satan is an agent of god (original) (raw)
satan is an agent of god [Most Recent Entries][Calendar View] [Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded inyour belief system contains fatal contradictions' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Sunday, August 24th, 2008 | |
|---|---|
| _1:57 pm_[teamnoir] |
gender legality Aside from the traditional methods of dna contribution towards procreation, is there really any reason why the government needs to know my gender? I mean, does it really show up in the law to speak of? (4 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Sunday, December 9th, 2007 | |
| _10:13 am_[freedomainradio] |
Have you checked out this philosophy podcast yet? Have you had a chance to listen to Freedomain Radio yet? It's a wildly stimulating and entertaining podcast on philosophy, the most popular on the web...http://www.freedomainradio.comThe feed is: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioEnjoy!Stefan Molyneux, MAHost (Comment on this) |
| Saturday, December 1st, 2007 | |
| _1:54 am_[seraphempyre] |
Masculist rant against feminazism Ah, I feel in the mood for a rant.Feminazis. You know, the types that are all for feminism, meaning, in their view on things: The support and advancement of women, but, in the mean time, the degradation of men.The type that denies that women are limited to stereotypical roles, but that generalize all men in the same category. The one that says women, or more specifically they themselves, are great, because they are a woman, but assert that all men are weak, inattentive, crude, sexist, unreliable, etc., ie inferior bastards.Yes, sometimes they are joking. But it´s often not that ironically meant, ironically.If only it got through their thick skulls.Women and their logic. Oh, right... they don´t have logic... ;)Also, what is feminism when the women take on all the supposed negative traits of men and actually start imitating/emulating men. Isn´t feminism about being proud of being a woman and not considering one sex as inferior to the other? Be proud of differences, even if you deviate from being different. Be proud of yourselves. Or do I really have a skewed sense of feminism and is it actually that bad a movement?If you support women, but at the same time degrade men, you have no sense what was the original motivation and essence of feminism or the equality movement.Seraphempyre, post-feminist masculist. ;)PS: And remember, I always like this argument, we men let you women gain power: We had the (physical) strength, the weapons, the (political) positions, etc. But we let you women gain advantage. So, be fucking grateful instead of being ingrates. ;)(X-posted in a few communities and my own journal.) (14 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, July 25th, 2007 | |
| _9:14 pm_[crowdrevolt] |
the Golden Mean "The concept of Aristotle's theory of golden mean is represented in his work called Nicomachean Ethics, in which Aristotle explains the origin, nature and development of virtues which are essential for achieving the ultimate goal, happiness (Greek: eudaimonia), which must be desired for itself. It must not be confused with carnal or material pleasures, although there are many people who consider this to be real happiness, since they are the most basic form of pleasures. It is a way of life that enables us to live in accordance with our nature, to improve our character, to better deal with the inevitable hardships of life and to strive for the good of the whole, not just of the individual..."Read more here:http://anus.com/zine/articles/draugdur/golden_mean/ (Comment on this) |
| Monday, June 18th, 2007 | |
| _8:46 pm_[crowdrevolt] |
Fuck Christ They're everywhere. At the highest reaches of industry, government, law, science, and academics. They literally control the earth. Does this mean we should respect them? We have only to look at their rule so far. In a time of a polluted earth, massive capitalist enslavement worldwide, a war on drugs and free thought, and a push to destroy culture for corporate profit, we can see how much worse a Judeo-Christian future will be.The Judeo-Christians claim they are moral forces in politics, but their morality is despite nice appearances threatening from its passive aggression. The younger generations have seen the blowout of the media blitz and won't believe anything from the media because they know we've been fed lies. People have given up finding a cause. But if we read history, we can trace the beginnings of this current form of brain-slavery to the rise of a Middle Eastern religious and political movement we now know as:JUDEO-CHRISTIANITYRead more: http://fuckchrist.com/ (2 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Friday, December 15th, 2006 | |
| _3:25 pm_[teamnoir] |
Do you value acquaintanceships? Why or why not? (1 Comment |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, December 13th, 2006 | |
| _5:46 pm_[mostconducive] |
Subjectivity and Profundity Objectivity without a predicate nor a coefficient is what I mean by 'pure objectivity.' It is hard to imagine objectivity without the one imagining it, but that is precisely what objectivity is, independent of the subject. Such a conception of objectivity is, self-referentially, a conception still, but the concept's abstraction gives it the power to transcend finite concepts, just as the concept of the infinite does. In this same way, the infinite as a concept transcends its own status as a concept, since it is defined as that which overflows definition. Therefore, though pure objectivity (superjectivity or surjectivity) cannot be pinned down (yet pure subjectivity is the epitome of pinning down since I have defined it as the Infinitesimal), it yet can be known by the concept "Profundity," the source of all meaning and value, or the absolute value of value, or the absolute of value, or the value of the absolute.So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one. (Comment on this) |
| Thursday, November 23rd, 2006 | |
| _10:48 am_[mostconducive] |
The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that? Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself. The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation. (10 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Tuesday, November 21st, 2006 | |
| _11:12 am_[mostconducive] |
The Infinite and the Infinitesimal are the so-called Zero and One Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite. Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it. The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.Thanks a lot,Randy Dible (2 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Sunday, November 12th, 2006 | |
| _12:21 am_[mostconducive] |
Abstr-Activate! Act-ually, the subject of this post is subjectivity. The point of the post is the infinitesimal point, not an infinitesimal, as if there were another, but that the true infinitesimal, like the absolute infinite of infinity before it, is singular. If it is presumed to be in plurality, it would be a multiplicity of units, whose unicity is merely one abstraction removed from its reality as unicity itself.To quote M. Lambert, "There can be only one." I refer to being-in-itself. Being-in-itself is the self-presentation of the Absolute, or the Absolute self-presentation. But I identify the self with the presence of this being. So to avoid misleading redundancy, let us distinguish being it from seeing it. To see it would posit two infinitesimals, the point signified and the signifier as a "point of consciousness" and so it (seeing it, that relation) wouldn't be dimensionless, it would be precisely the first dimension, that seeing it is its first extension. I am paraphrasing George Spencer-Brown whose "Laws of Form" reified the "First Distinction," as he goes into it "seeing being seeing being seeing being seeing being" (our dimension of time emerging with our material realm at the fifth crossing of the distinction) in the Esalen Institute conference of 1973 (transcripts at lawsofform.org) that Alan Watts organized with Heinz von Foerster and John Lilly, Gregory Bateson in attendance with "distinguished others." Are you prepared to accept my definition of dimensions?Having established the point, don't ask me that one, I'd love to get into it, actually I live for it, and it enlivens me (I consider it intellectual samadhi), but don't use the rhetorical form, the critical "what is the point of this?" colloquial idiocy. The point is established, I consider it pen-ultimate reality. Tangentiality may ensue, and re-entry obviates.The Absolute Infinite is ultimate reality. The finite continuum of subjective experience (actually subjective-objective) is included in the Absolute Infinite, which is to say Infinity contains the finite, but is only obvious in the void state, only obviates in Nirvana (a negative term), the non-relative void, as if there could be nothing, as if there could be everything. Oblivious to ultimate reality, which is always already even more than ever present, we can return to it by concepts such as the Infinite, with mathematical precision. George Cantor went mad with it!What are the consequences of this? Nothing (which there cannnot be) or (nor?) non-being connot be (definitely) save Infinity. To distinguish the formless Infinity, it's Absolute Value is taken for the Absolute Infinite, the Superject.Are you prepared to note that the Absolute Infinite is God!? I am, it means the meaning of meaning to me, I call it profundity, the infinity of consciousness whose nature is exceedence, ungraspable.Are you ready for my definition of the Spirit which animates us? It is the Infinitesimal, pure self-reference, difference itself, transcendental subjectivity.God is Love (Unconditional being the only condition!), and the Spirit is Life itself, pure self-reference.Thats what I call a "completed metaphysical system." Attack! (Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, August 30th, 2006 | |
| _6:26 pm_[tentacularone] |
So I started an interesting discussion with  kvschwartz today about music. Namely, whether or not pop/rock/non"classical" music has artistic validity and high enough quality musicianship to stand the test of time. I left work, so we didn't get to finish the debate yet. But I'm curious to hear some more perspectives; I know several of my friends have strong opinions about music.( My PositionCollapse ) Discuss. x posted to  thinkersCurrent Mood:  bouncy (Comment on this) |
| Monday, May 1st, 2006 | |
| _9:35 am_[joyandthunder] |
a quick thought... if i support string theory (for now) does it make me a rationalist? (6 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 | |
| _4:36 pm_[teamnoir] |
Arguing vs Discussing What's the difference between arguing and discussing? How does one distinguish between the two? (6 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Friday, March 10th, 2006 | |
| _9:39 pm_[muf_diver] | IF you Were an Ant I'll start by saying I don't believe in God or have any time for any religion based in any way upon a book.However if you were an ant quietly going about your business and then you were trodden on and killed what would the other ants think That you were evil and god killed you or that the fickle finger of fate had picked on you. Would they try sacrifices to god to save them or make up myths about good ants who lived good lives and when to heaven.Would they ever realize how totally oblivious to there plight the man with the shoe really was. I look upon The God as the man with the shoe.PS Whats in Heaven and would I like to live there? (1 Comment |Comment on this) |
| Monday, December 5th, 2005 | |
| _5:05 pm_[evergreen_queen] | are you pro-satanic? just asking. (7 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Sunday, August 21st, 2005 | |
| _10:53 am_[teamnoir] |
Institutions vs -isms (opinions solicited) I’m playing with a concept and I’m not sure how I feel about it. So I’d like to hear a variety of opinions. ( Read more...Collapse ) (6 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Sunday, June 19th, 2005 | |
| _8:56 pm_[wmblair] |
ideas can neither be created nor destroyed if the laws of thermodynamicsapplied to human thoughts [or ideas],ideas could not be created or destroyedjust altered, bonded and moved around.in a closed system of ideas,entropy would increase over time.I understand the laws of thermodynamics are among the most iron-clad rules of physics governing the whole universe. So I have two questions: 1) Is it a worthwhile question to ask if ideas are subject to the laws of thermodynamics? (is it essentially unanswerable?)(or is it just at stupid time-waster like "did Adam and Eve have navels?")2) Are ideas subject to the laws of thermodynamics? Current Mood: first time poster (21 Comments |Comment on this) |
| Saturday, June 4th, 2005 | |
| _2:59 pm_[mostconducive] |
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/v/vonmeierk/3-02SHA.html Dimensions comprehend known objects, contain distinctions, and hence are not attributes of known objects, but of the knowing subject. I connect dimensions with Whitehead’s subjective forms.Space-time continuums are simply connected frames of reference (connected to an ontological theory of reference wherein the first distinction is pure subjectivity, self-reference), notions of contents (programming objects, objects of consciousness) are connected by the logical inference (by George!) of the all-comprehending frame (polycontexturality) and hence constitute logical domains, which is precisely what Gotthard Gunther meant by introducing the term “contexture” in his thesis of “polycontexturality” as abstract life, pure subjectivity. So continuums are contextures (logical domains) because all connection is governed by the “laws of frame,” the same “Laws of Form” calculi (in fact, George Spencer-Brown calls the frame the “unmarked cross,” which is found to be in the unmarked state, if we objectify our subjectivity (and hence reify or un-reify depending on one’s reality thesis).). Having connected continuums and contextures in that context (as it is in my intuition), we can move on to more peculiar attributes of space and time.Time, in the most fundamental sense, is not only the fourth dimension with which we are familiarThe Epochal Theory of Time (James and Whitehead) may be a thesis working on an intuition that temporal consensus (in Whitehead’s case, of subjective forms) is specific to one’s “cosmic epoch.” Having stated that time is not only the familiar fourth dimension of our experience, we can ask “what else?” I suggest, first of all, that time is the highest dimension of experience, since it is where consciousness runs along rather than through. In a two-dimensional space, as events pass, so pass planes of construction. In a one-dimensional space, events discard previous states of lines, throughout the motion of points and segments. George Spencer-Brown’s less-exclusive definition of time is “a one-way blindness” in reference to a less-exclusive “sight,” which is more fundamental than our familiar vision. In this sense of sight, I call formless subjectivity “sight without light,” an infinitesimal point of reference, self-indicating, but abstracted from the forms it traces in every act of drawing distinctions. We Take as Givenby George Spencer-BrownWe take as givenThe idea of a distinctionAnd that one cannotMake an indicationWithout drawing a distinction.We take therefore The form of distinctionFor the form.The form we take to ExistArises from Framing Nothing.The idea] consists in seeing the universe as a language, a script. But it is a language in unending movement and change: each sentence breeds another sentence, each says something which is always different and yet says the same thing....The metaphor which consists in seeing the universe as a book is very ancient and appears also in the last canto of Dante's Paradise...In that abyss I saw how love held bound Into one volume all the leaves whose flight Is scattered through the universe around; How substance, accident and mode unite Fused, so to speak, together, in such wise That this I tell of is one simple light. The pluralities of the world--leaves blown here and there--come to rest together in the sacred book; substance and accident in the end are joined. Everything is a reflection of that unity, not excluding the words of the poet who names it. In the next tercet, the union of substance and accident is presented as a knot, and this knot is the universal form enclosing all forms. This knot is the hieroglyph of divine love.[Paz, Children, pp. 71, 75. This famous phrase we have referred to above: as Dante says in Canto XXXIII, 91: La forma universal di questo nodo...("The universal form of this knot..." or less precisely, "The form that knits the whole world....").]THE FIFTH CROSSINGJames Keys, poet, polymath, and alter ego of the mathematician G. Spencer Brown, in a profound footnote, rehearses the process of this--or any other--general program of Creation. He counts with technical precision the steps from the Void; but to follow his count it is essential to distinguish between cardinal and ordinal numbers--and this awareness has become very muddled by popular misconstructions and by the inattention of educators. In one part of his extensive comments, Keys outlines a rectification of the conventional archetypal sequence while he associates the formal, mathematical states with certain historical and cultural symbolic representations of them, as in with Buddha-states of the Tibetan cosmogony, or the Persons of the Trinity in Christian tradition.The story of creation can of course be protracted indefinitely. To cut a long story short, it turns out that there are five orders (or "levels") of eternity, four of which are existent (although not of course materially existent, this comes later) and one which is non-existent.The non-existent order is of course the inmost, the one the Greeks called the Empyrean. In the mathematics of the eternal structure the five orders are plainly distinguishable, and it is a fact of some interest that the early Greek explorers, who were not so well equipped mathematically as we are today, nevertheless confirmed, from observation alone, that the number of eternal regions or "heavens" stands at five.At the next level, travelling outwards from within, an extraordinary thing happens. As we come into the sixth level (i.e. the fifth order [Order number Five], recollecting that the first level is of order zero) by crossing the fifth "veil"--mathematically speaking a "veil" is crossed when we devise an "outer" structure that embodies the "rules" of the structure next within--when we cross this fifth veil, a strange thing happens. We find that we cannot in fact cross it (i.e. it is mathematically impossible to do so) without creating time.The time we create first, like the first space [given the cardinal number One], is much more primitive and less differentiated than what we know in physical existence. The time we set our watches by is actually the third time. The first time is much less sophisticated. Just as the regions of the first space have no size, so the intervals of the first time have no duration. This doesn't mean, as it might suggest in physical time, that the intervals are very short, so short that they vanish. It means simply that they are neither short nor long, because duration is not yet a quality that has been introduced into the system. For the same reason, all the heavenly states, although plainly distinguishable from one another, are in reality neither large nor small, neither close together nor far apart.Everything reflects in everything else, and the peculiar and fundamental property of the fifth order of being reflects itself all over the universe, both at the physical and metaphysical levels. An interesting reflexion of it in mathematics is the fact that equations up to and including the fourth degree can be solved with algebraic formulae. Beyond this a runaway condition takes over making it impossible to produce a formula to solve equations of the fifth or higher degrees. A similar "runaway" condition applies, as we shall see in a moment, when we cross the fifth "veil" outwards into the first time.It requires only a moment's consideration to see that what we call time is in fact a one-way blindness, the blind side being called "the future." Once we proceed into any time, no matter how primitive, we come out of heaven, i.e. out of eternity, out of the region where there is no blindness and where, therefore, in any part of it, we can still see the whole. And as we proceed further and further out into each successive and less primitive time and space, our blindness at each crossing is recompounded. It is thus easy to come out, hard to find one's way back in.[James Keys, Only Two Can Play This Game, Julian Press, New York (1972), footnote No. 1, pp. 123 ff.]Although the world of AI (artificial intelligence) and the theoretical branch of computer design in general have been slow to grasp it, this grand iconic image offers a potentially rewarding tool and perhaps a clue for solving some of the complexities of parallel programming. In new models, simultaneous (parallel) processing transcends lineal tree logic, yet in designs for new-genereation supercomputers the requirements of physical proximity are increasingly difficult to tolerate as constraints on the speed of information processing. The key lies in our understanding the architecture of heaven, or eternity. The necessary arrangement of the heavenly or eternal realms (with a paradigmatic five-steps-from-the-void) can indeed be seen, but not while retaining our conventional attachments to habitual vision of the sort we find so useful in the everyday world. Given the special meanings of formal language, we might say of this empyrean exercise:...to experience the world clearly, we must abandon existence to truth, truth to indication, indication to form, and form to void.If we distinguish anything at all, then "all this"--including in the end the physical universe--is how it must eventually appear. In short, what I prove is that all universes, whatever their contents, are constructed according to the same formal principles.[G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, p. 101. Keys, Only Two Can Play This Game, p. 110.]These principles can be illustrated by the formal steps that must be taken ("all-at-once") in the orders of creation. This structurecorresponds to the void, the form, the axioms which see the form...Then you get the arithmetic, which is seeing what becomes of the axioms. And then you be it to do it, and in being it and doing it you find that, being and doing, you see the generalities of it, and that is the algebra. And while you are seeing you notice you have got equations...and suddenly you decide: "Aha! Supposing what it equals goes back into what it comes from?" Now you have generated time and matter all at once. There can be no matter without time. Time and matter come simultaneously. But this is the first matter in which the orders are counted, and it's called the "crystalline heaven," but it is not, really, a heaven.In the construction of matter, all that happens is that we create the temporal and the material together by imagining that the outside feeds back into the inside. We then have a succession of marked and unmarked states generated by an oscillator function...Once you are in time, everything is a vibration.[Keys, AUM Conference Transcript, pp. 96, 104, 106, 108.]In the context of some brief reviews, James Keys drew parallels between these formal states or relationships and various literary, religious and artistic expressions, including Dante, the Gospel accord-ing to Thomas, and the author of The Divine Names, Dionysius the Areopagite, the Early Christian mystic to whom (mistakenly) St. Denis, the first Gothic church in the Ile-de-France was dedicated in 1144.The secret sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, many of them so much deeper and stronger than what we find in the canonical gospels as to make it a different order of book. For example, it says much more clearly (gives an exact recipe, in fact) what you actually have to do to enter eternity. [In The Divine Names] the parallel accounts of the emergence of time, i.e. the statements of what we have to do to construct an element that doesn't exist in any of the five orders of eternity. We attempt to recount, in other words, what are the essential magic spells for creating a temporal existence, just as books such as the Gospel of Thomas aim to give the essential magic whereby these spells may be reversed.[Keys, Only Two Can Play This Game, pp. 104, 108.]In this order of complexity, this space we enter following the fifth crossing from the void, we discover--we are for the first time able to imagine--those entities commonly called numbers. They exist in what has been called the crystalline heaven, which is Order number Five (counting from the void as "zero"); that order is:with the first time...what is called the astral plane in magic. It is the last of the material existences. Its structure is transparent and crystalline. In the middle ages it was projected out and called the crystalline heaven, although it is not, technically, an eternal region. It is where the eternal regions are first plotted and counted, for there are no numbers in eternity itself. You cannot count without time. When we proceed from here into the heavens themselves, we lose all numbers in a blinding flash as we return through the fifth veil into the outer heaven. From here on, if we are to survey what we see mathematically, we have to use Boolean elements, which are not numerical.[Numbers] nevertheless, do exist. But not in the physical universe...Common arithmetic for university purposes, which for a less vulgar name is called the Theory of Numbers, one of the most beautiful sciences in all of mathematics, is the science of the individuality of numbers. A number theorist knows each number in its individuality. He knows about the relationships it forms, and so on, as an individual, as a constant. An algebraist is not interested in the individuality of numbers; he is interested in the generality of numbers. He is more interested in the sociology of numbers...he is not interested in individuals at all.[Keys, Only Two, p. 134 f.; AUM Conference transcript, pp. 43, 45.]Previously we sought to provide a link to certain basic information about number with our reference to Warren Sturgis McCulloch's essay "What Is a Number, that a Man May Know It, and a Man, that He May Know a Number?" Here, we justify our methodological use of number by telling where we may find a number and how to count it, literally, digitally. In one of the easiest ways to demonstrate this count:Hold the palm of one hand in front of your face.With the index finger of the other hand, count off the states or orders of eternity, beginning with your thumb.Call the thumb, "Order Zero" (though it is the FIRST counted!)Count the gap (or "valley") between the thumb and the adjacent index finger stands for the first crossing.Call the index finger "Order One," which stands for the Form.Then count the next interdigital gap as the second crossing.Call middle finger "Order Two," the Axioms.Then count the next gap as the third crossing.Call the ring finger "Order Three," the Arithmetic.Then count the next gap as the fourth crossing.Call the little finger "Order Four," the Primary Algebra.THEN count the fifth crossing, which, you see, is different from all the others, and not a gap or a valley at all because you can go past the wrist, all the way around the palm of your hand and return to your thumb. In the next state after the fifth crossing, "Order Five," the Algebra may contain equations of the second degree. (1 Comment |Comment on this) |
| Wednesday, June 1st, 2005 | |
| _10:14 am_[mostconducive] |
from http://www.oikos.org/vonquest.htm Hello new thought community, a letter to some one famous, from me, corss-posted from my journal, it makes a good introduction. I'm into transdisciplinary study. My method is basically the internet for bits, but I get most of my data from very certain books, from very specific authorities. But I'm no expert, merely a student and my school is that of Life as Subejctivity a la Gotthard Gunther. Do respond, I need more weird friends. Thank yous.Randolph Dible, San Diego, California, USADear von Glasersfeld,I'm happy to talk to you. In A. N. Whitehead's "Process and Reality" there is a distinctly unsettling intuition of a 'completed metaphysical system' neigh. I agreed and intuitively formulated my best guess. The result I call the 'Calculus of the Present' and it is composed of the parameter Subjectivity and the axiom Profundity-as-objectivity. Subjectivity follows from G. Gunther's school of 'Polycontexturality', and Profundity is my best translation of the compliment, 'polycontenturality.' My contention is that the Proemial Relation is ever-present in our given experiences, as intercoherent form and value, or form and content, or content and context, whichever terminology best applies. I boldly declare my calculus in the spirit of George Spencer-Brown, who I speak with over the telephone sometimes, as he is also easy to communicate with. One of his stories was about how difficult it was for him to get the nerve up to contact Bertrand Russell. So now I'm telling Ernst von Glasersfeld about my completed metaphysical system, about the model of Love and Life about the ontological first distinction! Some nerve!The implications are staggering, I think, but I'm no expert. So I wanted to run it by you and see what you think. I've also correlated Whitehead's system to dimensions and distinctions, if you know what I mean.Thanks,Randy (Comment on this) |
| Friday, April 29th, 2005 | |
| _11:07 pm_[ohsweetnothin] |
i'm so rushed, and i feel so squeezed and yeah, i'm not used to this. I'm going to get up at 10am for work, and I dont have to be there until 2pm. I want at least an hour to myself to wake my body up, I can't anymore. In the morning, it takes me time to exist, because I have little to work with right now anyway. I feel thin, spread over everyone like butter. I am not used to this, I am not used to this... i'm going to smoke a few bowls, play some piano, drink tea and a cig nightcap, and fall asleep. no one home for days... 2 days i'll have my husband here, it's cold and dark in here he needs to keep the blankets off my windows. (2 Comments |Comment on this) |
[ << Previous 20 ]