Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

A Different View Of Material World

A Different View Of Material World
February 02, 2013, 09:25:33 PM
I invite all the hard reading guys of here to try and decipher this, which I just today attempted to translate from spanish, there are some things that got lost on translation but 90% of it is enjoyable  and there may be some small errors but I'll review it later. I just have to warn not to take anything there as the first impression that comes, rather interpret it in ways that can be experimental and symbolic also, although much of it is technical. There are some concepts, like "psychoid archetype" that have to be understood also. but necessarily so: I've read this text for years without a firms grasp on its concepts initially but gradually gained new understanding throughout the years. Some things I still struggle to grasp fully. Well, here it is. Don't take it too seriously, I mean, take it seriously enough but this is actually fragments of a book that mentions this physics theory, which as the text informs has its own book about it by same author, hidden book, no-one has it but a few, so I read on the net.

I may well in the future conclude that this is too far out, but maybe not.

http://sociedadeinformativa.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/fisica.pdf
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 03, 2013, 04:22:13 PM
Perhaps this is good work from within the context of Gnosticism, but it seems to be a litany of interpretations, with little Truth.  Is this Matter not the body of God?  Surely the real gnostic would be the first to say that there is no division, that all is all and that is that?  I believe that one could not be considered to "know" (to have achieved gnosis) before recognising the Self.  In doing so, it becomes nonsensical to talk about "Creator" apart from "Creation"; what divides the two?

This appears simply to be ruminations from within a certain system, rather than anything of objective worth (not that it couldn't be of use to many).  The second he starts talking about how the "Creator" might "modify teleologically his Plan", it becomes clear that this author has absolutely no understanding of what such a "Creator" must be in order to be the "Creator".  The Plan is not altered; if the Plan were to be altered, that would have been the fucking Plan!

He also shows a lack of understanding of the Identity of Indiscernibles, which is not necessarily saying "God didn't make two identical things" (that's Leibniz's conjecture), but is simply saying that any two things with equal attributes in all respects are the same thing.  This cannot be disputed; if all intrinsic and extrinsic qualities are the same between what are seen to be two obects, they cannot be two objects, but must be one, though it may appear to rest apart from itself in whatever way (sensation is an odd thing, and prone to hallucinations).  So, then, it is not that an archetypal quantum was never repeated, but that any instance of such an archetypal quantum is actually exactly the same as any other; this ties in with "quantum entanglement", whereby, given that all matter was once contained within an unextended point (a singularity), all matter is principally entangled, effectively being multiple renditions of one thing (the quantum).  Criticisms to Big Bang theory notwithstanding, there is nothing within contemporary physics which can't be reconciled with the simplest (and, thus, most eloquent) metaphysics: tat tvam asi, "that thou art".  Everything is "I", in essence; anything else is circumstantial.

This "Gnostic" is too influenced by a bastardised Christianity to see beyond his own conceptual confines.  Why does he hold this world to be fundamentally one of conflict, and not of reconciliation?  Either view is supported by reality as it is.  I have seen the eyes in all things (upon shutting my own, there is always one before my "vision"), I have made friends with whatever entities might be dredged out of reality (and there are many demons and devils in the human mind, though none wishes ill of itself), and I am continuously aware of this "living cosmos" as being the organic, conscious entity described by the author: none of this is terrible, or horrifying, or anything of the sort, because none of it is any other than "I".  Why should I fear to see myself watching myself?  Rather, I experienced an immense joy, to know that all around me was well aware of me, as I had become aware of it.  Indeed, the greatest wonders arise when one communes with the World, rather than "fighting" against it, as this strange man seems to suggest is the way to go.  There is absolutely no danger in interfacing with oneself unless one believes there to be danger in doing so!  This man shoots himself in the foot and begs that we follow him.

The part on levitation was interesting, and I wonder how much his ontology is designed to facilitate the notion that such a thing is physically possible (which I don't deny, since it can't be falsified).  Even so, there are much simpler explanations: there is, in reality, no division between this body and that, nor any division between thought and matter, intention and substance; feeling this, one becomes as Christ, or Buddha, and it can be a perfectly normal thing to manipulate one's own or another body in whatever way.

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 03, 2013, 09:30:07 PM
I should have known you were the only guy who would read through all of this and comment

Cargest You take the "The Matrix 1" and expand it to Reloaded and Revolutions, where a reconciling view of humans and "machines" is presented  :P

But The Matrix 1, the Manichaean, needed to have been made this way in order to achieve such success. Only the reconciling view between you, me and this author is the following: This is a poorly made translation (in need of revision) of some 80% of a collection of fragments taken from two books from the author (whose work has more than 1000 pages). The rest of the fragments consist of a letter to a friend which I did not put in. This is a selection by another person which I just translated, focused on the physics part but, as it is shown, there is a whole other book just about the physics.

Perhaps it is precisely you worrying about it being conflicted or separated that is blocking you from assimilating the true purpose of the writing.

If you think about it, if everything truly is as you presented, your distinction of "duality" and "non-duality" (you did not use those words but that's what you mean right) would ALSO be ultimately irrelevant.

What he tries to do is discourage the person from projecting all of his self to what the buddhists would call the samsaric world, get away of the smoke and mirrors. Only something with polarity can shake things up in the person's mind and avoid too much blissful inebriation. (not that I'm an example of a warrior. I just read the stuff)

If you're interested, search for "Gnostic Fragments" "nimrod de rosario" and read more gnostic fragments, with better translation. So I can only say things are talked more in the books, one of which is a novel advised to continually be read, so: It is experimental and transformative, thus the "polarity" of it is not to be surprised. Also Nigredo of alchemy or whatever (this is total pseudo-shit: I know nothing of alchemy, but it gets tossed around so much I'd say this negativity has to do with the necessary nigredo of alchemy).

That said I think I kinda agree with you and I keep being drawn to the writings of this man. Maybe he has had some kind of technological vision on which was necessary a work that did not stagnate like other religions, but went always against the created so as to always lead the one to purity.

Read the gnostic fragments. Thanks for your comments, hope you like my answer. I am not a follower of anything, but this seems like special knowledge. I've been reading this specific text for like 2 years almost and interpretations change...
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 04, 2013, 03:01:41 AM
Truth is, there is nothing to write about, and nothing to say, because everything is what everything is.
Only the human, with his mind that believes it is he, separates itself from everything else.
Observing versus knowing. Judging versus being. Thinking versus not-thinking.
This is why all philosophy is a dud.
If it takes that long to describe it, it can not be real.
Damn, I wrote too much...
Squawk!

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 04, 2013, 05:38:21 AM
It's like shit: You're not shit, right? You separate yourself from shit, or don't? You chant oneness rhymes to your shit and embrace it? Do you eat it? Being disgusted by the world, cursing it etc. has no bearing upon oneness. This oneness is so one, that it is also separate at the same time.

But you CAN embrace your shit, in fact I'm fairly certain some crazy oneness practices involve it. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just showing you both sides.

About crow: I value his comments, they are needed, this kind of comment. But I'm quite certain he never reads anything too long, he just makes his comments.  :P
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 04, 2013, 07:21:00 AM
Haha :)
You are right.
Sorry, I didn't read the link.
I comment less and less, too.
It could be worse.
Squawk!

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 04, 2013, 07:46:42 PM
Actually instead of the gnostic fragments, you'd better read this Cargést: http://theforbiddenreligion.com  But you to keep in mind it is ALL symbolic... addressed directly to the spirit. If you read it knowing it is to be interpreted symbolically, to let it act, then you'll see what it's all about. Not that I know.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: A Different View Of Material World
February 05, 2013, 04:02:49 AM
I've raised a number of issues with that text with indjaseemun, and will say here only that I agree with Crow: too many words.  Reality is far more simple than all this talk of creators and creations, though the ideas paint lovely stories for us to enjoy.