more alluring to be in the terrestrial labyrinth of physical reality, that of the ecstasy of orgasm, than to follow Ariadne’s Thread back to Circuit 8 consciousness: that of complete harmony with the NFN8 ϕ - the polar opposite end of the torus of vibrations that anchor the terrestrial circuit in terrestrial survival mode of fuck, fight or flight- the path of gnosis and illumination. Love for lack of a better meme if understood in relation to the microcosmic sense interpreter detector’s placement can change the world, but not via orgasm and lust. Conscious energy can tune into the higher realms like you can change radio stations, by leaving one frequency and tuning in on another. Once enough have permanently tuned in to anchor their ‘I’ in the post-terrestrial anchor of the thymus, or heart chakra, being their foundation for consciously raising their own vibrations back to being in harmony with trancendent illumination, as opposed to being in harmony with the NFN8 ϕ’s physically incarnate approximation.

I will follow Dr Leary and describe this, not as new age but as Psi-Phi ( ψ-ϕ), for my equations of the NFN8 ϕ include the scientific heresy of ψ, just like ψ is included in r=0 of the Illuminati of AC. A TOE should include everything, should it not? A scientific definition for occult, fringe, and mainstream scientists. The biggest heretics to the establishment are always the ones to pay the closest attention to what makes them heretics: usually a desire to liberate the people from the grasp of slavery of the OWO.

 

If any reader is unfamiliar with the heretical Dr Timothy Leary’s 8 circuit model, you can study it here:

 

http://deoxy.org/8circuit.htm

• 
  I have yet to explore it here, but they are making a cartoon presentation:
  
  http://theuniverseas.com/8-circuit
  
  And here:
  
  http://www.dedroidify.com/8circuits.htm
  

  about a week ago 

• By using my equation, I can, not only explain the eleven dimensions of M-theory, but collapse the external physical world into the base circuit in Dr Leary’s cosmology; it is his terrestrial circuits. 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? Will anyone proficient in either of those geometries ever try to make the connection because it won’t be me? But 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? Where we came from and where are we going is best surmised in my equation: R⇒r⇒R=∞ (R⇔r); we have no choice but to, eventually, achieve illumination and return to a divine harmony from whence we came. All we have to do is get past the gatekeeper of the gravity well of circuit one and we won’t have to incarnate again until the next divine suicide unless we desire to incarnate. Maybe then we can incarnate with full enlightened consciousness and act as true catalysts for mass illumination? That gatekeeper is symbolized in the 22 of Fibonacci’s Sequence and the approximation of another transcendental number - ∏. We have to know the rules of the game to know how to win. Life is a game and the illumination of the post-terrestrial circuits is winning, everything else ends in another attempt. Just as the dimensions of space-time create the first terrestrial circuit, we can all choose to interact via the other side of the Fourier Transform.
  
  “To win in the game of life, follow the order of the cards. Decipher the code. Decipher the meaning of numbers.”
  Timothy Leary
  Design for Dying
  
  
  

[Mork42]

I borrowed a copy of Graham Hancock’s Supernatural from a neighbor earlier this year. When I returned it and they asked me for my opinion about it, I told them it really did not present anything new to my mind other than anecdotes of Hancock’s adventures. I then proceeded to announce that, although I could not state he did such, I know his co-author, Robert Bauval, had mentioned the Tarot cards a few times in the chapters he contributed to their book Talisman, as I went through the trumps from my Pythagorean deck with the titles of the chapters in the Table of Contents. I don’t know if he intended it, but his titles to each chapter seem to describe each of the trumps in order, if we take the story being told as raising the kundalini - or whatever name you care to call it. I cannot say he intended it, but every trump in the deck I had could very well have been described with the titles for his chapters. Not just a few, but all 22 trumps in order could be described by his chapter titles. Within a 99% confidence interval, I am 99.9% sure I could show the same effect to any English speaker, but would that be odds against chance enough to raise the eyebrow of an INTJ? Does that make it something he intended? Or, was it a Law of Fives-like connection because of enough time and ingenuity on my part? Some occultists believe the Tarot trumps are the fabled 22 leaves to the Book of Thoth. This is the direction we will turn to explain the differences between the Fool being the sign of reincarnating, while the World is not compelled to do such: a theory of everything should include everything, should it not? 

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? That book was my first encounter with Leary Theory: his 8-circuit model. Primarily conceived while in solitary confinement, The Game of Life is the modern equivalent of the ultimate in heresy, as if his ideas were not already a threat to society before, now he was presenting an evolutionary theory that was predicting the inevitable fall of societal authoritarianism: rebellious scientific evolution of increasing intelligence has no need for bureaucratic systems.

“Germany and Japan rebounded faster than England and France did from World War II because their bureaucracies were destroyed. Anything that destroys bureaucracies enhances evolution.”
Timothy Leary
Design for Dying

The OWO survives and thrives as the top of all bureaucratic pyramids, and any TOE of a NWO must forbid the continuation of bureaucracy. Ken Wilber explains synthesis well with every step in the evolution of consciousness coming with an inherent corresponding loss of ego. The ego lost is what created the antithesis to arise to create the evolution of consciousness. The synthesis is a transcending of duality where the best from both thesis and antithesis is included (or the worst can synthesize, too). Just as there are a holy trinity represented in the dialectic, there are three steps to everything. Dr Leary likes the metaphor of the synapse as a holy trinity: the receptor receives the input, the nucleus integrates the data, and the effector transmits the proper instructions to the appropriate body part. His 8-circuit model, is best understood as being manifest through a tri-octave stage system because each circuit goes through a passive reception stage, an integrative/processing stage, and an active transmission stage. With only the chance to read what was given through the slot in solitary he had a head full of metaphors for life by its games and time to think. His book The Game of Life is a general thesis relating elemental understanding of harmonic resonance being the correct interpretation of the Tarot trump cards in an octave format of perceptual reality. How could I build a Pythagorean TOE without that information?

“... the Periodic Table is the basis for the great systems of neurogenetic philosophy which have been passed of from antiquity in the code form of:

The Tri-Octave Systems (24)
The Tarot
The Greco-Roman Pantheon
The Hebrew Alphabet
The Zodiac
The Backgammon Board
The Playing Card Deck

The Octave Systems
The I Ching
The Chess Board

We recall that the Periodic Table is not a static system... The Periodic Table is an evolutionary, metamorphic array.”
Timothy Leary
The Game of Life

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13077663/Timothy-Leary-With-Robert-Anton-...

He explains the Tarot trumps as describing the three stages of each circuit, for the first seven circuits. To translate this into an AC language: the Tarot trumps represent the dialectic stages of each circuit’s evolution to perfection. Where Leary sees there being a need for two-more trumps to make 24 so that the 8th circuit would have its input and transmission phases, we can see that as Abraxas, the final synthesis in AC cosmology. My Pythagorean deck is far more telling of what is meant by the caduceus that is a repetitive symbol throughout than my Salvador Dali deck, but Dr Leary, to present it in AC terms, describes the dialectic path of conscious evolution to illumination being encoded in the three stages of each circuit and the 22nd being the representation of becoming Abraxas. He describes the input and transmission phases and calls for two more trumps to bring it to 24, but he was not thinking of ending in a final synthesis. Nor was he a musician, so he may not have recognized that the three octave system is completed with the 22nd note: the third higher harmonic of the original note and not 3X8=24.

“To DNA, the entire multi-billion-year mosaic is ‘now’.”

“Spin is the key. Orbital spin and personal spin.”

“Evolution is not the survival of the fittest; it is the increase in intelligence.”

“Matter is the freezing, i. e. the storing of bits of information. Energy is the movement of quanta of information... A brain.”
Timothy Leary
The Game of Life

• The math and science of reality are in DNA, and its intent to evolve into something smart enough to escape its imprisoning cell. I am not of the personality type that is wired to examine the Calabi-Yau spheres looking for the one that defines perfectly how DNA fits a six-foot (approximately 2 meters) strand of DNA to coil up inside a cell? The etymology of cell is worth exploring for a moment, though. My etymology dictionary refers to the 11th and 12th paragraphs of Hall. (And for Dr Leary’s favorite number I state that Cell is located on page 88.) I will just list some of the words related to cell via the root of hall: hallmark, hell, hellish, hellcat, hellfire, hold (of a ship) hole, hollow, hulk, hull (difference between a ship’s hold and hull and their similarities), cell, cellar, Celluloid, cellulose, cellar, occult and clandestine. Paragraph one defines the root to stand for ‘to hide’, ‘a hut’, ‘small room, cellar’ ‘cell’, ‘eyelid’ then the L occultare - ‘to conceal’. The first paragraph finishes with the ship references and the land equivalent of house being a variant of the Sanskrit. The 11th relates to organic definitions of cellular, like those that make up living tissues. The 12th discusses ‘a (small) store-room’ like a ‘wine-cellar’. 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? The more I explore my etymology dictionary for these variety of words that come from the same roots the more I, as an ENTP wired to make connections other can’t see (explore enough sites discussing the ENTP and you will see almost the exact phrase repeated enough) see connections. But, in an etymology dictionary the words it says are related are connected, are they not? Shouldn’t we all be able to see those connections?
  
  The Tarot trumps, properly understood, like so many of the other ancient transmissions to survive the wrath of time (and the literal flames of ignorance), are explaining the same story: the evolution of both the micro and macrocosms. As above so below, if man can choose to increase our intelligence to evolutionary levels, wouldn’t the same be occurring in the macro? Won’t the Demiurge finally merge into Abraxas when he wises up? Also included in the Tarot are the Grail Hallows in the four suits. Which Dr Leary equates to the four amino acids that are the rungs in the DNA ladder, but he also sees the I Ching’s 64 trigrams to have predicted the 64 codones of DNA. The story of the Major Arcana, the 22 trumps, is also the story of Avatar. The first name listed in the closing credits is Executive Producer: Colin Wilson. A book published by Barnes and Noble with a title of The Occult has a “Who’s Who in the Occult.” Its final two sentences under his name summarize his philosophy that man has an innate magical capacity he calls ‘Faculty X’ and that as man got civilized and lost his touch with nature drove this capacity dormant. 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? Were there not some moments of a literal ‘enlightenment’ depicted in the movie? Knowing the many different ways the ancient world appears to have expressed the ‘kundalini’ or ‘the light body’, the first time I saw the shadow of the dragon, I knew there would be no other way than for the hero to conquer the dragon and submit the dragon to his will. Especially with my Pythagorean deck, the symbolism is clearly trying to express something with the repetitive use of the caduceus. 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? What is the symbolism when the Na’vi assemble around the trunk of Hometree? A double helix entwined about a central shaft: ida and pingala around the sushumna shaft. Watch the movie again if you failed to see the most blatant esoteric symbolism that showed the core of Hometree (The Tree of Life) to be one small part of the Caduceus Staff of Hermes (Thoth). If you think that is accidental then spend some time inside Colin Wilson’s tunnel-reality and ask yourself if he would allow accidents like that happen in the most expensive movie ever made. I have not read it, but before that movie came out in the end of 2009, its Executive Producer published a book entitled Super Consciousness in the spring, and if you think that is coincidental then maybe you should read that book then watch the movie again.
  
  This book’s secrets (Book of Thoth) have always been closely guarded because the experience to the ill-prepared can leave schizophrenic symptoms. But, seeing these 22 visual allegories as the evolutionary cycle of activating all the post-terrestrial circuits, Factor X, Illumination, Gnosis et al then we can see how this 22 would dictate the cycle of incarnating until illumination: you either get the Fool for 22 or the World - you either have to come back, or can choose to come back with an illuminated entrance or wait until the next divine suicide. Whatever you care to call an experience words will never justly present, as expressed via the 22 steps of passive reception of information, processing information and acting on said data for each of the seven circuits to enter Abraxas at the 22nd step, the completion of the third octave, the eighth circuit of perfected synthesis, crossing the Fourier Transform from the physical. So, pending on whether or not one’s vibrations of the dimensions defined above are resonating with the eternal, NFN8 ϕ, you either continue vibrating out the physical approximation spiral until it merges with ϕ, or you have to go back to the beginning and start over (∏). This is how the 22 can be over anything. If the 13 is vibrating in harmony with ϕ, the World lets you continual your spiral. When your 13 is not in harmony of perfected man (6+7), you are vibrating in harmony with the approximation and the Fool divides the 22 by the seven aspects before it in the sequence. The completion of the third octave (22nd note) divides by the seven frequencies that constitute the variable ratios of an octave.
  
  The math of reincarnation would be when the first seven dimensions are more in tune with the approximation, the math of ∏. Illumination would be the self-conscious control over the frequencies of each dimension in tune with the NFN8 ϕ? If the ‘I’ that is the individual consciousness achieves this state of energetic potential - enlightenment - then, instead of having the 22 end up the Fool, it opens up the divine to you by allowing you to eventually, mathematically merge your consciousness, conscience and science back together as their etymology indicates, by spiraling out far enough to be the same as the NFN8 ϕ. By tuning into the frequencies of either the NFN8 ϕ, or the specific wavelengths of another vessel of sensory input organs, we can explain the fringe science of ψ. These innate possibilities are possible to the right harmonic. Remote viewing is either explained by the remote viewer ‘searching’ an area for the right ‘eyes’ to view the required information and coming in tune with the frequencies of that other body, or, by vibrating in harmonic resonance with the NFN8 ϕ, they would not need to find the right set of eyes to tune in on. Now, instead of no explanation for an abomination to certain scientists, but a life’s work for some like Dean Radin and Charles Tart, to name two, we can explain these attributes. The statistics of meta-analysis indicates that somethings beyond chance are probable, even if generally rejected by the scientific herd (are scientists the only profession that does not have a majority of submissives?).
  
  Some of these attributes called ψ would be tuning into the other specific wavelengths of another fractal of the divine spark trapped in a recursive hell, some would be ‘tapping the source’ - being in tune with the NFN8 ϕ. But, both are complete possibilities in a cosmology of M-theory with the defined dimensions listed above. The Seven the 22 finds to divide itself by, are the seven properties of numbers that establish nature’s physical spiral of imitation. Like it or not, people are people, a new religion based on complete logos will never sell the followers into choosing to follow a path that will create a society that profits from everyone’s combined strengths by intelligently replacing one type’s weaknesses with those wired to have that aspect be a strength. What is required is a synthesis. It was time to revalue all values when Nietzsche penned that phrase, but he also wrote that any philosopher is, by his very nature, a man belonging to the future and an enemy to the mindset of the day. If the intent is to create a world where what takes the role of governing between geographic regions is intending on giving every opportunity, equally - no ‘bought’ privileges for anyone, for each person to become the best they can become, then there needs to be enough mythos to the TOE that appeals even to the ESFJ which has, either as strength or weakness, a black and white duality perspective on life that is the core of their being influencing every decision. 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? A dominant ESFJ that would accept any TOE would be an incredible asset to any evolutionary movement. They would be incredible missionaries for a TOE that clearly shows there is no other direction to evolve towards than godhood that they could sense and feel.
  

  about a week ago 

• So, to recapitulate in a condensed mytho-logos: In the beginning there was R. R is everything the Armageddon Conspiracy claims is in the dimensionless zero (r=0). R, in the inevitable boredom of spending an eternity as the only vibration, a standing, perfect wave derived from complete Harmony of the Spheres, the unity of all into the ONE of the NFN8 ϕ, committed the Divine Suicide known to science as the Big Bang. This crossing of the Fourier Transform from the non-physical NFN8 ϕ frequency eventually created the microcosmic, finite, ONE as the first two numbers in the Fibonacci Sequence. The very beginning of the approximation of the NFN8 ϕ is the opposing forces of the NFN8T of the macrocosm - the UNI-verse (Uni = 1) against the finite drive of life in the microcosm.
  
  The first 1 is the divine light, while the second 1 is the photon that emerges from the darkness when an input of conscious energy altered the frequency with the vibrations of speaking light into existence. These first two numbers to begin the approximation of the NFN8 ϕ, are a duality, so the next number that has to come in the sequence determining life would have to be the number of duality: 2. Hegel so eloquently showed that, not only do opposites attract, they fuse into the holy trinity of synthesis: 3. Every polarity, when viewed from a higher dimension, is the unison of opposites, a trinity. It is neither the positive nor the negative of a battery, but the holy ghost of that trinity of the electrolyte between the dissimilar metals that completes the battery. From this sacred trinity, the next stop in the sequence of approximating the NFN8 ϕ we arrive at is the 5: the penta. The very divine element of ether, to command the will over the four natural elements of air, earth, water and fire. For the first time the approximation hits 1.6 with the 5/3=1.6667, but it still is distant from 1.618, but way closer than the 2/1 its last time over approximating, just like the 1.5 of 3/2 was closer an approximation than 1/1 on the lower. (For any Discordians I trust you see how it did not require too much time or ingenuity to apply the Fnord of Fives.) Additionally, ϕ is an integral component of the pentagram.
  
  The powers of completion, represented by the 8, is the only way this evolutionary sequence could logically progress from the marriage of the cosmos the five indicates. A transcendent cosmology should include in its structure the ether that transcends science still to this day, and after the number of this transcendental ether, 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? The last of these seven vibrations that, only by the will, can become harmonized with the NFN8 ϕ is that much feared and misunderstood number: 13. In the element of the four that describes both the 13 and 22 from cabalistic addition, the aspects of intelligent order either repel each other or amplify/harmonize. When they repel each other, the powers and aspects of the 22 divides itself by the seven dimensions of the preceding sequence, weighing equally each number to divide by the seven aspects each number represented. Just as a line that collapses back into itself forms a circle, this wheel of life, represented by another transcendent number’s approximation: ∏ - 22/7, represents the continual cycles of incarnating, the Tarot trump is the Fool for this 22 and the powers of four shared with the 13 have repelled instead of aligning. When illumination happens, when the powers of the combined six and seven are truly unified in the 13, when man, as six, increases his vibrations to the perfected seven, the cards are changed and the 22 becomes the World as you pass the threshold of incarnation (22 as the Fool) to continue your individual spiral to finally synthesize into perfection of the NFN8 ϕ.
  
  Spirals are the math of the universe, from the organization of stars in galaxies to the double-helix of DNA. As an ENTP, I have a typical ability of my type to make connections other types cannot see, and have been re-valuing all my values since I read Nietzsche while waiting tables on small cruise/expedition vessels. I had already revalued the Corporate America indoctrination I refused at university - as a young man of principles I was at odds with the lack of ethics prevalent in a ‘top 5’ business school. Too bad they never taught me how to be an entrepreneur, but it was a conformist factory where we were being taught how to have the corporate scandals we have witnessed since Enron and before. I had asked the questions in class that made them like me about as much as I liked them, then. And while working a dream job (at sea on expedition cruise ships) that had down time to read, Nietzsche was one I really read. Not only did he inspire me to continue blazing my own path, but to question the reality I have been programmed versus the one I experience. It was only since having my back broken five years ago that I found the works of Dr Leary, and although I find him rather an authority, I still question his authority and think for myself. Is that not the same sentiment as to revalue all values? Should that also not include ‘advances’ in what were once, novel ideas, such as the cipher of zero?
  
  If, indeed, as AC reveals there are Archons that serve the Demiurge in keeping the divine spark from returning to its home, should we not also apply the same scrutiny to what the societal and psychological impact that, so-called, advances have brought? Where did a major idea in the evolution of intelligence come from; what type of society? If we are to revalue, we had better start at the true origins of ideas, right? If we were going to question the Copernicus Revolution, we have to take into consideration the dominant societal institution burned Bruno and kept Galileo imprisoned - the Catholic Church, for expressing the same ideas. Personally, it is my empathy for the heretics that led me to AC, since I consider myself as an arch-heretic. The caste system is an abomination to man’s potential, and it is easy to see how zero and negative can be applied to the two lowest. The idea of karmic debt that transcends incarnations is also based upon the existence of debt, or negative value. These very ideas, truly being formulated, as the NASA video explained, around 600 of the Common Era in India, were brought to the West in the early days of Islam.
  

  • Zero descends from an Arabic word and is only related, via etymology, with cipher and decipher. The idea originated in a land known for one of the worst systems devised to support a privileged elite of certain families: the caste system, and was one of the first ideas brought west by the most submissive Abrahamic faith. If it is truly time to revalue all values, is there any value in that which lacks value? Since the adoption of these mathematical concepts, has the west gotten closer to complete liberation? Or, has the OWO had a new tool to use against man reclaiming our potential? Is the logical math to define the caste system the synthesis the west should make from Eastern traditions? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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)?
    
    With my equation, I can explain the universe and its evolutionary path back towards the domain of godhood it left via the Divine Suicide. Anyone accepting it will have to shape their entire mental structure to the eventual attainment of harmony with the divine - there is no other solution possible - eventually, your spiral will be identical to the NFN8 ϕ. By defining the ‘hidden’ dimensions of M-theory into what is undeniable to anyone that experiences the world around them via the vibrational sensors of the five senses and an ‘I’ processing those vibrations that is independent of the ‘you’ of other Fourier Transforms fractally experiencing the reality created by the vibrations of the material sequence, science can be something taken from the laboratory and life can become the experiment. Like it or not, the majority are followers and in need of more mythos than logos. If the desire is to create a new religion based on math, science and philosophy, a pure logos cosmology will fail to attract many converts. Not only have I revalued the value of the valueless, but by blending a mathematical logos with a new mythos, I can counter the nihilism inherent in anything (and nothing) zero with transcendence. By being able to define the DNA curled inside a living cell as a Calabi-Yau sphere (there are supposed to be over 10,000 different ones - you prove me wrong, I can accept it as faith in an intuition of the NFN8 ϕ), how many theoretical physicists today really take any of the paranormal that AC places in the zero to exist, either? Some scientists would reject this thesis even if the geometry of DNA coils is identical to a Calabi-Yau sphere as coincidental instead of evidence of transcendence.
    
    With the vitriol AC uses against celebrity culture, they again fall prey to fallacy by their need for imaginary dimensions. Are not celebrity culture and conspicuous consumption driven by a need for image? 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? Again, sorry for nit-picking about etymology, I know it can drive some types nuts, but we already have imaginary dimensions that don’t do us any good to believe in now: like the movie screen or the novel reality. 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? Are they truly revaluing every value? Is not the underlying psychosis of zero, negatives, and imaginary dimensions worth examining as to be either synthesized or not? If the evolution of ideas is a dialectic: then the thesis was the world of Pythagorus - absent of zero. Its antithesis was the invention of zero and negatives. Has there been a synthesis, yet? Is not this one of the truest values we must revalue? Are the subtle connections to sociology and psychology of zeroes detrimental to the long-term viability to the AC equation? A theory of everything should only have a positive impact on individuals and society; hence my transcendental equation to replace a nihilistic one. (If you don’t like my use of nihilism to describe the AC equation may I suggest reading all the definitions you can, maybe I am using it in a non most common manner because it is precisely correct as I am implying.) If the Archons plant ideas to corrupt man from our potential, 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? If we must revalue all values, why would the mathematically valueless be exempt? Is that a healthy belief for man to continue to hold? Is this not the black and white world of the OWO: you are either one of them or you are worthless?
    
    The Armageddon Conspiracy’s ‘God’
    
    http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/God(1459255).htm
    
    “Understanding the nature of evil is one of the first steps on the road to illumination, and that means understanding Satan, the author of evil. Satan is not a comic-book monster, but the most brilliant psychologist.”
    
    Exactly why it is important to evaluate every idea that has been imposed upon our consciousness for detrimental psychological effects from the acceptance of any idea.
    
    “Satan’s task is simple. He must prevent humanity from seeing the light. Any tactic is open to him. He can seduce humanity with riches, success, fame and sex. He can create religions that claim to say, ‘Love thy neighbour.’ He can promote the family as the greatest good. You will frequently hear people saying that they will do anything for their family. And they will. They will lie, cheat, trample over others, stab others in the back, all to ensure that their family prospers. They don’t care that for their family to succeed it's frequently the case that other families must fail.”
    
    Because the underlying belief is that your group/family is worthy while all others are worthless (zero)?
    
    “The voice of Satan whispers otherwise: property is the greatest good. Possess as many things as you can, the bigger and more expensive the better. Such is Satan’s seductive message.”
    
    Show your worth to those that have none, even if it is vanity getting you in debt. Again, creating an image (related to imaginary) based on the detrimental impact zero, which also supports the concept of getting negative (debt) to appear greater than the zeroes.
    
    “Satan can no longer use the crude weapon of hellfire in sophisticated societies. It still works with Islam because that is a particularly backward religion that still operates as though all Muslims are living in the year 600 CE with their prophet Mohammed.”
    
    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? If these effects indeed serve Satan, why would anyone accept a TOE that is founded upon a tactic serving the master psychologist?
    
    “Satan deliberately prevents the truth from being heard. At every turn, he obstructs the messengers of the True God, but the True God intends that it should be thus. It serves his divine plan. To see the truth through the camouflage of Satan’s seductive lies is humanity’s greatest challenge.”
    
    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=∞? 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?
    
    “Satan's fatal flaw was "hyperephania" - extreme pride. Afflicted by doubts about himself, lacking self-esteem, in awe of his father, envious of his radiant brother, unsure of his identity, Satan compensated by cultivating an exaggerated ego.”
    
    Extreme pride meaning only you have worth and all other are worthless; isn’t that the root of an exaggerated ego? He felt less than whole so his pride and ego said he was the only one worthy. He alone mattered, all other were immaterial zeroes to his life’s equation. Over compensation, perhaps?
    
    “Satan wanted his own realm where he was the sole master. He discovered the secret of matter and fashioned a rival universe of matter rather than light. This was the universe of the Big Bang - our universe. ‘Let there be light,’ Satan announced as he brought this universe into existence: a mockery of God's light. Satan is the creator and ruler of our universe of the Big Bang, and he's assisted by his rebel angels - called the archons, groups of whom were given regions of the universe to rule on Satan's behalf.”
    
    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=∞? Is not the universe of Satan destined to evolve back into that divine light in this equation? Is not the initial difference as vast a chasm as explained above as a mockery of the divine light? If that divine light was the transcendent, NFN8 ϕ would not the approximation be the mockery?
    
    “He is the Father of Lies, the master of deception and illusion. He constantly manipulates the minds of humanity. He demands worship and submission from them, like the tyrant he is. ‘Thou shalt not,’ he pronounces, rather than, ‘Thou shalt.’”
    
    What better manipulation to keep us from our evolutionary task than the belief in zero? Does my etymology dictionary reveal wisdom by exposing the relationship between zero and cipher/decipher? 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? Has the God of Becoming, Abraxas, become closer to becoming since the concept of zero was introduced to the world? We have found too many practical uses to erase the idea completely, but a practical human technological use does not make it a property of the laws of evolution for the universe. We can teach it in specifics, but if r=0 is the Holy Grail, whom does the Zero serve? In R= ϕ; r= 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,22 … R⇔r or R⇒r⇒R=∞ the grail is not ‘nothing’ but true transcendence: it can serve no one else but the Abraxas of the NFN8 ϕ.

   

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Aloha Jayce,

Firstly, let me toss out a couple caveats about this post: A) asking questions you do not already have any answer for is Good. Rehttorical questions are moot, so fall on "deaf ears" for the most part, even if containing some few "pearls" cast before all the "swine." Thus, I have chosen from the 116 questions in your last 2 posts to answer only 108 of them, since the others seemed, to me, to be purely appeals to the chorus (that is, the "Fates" as portrayed on-stage, as opposed to the "audience" off). I hope this will not disturb or concern you any, doing it this. However that leads into my second caveat: B) I intend to be frank. I mean, I am going to keep it short, to the point, and try to remain "fair and balanced" between being rude and polite. Pardon me, please, if I err too much on the side of rude. It is not my intention, but might come off additionally terse, considering the brevity I'll try to keep in my answers.

That being said, let's please dive right in:

1) How did physical reality manifest from R= ϕ?

In my own model of cosmology, I have skethced it out thus:


This diagram is called "Tau-sub-Tau." The outermost tesseract, in black, signifies the maximum scale extension of our 4th space temporal direction of motion. Within this is the green, "yin-yang" patterned, "Aleph-sub-Omega" hypersphere, the central sphere of which is the, red, "Aleph-sub-Sigma" circle. When this "circle" and its contents are rotated to a 45° angle from the viewer, they assume the usual components of the following diagram, the blue "Aleph-sub-n" torus. Think of this diagram thusly: the blue ellipse (aleph sub n) is the "baby universe" inside the red "singularity" (aleph sub sigma) inside the green "black-hole" inside the "parent universe" beyond our own, depicted in black as "Tau sub Tau."



In this diagram we are looking at only the interior components of the "aleph sub n" "baby universe" inside a singularity inside a black hole within a larger parent universe. It's a pretty bad sketch, but hopefully will serve to roughly display the relevant traits: on the left is our current cosmos, on the right, the "inversion" of our present matter-energy continuum in the form of a pure ZPE "nulliverse," and in between these two is the "engine of creation," that is, the random quantum fluctuation that implodes the "nulliverse" through it to create our current cosmos. This shape, convuluted as it may appear, can serve to signify the cosmic cyclical process of 1) Vishnu (past): the "big bang" or "engine of creation;" 2) Brahma (present): the current cosmos (comprised of the "local universe" shrinking inside a surrounding bubble of "multiverses;" and 3) Shiva (future): return through entropic evaporation into a ZPE "nulliverse." I can explain all this in much greater detail, however I find a picture, even one poorly rendered, can say even more than words.

2) Can there ever be a product of 1 if finite parts unify?

"Product" is an arithmetic term for the result of a multiplication. As you, obviously, know (and point out), 1 X n = n, n / 1 = n, unless "n" = zero. If "n" = 0, then all these products reduce to zero, not one. Let's just forget "binary" for a moment, as being only a single system, a simple one, predicated only on zeros and ones. Let's look at these numerical relationships (between zero and one) in other terms than only their use in equations. Look at one and zero, again, as a "GCF" (greatest common factor) and an "LCD" (lowest common denominator). If zero is the LCD of one, and one the GCF of zero, than the "transcendence" from "binary" thought-processes (like usual "ethos" using "good vs. evil" or, sociologically, "us vs. them") comes from taking the "old GCF" and making it the "new LCD," and by taking the "old LCD" and making it the "new GCF." This seems complex, but if you follow it through on your own, you can derive great benefits from such a shifting in your considerations. How we "take what is above and make it into that which is below," and "take that which is below and make it into that which is above" involves combining both ("solve et coagula"). Just so, the method of considering the "binary" relationship between "zero" and "one" is, dialectically, to combine these into a single new concept. However, because they negate (cancel out), zero and one defy the usual method. Hence using the round-about way of labeling zero = LCD and one = GCF. In short, "all is one, and already this one is nothing" (to quote the REAL "ac" = Crowley).

3) Is this not the definition of a singularity?

In mathematics and quantum physics, a "singularity" is defined as a dimensionless point, existing without any measure of space or time, having only a single "vector" (direction of motion) capable, to "expand" or "contract" over time. Such a 1-d "singularity" can "expand" into more spatial and temporal dimensions (larger sums of vectors for directional motion), or "contract" into ZPE, or rather, the "One" (singularity) can collapse into a "Zero" (nulliverse). Our entire cosmos now is said to have "expanded" from such a singularity at the "big bang." If it has not expanded in REAL-space terms, and is only evaporating matter into energy and expanding the empty-spaces between real-space objects, then we could say, simply, our universe still IS the size of a "pea-instanton" or cosmic singularity. There are, in Einstein's relativity, multiple kinds of "singularity." A stationary pin-hole (either seeming to expand OR contract) is a cosmic singularity. A polar-axs rotating "gravitational" singularity is a black-hole. A "temporal" signularity is an electromganetic wormhole.

4) Is it + or -?

By definition, a singularity can't be "either-or" AND/OR "both also". A singularity measures a single, otherwise motionless, still-point as it "expands" or "contracts" (or appears to do so as we look at it from various angles). A singularity is, essentially, only an "origin" point or dot at the start of a possible line, but not such an extension of that point into a ray or line. Once the "expanding/contracting" dot becomes a "binary" directional line, it is no longer a singularity; it's then 2-d. Because the singularity does not, in truth, "expand" or "contract," but only appears to from outside of it, and because a linear vector is binary, not singular, a singularity should be considered 1-d containing ZPE. This, in itself, can't be "positive" OR "negative," nor "both," nor "neither." It can only be "All In One." And this one can, then, be reduced into Nothing.

5) Is it male or female?

The Kybalion's "7 Hermetic Principles" stress the universally genersalisable applicability of "gender" as their 7th and last axiom. This axiom, although well-intentioned, is rubbish. Consider Jupiter. However you slice it up, Jupiter is an individual and unique planet. It possess NO such concept per se as "gender;" it's just what it is, a planet in space. Now, look at earth. There are men and women everywhere, but this doesn't make this a universally generalisable principle effect. If Jupiter had a genitalia, or was inhabited by gendered biological life, we could say, easily and un-equivocally, that "Gender is a Universal Principle." However, even in the context of the Kybalion itself, "Gender" is a mortal, bio-sentient experience that arises FROM (not gives cause TO) the other 6 "principles" of "dualism" or "binary" cosmology. Gender FOLLOWS, it does not PRECEDE. Thus, taking any obect in space and pinning "gender" on it is... limited in good reasons.

6) But, maybe these principles of the four do not have to be sympathetic?

1= Water-Gravity / 2= Air-EM / 3= fire-fission / 4= earth-fusion.

A= unified gravity-EM (steam or sulfer)
B= unified EM-fission (liquid or mercury)
C= unified fission-fusion (solid or salt)

These 3 process-stages occur within and between these 4 elemental forces. Thus, 3+4 (=7) and 3X4 (= 12). In physics (and math, the "interior" of physics), the 4 and 3 base systems do, indeed, "have to be" sympathetic. However, in physics they are so more directly, and in maths moreso relatively, without need to be that way rather than any other number-based system. In short, there's 3 rareified and 4 essential "elements" because they pre-existed us, we began being, then we discovered them; not because we thought them into existence.

7) If one were to find the Harmony of the Spheres between the identical properties of the 4 shared between the 13 and 22, then maybe the physical realm disappears as you cross the Fourier Transform back into the realm of Divine Light: ϕ?

yeah, this is just gobbledegook, meaningless free-association using "science" terms. I am constantly being accused of writing this sort of hotchpotch myself, though, so please, do not feel you're in bad company. I would suggest separating your terms ("Harmony of the Spheres" by Kepler, not Pythagoras; neither 13 nor 22 is divisible evenly by 4; a Fourier Transform is an inapplicable term in this context, meaning essentially a specific type of matrix, not the same thing as a "quantum leap" etc.; and "divine light: phi" is just borrowed new age terms mashed up first by Dan Winter), and then seeing which apply to which others and how. As they are used here, these words in this order do not mean what you are using them to mean. I would only say, apply logic further, and leave out the "science" words unless you can plot them as graphs and equations to backup your use of them.

8) What if the experiments have been done with the scientific method that verify M-theory if only M-theory would apply consciousness inside their multi-dimensional framework?

Here, you seem to be implying that, in light of a solipsist point of view, all physics and maths are arbitrary mental constructs useful only to create with, not to know by. I disagree with that premise; I think it's the other way around. First inanimate matter formed, later sentient life evolved. It is like applying "gender" to natural objects without any natural gender, or applying "science" terms to "new age" notions. It is an arbitrary assessment that cannot be either proven or disproven. Thus, it's moot.

9) Without discussing the reality of plasma being a fourth state of matter, are we so sure that light is without multiple stages of materially existing?

Ummm.... I don't really "grok" your concept of "plasma as a fourth state of matter" (only water has three states, not ALL matter). As for "light" having "multiple stages of materially existing," I agree. These occur in different places simultaneously, but all arise from the same basic principle element: spirit, tachyons, ZPE, the "fifth" element, etc. As tachyons (the "greater" light) move faster than photons in vaccum (the "lesser" light), tachyons cause gravity, and gravity causes entropy, or the decay of matter into energy over time. Thus, there's clearly multiple conditions of existence for purely luminous, non-charged radiation particles; if we include VSL on the light-spectrum also, there's a whole range of fields with names from gamma rays through VLFs. Considering each form of particle carrier on this radiation spectrum IS it's own "wavelength," each is a unique "vibration" as well.

10) what would be its other states?

As I am saying, the "other forms" or "other states" of purely neutral charged radiation particles consist of all the wavelengths of the radiation spectrum, including longer, VLF "X-rays" and shorter, VHF "microwaves." Each condition of frequency vibration in this spectrum corresponds not only to a "wavelength over frequency" (the equation for radiative emanation), but to all other "matter" particles of the more solid "elements" in their circumferences. The "peak-to-trough" or "wavelength" of each frequency of radiation thus corresponds in length, size, duration, etc. to some sized particle of more solid elemental matter.

11) what would be its liquid and solid forms?

According to VSL Principle (variable speed of light), the radiation spectrum thus includes the measurements of all matter-energy with mass over all time thus far. It ALSO includes particles, not yet discovered or identified, that travel faster than photons (the "C" in "E=MC^2"); this form of "exotic" light is called "tachyon" particles. Because, as I said before, tachyons are, also, purely theoretical right now, they are, by way of use for proof, essentially moot and generally unrecognised. However, if you like, you could consider "matter" = solid; "radiation" = liquid; and "tachyons" = vapour. This model's a bit too Manichean dualist for me, though.

12) So what, then, would be the solid and liquid forms of light?

You could say, by this criteria, "matter" = "solid;" "photons" = "liquid" (because, under VSL, photons can be slowed down to a stop or sped up faster than their vaccum velocity, "C"); leaving "tachyons" = "evaporation." Matter "coagulates" from tachyons, and tachyons "dissolve" from matter. However, "LIGHT," in this case, refers solely to forms of radiation. Before the first Planck-Time, these were ALL ONE force. Only one Planck-time following the "big bang" did they break into 4 "elemental" force-carrying types.

13) would not stars be the containers of liquid light that evaporates it off into space?

No. "Liquid Light" (in this sense, as "photons") are emitted from stars, but dissipate as they emenate further outward from their source according to the "inverse square law." The fact these photon rays disperse (rather than multiply) as they travel away from their source indicates their distinct difference from tachyons (the "evaporated" form of "Light" / radiation). Tachyons don't "come into being" to fill the gaps between the dispersing photons, so the metaphor of comparing them to "water-ice-gas" breaks down completely. Tachyons are emitted out ahead of photons, but do not, even then, originate from within the photon like photons seem to originate in stars.

14) Then what would the solid form of light be?

Again, by the criteria of this metaphor which, to put a head to it, "fails to hold water," the "solid form of light" would be "matter." However, just as "photons" do not act like a "liquid" in ALL aspects, nor do "tachyons" act like "steam," nor does solid matter act like a "solid form of light" or radiation. Energy does not become matter over time. It is the other way around. Matter breaks down into energy one-way, entropically, and ONLY mentally (the evolution of sentience) does the opposite of this visibly occur in reality. The mind is "neg-entropic" just as matter is entropic. But then, where do you cut and paste "mind" into this horribly faulty model? You would have to call "mind" the "mysterious fourth state of matter," or, as you say, "plasma" (assuming here you mean electron-charged gas nebulae). If "mind" were "plasma" then it would easy enough to prove by astral travelling to a physically distant location and then, mentally only, causing a change to occur there. So far, no such tests have proven any results they predicted. Again, this is because it's a faulty model for reality being superimposed over a more complex reality.

15) Is not this the most up-to-date scientific theory of the ancient mysteries?

No. It is definitely NOT. This model has been around since the cave men. No joke. Excluding even racist jargon about the Dogon or other "primitive" tribespeople, it's a simple matter to sort out how modern "science" has evolved from "ancient mysteries." However, "mysteries" are NOT sancrosanct; they CAN all (some MUST) be solved by science. This is not a matter of blind-folded scientists merely luckily, by chance, succeeding in "pinning the tail on the donkey" of the "ancient mysteries." There is a direct lineage from ancient "theories" to modern "Principles." Ultimately, the TRUE point of view proves NOTHING is permanently ineffable.

16) Is this not what is really happening on natural sacraments?

No, again. "Natural sacrements," ie. drugs, are not exclusive to "natural" or "laboratory" ingestable chemicals. They include the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, even the amount of light we are accustomed to seeing by. All of these effects are external, environmental stimuli triggering interior chemical reactions inside us to yield the result of "perception," which, over time, accumulates into "self-awareness" or "sentience." The evolution of mental accumen is, indeed, "neg-entropic;" this means NOTHING about "Light" or "drugs" or anything like that.

17) Are the voices and ideas that can be experienced from specific neuro-activating chemicals cellular communication between the psilocybin, for instance, and your brain be examples of DNA to DNA communication?

No. Certain natural plants are "neuro-receptor" attractors, meaning their chemical composition combines to, bonds with and forms a mutated version of, our ordinary neuro-transmitter chemicals inside our nervous systems and brains. That is why some plants induce "uppers," others "downers," because of which neuro-transmitter they bond to. Opiates bond to dopamine. Marijuana bonds to seratonin. Hallucinogens bond to both, causing the formation, inside the brain, of mutated secretion of DMT (responsible for all "residual" effects of any / all hallucinogens).

18) Especially with ayahuasca, could the intelligent entities encountered be the intelligence residing in the DNA strands of the natural elements that comprise the brew be communicating their intelligence in the only way that the DNA of the human brain can interpret it?

Ayuascha is a plant that contains naturally occuring DMT. DMT is NOT, itself, a form of sentient biological species; nor should it be mistaken as a medium for communication with any REAL form of other living, bio-sentient entities. It allows the brain to function at a closer to 100% (rather than only ~15%) capacity. By increasing the amount of neuro-transmitters, you increase the amount of chemical-reactions (experienced internally as thoughts) inside the brain (eg. "mind"). The "intelligent entities" you describe are no more "REAL" in a physical, material sense of the word than the phantasms of fore-brain thoughts when viewed from the hind-brain's perspective. These "intelligent entities" are only our OWN shadows on the figurative "cave-wall" of our interior mental cavity.

19) Since every intelligence is evolving to become Abraxas, wouldn’t my higher self, be the same as the higher self for any imprisoned intelligence?

No. Not only is that fatalism, you're essentially endorsing the "collectivist" concept for cloning that, "in the end, we're all one anyway." This doesn't mean, we all add up to the same template's model, nor that we are all "cut from the same cloth" in terms of our chemical or DNA formats. That would be like cracking open an egg and then wondering why you are eating an omlette snack and not a chicken meal. There IS alot more out there, just beyond the borders of your current writing, that would help expand your perspective ALOT. Seek and find.

20) Are not plants still reaching towards the light, although they have a more permanent umbilical cord to our host Plan-It: the Earth, with their roots?

Trees look like our nervous systems, and our nervous systems look like a virus cell, for a specific reason. Before the beginning of life on earth, a comet crashed on our planet containing the alien "viral" cell structure, which then bonded with macro-molecular "trench-microbe" complex carbohydrates to begin assembling DNA. Was this "panspermia" or "interstellar germination"? Nobody knows and, ultimately, it's irrelevant. It would be like asking a wall itself directions to the door cut through it.

21) But yet, especially with the amanita musacaria mushroom, is the out-of-body experience attributable to certain sacraments again - just the imprisoned divine intelligence in that fungal DNA trying to communicate where the common intelligence of divine light desires to return?

No, you're straight tripping. Back these claims up with some chemical reaction computations for titrating out percentage amount across a series of binomial equations, and you'll find (sooner or later, but hopefully sooner) that DNA is not only NOT the only level on which our "sentient" consciousness can fixate to search for the origins or its existence, but it is not even the smallest or largest in the scale.

22) why would it be folly to question if zero exists in nature?

It's shooting your own theory in the foot. You can't apply a NEW "negative" to an OLD "negative" to create a NEW "double-negative" negation of negativity and have it amount to a positive creation or contribution to culture. The concept of "Zero" is a stepping stone, and NOT the "final solution." If, however, you do end up choosing to embrace Zero-based Nihillism, and abandon even self-as-One-based Solipsism, you will have fallen to the "dark side" of lunacy. If you want to plug tab A into something, it is SUPPOSED to go into slot B, not slot A. Go, figure. Combine One AND Zero. THEN negate BOTH.

21) And ask the dead from that mortar round if the equation to kill him wasn’t accurate enough for his Relative view?

Wow. Usually violent metaphors are only used as a last resort for idiots. Consider the common metaphor of an astronaut being "pulled apart into spaghetti" as they slip across the event-horizon of a black-hole, or the even worse metaphor for "realists" involving hitting one's self to disprove the concept of solipsism. These sort of violent images are counter-evolutionary. Anyone who resorts to such is being more of a monkey than a man. Plus, when you take these sort of allegories out of context, they all sound crazy. Like saying, "guns kill people," when really it's people with guns who do that, because a gun is just an inert tool, incapable of using itself.

22) Is this what Pythagoras meant with the Harmony of the Spheres?

Johanens Kepler coined that term in his work "Harmonia Mundi." Pythagoras, to all the best extent of my researches, never developed the same type of theories as later heliocentric enlightenment scientists could. For example, Kepler's "nested Platonic solids" model accounting for the distance between the orbits of the local plants as deriving from a series of ratios determined by putting one Platonic solid inside another, and so forth. But even then, how many planets are there in our solar system vs. how many regular solid polyhedra there are proves the flaw of this notion.

23) Is my definition the simplest to satisfy Occam?

Satisfying the dead is the business of grave-diggers, necromancers and people who molest cadavers. It is not necessary, in my opinion, to quote and attempt to appease the reputations of anyone by name for their theory who went before. Come up with your OWN concepts, and be mad whenever someone tells you your ideas belonged to some long-dead ghost, or to their living schools' adherants. Academia and the rules for "citing sources" evaporate like a ghost at dawn before the light of a well-rounded "Rennaisance Man" or "Jack of All Trades." I can tell you things no one else can tell you, because I have read all of what everyone else has said on all these subjects, and I have elaborated on their theories for myself. THAT is what "free your mind" means; at least to me.

24) would the hardcore INTJ that has never questioned how they would try to explain the concept of Zero to any of the ancient Greeks, especially Pythagoras himself, actually complete the task of questioning everything they believe?

I don't know what an "INTJ" is. Is that an L. Ron Hubbard term from Dianetics and the "Church" of Scientology? It sure sounds like one. LOL! Oh well, I can still say this: read up about Zeno of Elea and his paradox of "infinitely repeating halves." That explains the pre-Socratic view of "zero" better than I possibly could. Might I recommend the book, "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstdater? It's real good.

25) Am I the only person that has thought about how I could counter all of Socrates questions if I tried to inform him of the very concept of zero or nothing?

Considering as how Socrates was a fictional character invented by Plato, I would call "outsmarting" the "logic" of the "Gadfly" highly irrelevant. Kind of like discussing the "true person" of Jesus versus the massive religious edifaces existing today.

26) Or, would they scoff their INTJ skepticism because I would be violating Ayn Rand’s axiom of the ‘is of identity’?

I have read enough Ayn Rand to know better than apply her "axioms" or (failed attempts at) "Objectivity." Her vocabulary was terrible, she was a tool, and never wrote one word that made any sense or was even her own idea. I don't recognise the "is of" identity, per se. But I would definitely say, if someone looks down at you for breaking one of Rand's "axioms," take it as high praise.

27) Is not that the same logic Jehovah defined himself to Moses? Is “I am that I am” or “I am who I am” any different than the Objectivist’s ‘is of identity’ axiom?

Again, I don't recognise the "is of" axiom by that name, but it is similar, in my own vocabulary, to the concept of Rand's "identity" axiom. "A=A" in short. This is kind of like saying, "to start with A=A," then "B" comes along, and next thing you know you have all these little "C's" running around. That's Marxist dialectics, not "Objectivity." Not that Rand ever had a clue about any of what she was saying or the meanings of the words she appropriated. In short, I WOULD agree, Rand's "identity" principle of "A=A" is, superficially, equivalent to the concept of "Sat Chit Sat," or "I am what I am." It's a cop-out mentality, used as an excuse to rationalise crimes ex post facto. It is not a naturally occuring, scientific or mathematical principle. It's Rand on LSD.

28) To this ENTP they are the same, but maybe true to my type I am making a connection others can’t see?

Yeah, but if "others can't see it," but you "can," the word for that is "hallucinating." When you think you're right, but the whole world thinks you're wrong, it's much more likely you're tripping and need to come down for a minute, take a breath, and get some "Objectivity" on your own concepts. Lofty thoughts mean NOTHING if they cannot be useful to your species.

29) How does the ‘is of identity’ differ from ‘I am who I am’ Moses heard?

"A=A" is an equation, the "identity principle" of that which is being that which is, as opposed to the backwards moral excuses of "Jehova" in the OT, such as saying, "I am what I am," or saying "thou shalt not kill," even though "God" kills us all in the end, or saying "I am a jealous God," when in truth no such thing could ever exist. "Jealous God" is like "military intelligence" or a "left handed right turn." It just doesn't relate to materially factual reality at all. It's all a macGuffin to keep us enslaved to ideas origniating outside our own brains. Only by thinking for ourselves can we apply what we learn from others, to free ourselves from their grasp.

30) does either DNA or the human brain meet the definition of any of the 10,000 or so Calabi-Yau spheres?

What's a "Calabi Yau sphere"? I know about "Calabi Yau SHAPES," but these are, quite clearly, not exact spheres by ANY stretch of the imagination. Again, BEWARE of loose use of terms coined by, or attributed to, other people, especially ones still alive. Scientists hate it when people mis-quote them.

31) would that just be coincidental, or proof?

There is no such thing, in simple, entropic, factual, material reality, as EITHER "coincidence" NOR "proof." Final proof (your concept of an all-inclusive "TOE") is not something that can be shared with your whole species during only one lifetime. Likewise, coincidents are just meaningful synchronicities you haven't figured out yet. Jung's concept of an "acausal connecting principle" is a good place to start.

32) Would the odds against chance matter if two of those thousands geometrically define DNA and brains, then the question would be if it was chance that it could have been any other way?

What is true for the 1% is true for the 1%, and what is true for the Other 99% is what is true for the other 99%. Each person's portal view out on reality is unique. No two are the same. So, even if your "theory of everything" catches MY approval, or anyone else's individually, it still amounts to shitting in one hand and wishing in the other. On the one hand, it's wishful thinking to believe you can "change" (or HELP!) the "other" 99% beside yourself. On the other, it's a handful of horseshit to say you can't help the 1% you belong to. What you're descirbing is called, in effect, "serendipity." The 100th monkey effect states when you put 100 monkies in a room with 100 typewriters, eventually one of them will write Shakespeare. Likewise, serendipitously, every day independent researchers in different fields overlap their research on some fine-point or other, and then co-publish papers about it. It doesn't make any difference who, or how many, discover a new fact. It only matters: A) that it IS a fact and, even more importantly, B) all people eventually believe it.

33) Finally is it really wrong to think that the only other dimension that could be perpendicular to all the others is the sense of touch is perpendicular to the outside dimensions?

In Michaelangelo's "Sistine Chapel" ceiling fresco of God touching the hand of Adam, where is the surface-breaking there? Those hands are, both, fake. And, when you touch a painting, you don't FEEL what the painting is depicting with your fingers. You feel only the surface of this superficial art form. The media is a glass wall. Behind it is, partially concealed and partially (accidentally usually) revealed factual reality. But, so long as the "media" remains, the audience is "at right angles" to the ART itself, while the artist hides in a grave like the true Wizard of Oz.

34) Can we be so sure that scent, taste and touch are not other frequencies?

Yes. I have no idea what you mean by "senses" being "frequencies," but I assure you I have sufficient free-will to disagree regardless. Illogical conjectures may SOUND "lofty" if they use "science" wording, but a balloon full of hot air will pop the same way as a balloon full of cold air will when punctured by the needle of insight by another. The "needle" is just the accurate meanings of these terms; held in the hand of someone who knows nothing, it is no threat; but held in the hands of an expert, it can prove deadly.

35) What if they were all just different octaves?

Ever read the book the "Cosmic Octave"? I forget the author. It's about all this too.

36) How many different dimensions is a rose vibrating through?

I have no clue what this is driving at, but my initial response is: "yo mama."

37) Where exactly does the scent of a rose reside?

Between the nostrils receiving the air particles carrying its pollen and the brain.

38) Scent is a common sense for mobile life, can we be so sure that it is not a property of the electro-magnetic spectrum like visible light and audible noise?

At this point, you're talking about smelling colours; you're clearly tripping, friend.

39) Is it the difference between my E and the I of AC’s NTPs that this is about?

I have no clue, but I will recommend, and strongly, you find better written and researched source-material to study than what is available on individual people's sites online. I'll let you in a secret. Nobody online is a real professional scientist, historian or even philosopher. We're all posers, pretending to know it all, while living in our parent's fuckin basements. PS. "E" True (Holy Wood) Story, 4 me. LOL!

40) they, as the introverts, are truly seeking the scientific answers external to them, while I, as the extrovert, am seeking those answers internally?

AHA! Now that's logic, as the Mad Hatter told Alice. Curious reasoning = perked up ears. This COULD be true; for that matter it fairly reeks of veracity. However, it's a personal conjecture about yourself, so as titilating as it may be to touch upon, this, too, is ultimately moot and irrelevant. I will tell you, though, what everyone is always telling me too: "you need to find a way to get unstuck from being in your own head." Personally, I just think even deeper when they use that kind of reverse-psych on me. But then, I am "insane" already by the standards of my own modern society.

41) is there a better gnostic interpretation of the divine spark imprisoned in a material world?

Yeah. It's called ALL of the NT "Gnostic" Apocrypha. Zostrianus and Mani discussed these issues in depth, before being excommunicated by the early Church fathers.

42) Can an INT design a scientific study to test this because I will get bored with the details and move on to the next idea as a typical ENTP fault?

Huh? Sorry, I got bored, too. Moving right along....

(cont. in next post)