The Book of Lucifer

Oh Heaven!

2011-08-25T16:35:00.004Z

Parallel dimensions

2011-08-25T10:25:00.008Z

"We're in a parallel dimension, lost in the spiritual, chained to the physical". These are only the lyrics to a dance tune that I stumbled across recently but behind these lyrics I can hear the spirit world crying out! I'll post a link to the tune as a comment to this article so you can get yourself into the swing of things, as they should be, rather than as they actually are, but before that I want to write a small piece in relating about the reality of our world. We are indeed living in a parallel dimension, one of many, and we will, each of us, actually exist in a great many of those great many parallel dimensions. Some may consider it to be very sinister in the belief that this is not "the real world" and there is little I can say in comfort to those people except to say that whilst this is not 'the first world' and the basis of creation, it is nonetheless real; just not as real perhaps as one would like it to be. It has been suggested in wisdom of old, I understand that it was Hermetic wisdom, that there is more than one history to the world, and in knowledge one will find that this is an undeniable truth. So is it true that there is more than one future, and further that such futures have already happened. Not an easy one to digest is it?! Time as we understand it is illusionary in its nature and whilst I don't wish to harp on we really do live in a universe that exists in a time scale 0 to 0. Every single parallel dimension in existence, including this one, has already existed from beginning to end. The multi-verse as it has been described is not, however, completely determined just because it has already happened, in fact it is the way it is because it has not been determined! We are, or should be in any decent society, free in the choices that we make, and by making ourselves more conscious of ourselves and our environment(s) we are able to change and recreate our world into something better, or as some would have it, something worse. The psychologist Carl Jung once, apparently half jokingly, alluded to the fact that time in the universe was like a picture book, and I am able to go one better than that. Time is actually like a video recording; untold amounts of static pictures strung together at very high speed giving the effect of motion in time. One of the differences with this video is that it contains different images when viewed in different ways. What I mean to say is that each different video within a video can be viewed when the 'brain' is locked into the appropriate frequency. Magic is a way of changing ones frequency. I'm not saying any of this for the hell of it. The reason it is important to have knowledge of these things is so that one can empower themselves and try to bring to a conclusion to some of the ills in the dimension in which we are conscious caused in part by interference from other dimensions on very similar frequencies, in the same way that we way are interfering with other frequencies with the tension in this dimension. It is by bringing ones angel (spirit) down to earth that we will find remedy in this type of predicament for it is ones spirit that is conscious of all dimensions in the nature of consciousness and ability that such a spirit has. In good spirits one will always know what to do for the greatest good!

Names...

2011-08-24T10:33:00.012Z

What is in a name? Everything that has been looked upon and even those things which lie invisible beyond our vision have been given names. Whilst language is plentiful amongst people of the world it is reasonable to to say that there are less meanings in words than there are explicit definitions. By this I man to say that there are groups of words that have the same truth beyond there given dictionary definition. When one gives a name to a person, or object, if one is working with intelligence, then at such a time one is working through an "association of ideas", either consciously or unconsciously, the difference between the two in this instance being not very significant in the product of such a deliberation as choosing a name. I have already given a description of the mechanics of synchronicity and indicated that there is a process in synchronisation at work when one gives a name to something and then gives a similar/same name name to something else. In so doing we are proving a connection between the two (or more!) people/places/objects/events. As much as one knows the object/instance that has been named one builds a profile of that object/instance and such a profile may have a more conscious or subconscious basis. In knowing the object/instance and building such a profile a 'morphic field' is added too, such a field being accessible to any and all beings who stimulate such a field into action when either observing, thinking about, or speaking about the object/instance so named. I say the morphic field is "added too" because in fact such a field is pre-existing and literally acts in influencing and object/instance being named in such a manner that it has been in the first place. Although the link between objects/instances that have been named in the same/similar fashion may appear to be tenuous, there is a contagion of ideas linking the two (or more) objects/instances which may have either a positive or negative connotation, and if it isn't negative it is positive. Such a connotation affects ones thought processes and instincts and therefore has a bearing on material events. One is not hesitant to add that the link which may be established between two or more objects/instances may not be entirely evident in the explicit definition of the words, but that the link may be a more subtle truth. Even words linked to different objects/instances which are spelt differently but sound phonetically the same/similar are linked to some extent in the manner previously described. One must also decree that groupings of words in sentences and phrases may be thought to portray the same principles. One should note that where one sentence may relate to another in a comparison they cannot provide for two different meanings, especially when such meanings are in opposition to each other, an example being the phrase "I gave life to him". It would appear that there is a good meaning in this statement which under no circumstances should be corrupted for a perverse meaning such as, 'I set him up for life in prison' or perhaps 'I gave him a serious mental illness' viz. phychosis (the root meaning of the word psychosis means "to give life to"! One should also take into account the metaphysical proposition which is Gematria. It is true to say however that by making the links between the objects/instances conscious one is better able to manage/influence material effects/outcomes. In being intelligent about our words one should tempt fate only with good intentions for good outcomes, one should therefore consider wisely before giving birth to the life of a person/place/object/event with a name; such a name will be in the making of you, for better or worse. Whilst saying as much one should take care that one is not being influenced in their conduct through this knowledge by people that have misconducted themselves, those who have been perverse in deliberately 'marking' an object/instance with a 'bad' name for the purpose of engineering a 'bad' outcome.

Mythology

2011-08-11T14:01:00.030Z

It is known that the root meaning of the Greek word 'myth' is, "things said and not done" and on that account it would appear that mythology can be discarded like heresay. But to do so would be in betrayal of life, mother nature and God. One may say in good spirits that the said meaning of the word myth is a myth itself! What we can say in all reasonableness is that the myths of Gods and their antithesis are an attempt by man to understand himself in his surroundings. Out of chaos becomes order which is symmetry to all intents and purposes. The patterns of order lay dormant in chaos waiting to come into material existence in time and space manifesting through intelligence. Such patterns are forged through life but withdraw from that something into a state of emptiness, like a hologram, waiting to manifest again into that something from which it originated. Chaos by definition is random anything can happen intelligence however is determined in nature and follows a routine so to speak. One should add that the result in intelligence is determined but not the particulars that lead to the result. Comparable to an archetype one may suggest that it is the 'world archetype', or "animus mundi" (world soul). Material existence 'falls into place' just as intelligence does. You may have heard the expression, when someone gets the gist of an argument they had hereto not understood, that they "just fell in" and this is indeed what does happen, nonetheless one can work their way into such an understanding, or indeed work their way into a situation in which they would like to find themselves. To give a simple simile one could point to an island (material existence) surrounded by a great sea of water (the spirit world) with a river running through the middle of the island from one side to the other (time). It can be discerned from the land what course the river will take such may be considered as an archetype, the animus mundi, and ultimately the water returns into its main body from whence it came. However can one really distinguish between the sea and the river when the river has always existed (flowing from one side of the island to the sea at the other side) at least as long as the sea! So you can see that time is not really what it appears to be and as I have said previously the world really exits in a time scale 0 to 0. Note also that it is the sea which makes the island what it is, an island, and it is the earth that gives rise to the island that gives a basis for the sea! Such is the nature of creation and life. In relation to Gods we can say that such are personifications (by analogy) of natural movements which are intelligent. In this book we have God who is a personification of intelligence in its most abundant, and paramount to such intelligence is what we would all find to be good. Then we have an embellishment of disorder, the devil, who is a personification (by analogy) of wickedness and deceit. As much disorder, wickedness and deceit as there is in the world the fact is that anyone can learn to manifest intelligence in their lives and create order out of chaos, whether or not one looks to another or indeed a God for their inspiration. If one makes the decision to be intelligent and therefore good (or falls into such a disposition) then one can safely say that such was "written in the stars" however if one embarks on a different path, one which leads to chaos, then one can hardly say that such was 'determined' because, as I have said before, chaos is random and literally anything can happen. However as I have also said previously, out of chaos becomes order so good things may never be that far away; when it appears that nothing is going right (right as opposed to wrong in the moral sense) you can reasonably aspire to, in general terms, and whilst using intelligence, the situation turning into its opposite. So I say Religion is not extinct and God isn't really a dinosaur. I recognise the concept of God for what it is and does (God being a leader of men on earth and spirits in the upper worlds, not creator of the world) I recognise the merits in all of the different religions through antiquity and I recognise the enlightend beings, like the Buddha (who if it weren't for his own advice would be worshipped as a God!) and all of the lesser Gods; those beings who have taken up the mantle of personifying natural processes whilst being intelligent. I recognise Set, Rangarie, Jaluga, deperno and the devil for what it means and in doing all of this I look to Mother Nature as being intrinsic in our power and resolute in her way, which is to give life a chance.

Consciousness

2011-08-07T10:06:00.028Z

There is no such thing as 'dead' in a world (and worlds) just gradations of consciousness up to the hyper-sensitive. The whole universe is alive and conscious to some extent (viz. conciousness v. unconsciousness, note the syntax which confirms that unconsciousness is still a form of consciousness!) however organisms manifest greater consciousness than inert matter, or inorganic no-matter. Consciousness is inherent in the smallest and most obscure of subatomic particles and is made coherent with attention. A persons consciousness is focused in one moment in time held at a particular frequency but nonetheless exists outside of time and space at different frequencies and in different moments of the past, present and future. The basis of consciousness is local and non-local threads which co-exist in a plethora of different worlds - including the multi-verse. It is our 'position' (that is to say our ability and attitiude and their effect in the world) in time and space which bestows upon us our particular type of consciousness however one may find themselves in a variety of different 'positions' during the course of existence thus ones consciousness may adapt to the environment and hopefully evolve. Although the world is created by all beings in eternity, who may exist on different levels (some of us being more dominant than others, God and the devil for instance), ultimately, because the world exits in one moment (time scale 0 to 0), it is in mother natures blessing that one has ability (including ability to acquire such abiltiy!), the right attitude (including the ability to acquire the right attitude!) and knows in which direction to think for benefit of themselves and others, this being the basis for 'genius'. As a matter of fact it is in the gift of ones heart that one knows in which direction to think, but such intuitions are said to originate from the centre of man's being near the navel. Non-local locations which exist in the subconscious can be made conscious through recognition and direction of attention. The more attention can be focused in different directions at the same time the greater the consciousness the greater the ability to think in one direction only thus the greater the intellect ("directed thinking"). Leonardo de Vinci was right in his assertion that genius is like "blowing up a balloon" in a persons mind ("look up for inspiration!") - more energy (spirit) becomes available (is recognised) and therefore the mind has a greater capacity to think (and gather thoughts!), however as I have said suggested previously what one decides to think thereafter is where the real genius lies. Essentially, consciousness in man is spirit ones spirit is entirely contingent in its production by biological factors. Mans biological apparatus continually passes energy to another structure, the soul (and spirit where it differs), during the course of ones life in a similar fashion to the way in which electricity works in passing electrons from one atom to another anode to cathode. This is the nature of consciousness. In a similar fashion to electrolysis the anode (the body and brain) degrades to nothing at the benefit of the cathode (soul and spirit). Without mans biological function man would not be able to produce a spirit capable of dominating the spirit of nature and the elements (such nature spirits have been called "elementals"). Incidentally elementals are said to be "creations of the created". How we learn to use our mind whilst we are in material manifestation is vital because the soul and spirit in man gets used to being manipulated in certain ways. One can point to neural pathways in the brain being 'worn in' by thought. Only with difficulty will a man improve his ability to think in the afterlife. Paradoxically souls and spirits in the afterlife are in the position of being able to gain instant knowledge about anything by just thinking in that direction. As before though, the real genius lies in knowing in which direction to think! (such is dependant on the 'position' in time and space that one finds themselves). Further to this it is possible and there are those who have been able to harness the power that ones spirit has in accessing knowledge whilst in material manifestation. Its not without its dangers though. Patterns which are matrices are inherently formed in consciousness, quite recently these have been described by scientists as 'morphic fields'. Sub atomic thus atomic thus molecular activity demonstrates a structure that, through morphic fields, go to make a form, with a function. Each form, whether animate or inanimate, has consciousness which evolves through interaction with its environment. Each adjustment in form (and function) due to evolution is reflected back into the morphic field and the object shares its consciousness most prominently with other objects that share the same/similar molecular structure and form and function. That is not to say that stones and humans, for instance, do not interact on the mind level. In fact they very much do interact as is clearly demonstrated in psychometry. One should clarify the psychic fact that as one thinks in a particular direction in the material world, a person or place, so he goes. Such is the basis in the fear, held throughout antiquity, of 'the evil eye', and the foundation in the sentiment loved ones have towards each other when they say "I've been thinking about you". Even more astounding is the assertion that I make which is that as a person thinks in a particular direction, so he becomes. The real lesson to learn in all of this is that the universe is very much alive and should be treated with the respect that it deserves. People seeking to prosper at the expense of each other and/or the universe should expect a rough ride in the knowledge that their thoughts and actions will be reciprocated right back at them.

The Middle Way

2011-08-04T14:01:00.073Z

Whilst it has been alluded to previously in this site perhaps it is appropriate, given these difficult times, to project some Realpolitik into the beliefs of the people of the world. I'm not so inclined as to preach to people how they should live their lives and conduct themselves in their day to day business, except that much has already been said by people who should know better, and much harm has come in consequence to peoples faulty belief structures. I should make clear before going any further that the way of God is what makes the most sense for the people. Unfortunately a great many people are unaware of the way of God, the message of Jesus, or Buddha, Mohammed or Krishna, or are not so inclined to behave in such a manner, maybe because they view such moral codes as 'utopian ideals', or simply believe in something else. However it takes all sorts to make the world indeed there wouldn't be a world to live in, at least not one as we know it, if everyone was the same. So I'm going to proceed to outline ' the middle way' for the benefit of those whose psychology is faltering in the face of adversity; adversity derived from deluded, weak, sick, unscrupulous, bad or just outright wrong people seeking to make their estate in the world.

My message is substantiated in part by the work of biologists who have come to understand the nature of genetics and its influence on peoples behaviour, behaviour which has been (but will not always be!) notoriously selfish to its own interest. However one must also take into account the astral and spiritual influences that exist which biologists are loath to recognise. Astral and spiritual entities are as real as the day is long and until one can take full account of their psychology and realize their potential such entities are highly likely to continue pursuing their own agendas through people in the material world whether or not such is in the best interests of themselves or others.

So here we are:-

1. Be good to insiders and try to be good to outsiders.

Insiders are people that share your genes, but including your partner/husband/wife, etc, outsiders are people that do not share your genes. Whilst apparently being good, or trying to be good it is of no use fooling yourself and going through the motions, instead one should have regard for eight tenets of Buddhism and be sincere in your efforts, in particular one should exhibit right intention, right speech, right action, right effort and right mindfulness.

2. Do not be 'nice' to people in general. Instead of being nice be friendly.

Being nice is patronizing and counter-productive in many cases in the long run. Being nice basically means being insincere;

3. Do not like or dislike people until you have come to know a sufficient amount about them.

Liking people for no apparent reason, perhaps as part of a 'sunny' disposition, will serve in most instances to make trouble for yourself; "Give people an inch and they will take a mile"!;

4. In the main, do not give your love away for free. Use emotional intelligence.

Love, like hate, is a learned response based on experience and biology. Without trying to be cynical, to be in love means believing that another will act in your best interests (even if only in the long run!), but at the same time accepting that person for what they are, this whilst attaching the 'love vibration' to them. The love vibration is the basis of all love, but essentially it is in the process of its attachment that we have come to understand the concept which is love. A good nature (or a modicum of good values at the least!), confidence, trust and intelligence (albeit mostly emotional intelligence) are key concepts in the case of love. Sometimes, in the case of family for instance, it is worth giving love because it is very likely to be reciprocated at some point therefore it serves ones interests. Love in romance should be earned if this is not what's happening its most likely that love is not what's is going on but something else, fulfilment of desire for instance. I say this in respect of the phenomenon of 'soul mates' and freely admit that such can and does happen. 'Love at first sight' is a variation of 'soul mates';

5. Do not help morally weak people unless it is in your greater interests.

This may sound very harsh but in actual fact morally weak people aren't weak intentionally, of course they would like to impose them-selves (note: the self is essentially the spirit, which may be considered as the God in man) on their environment but, for one reason or another, find that they cannot. Morality in man is a manifestation of strength in ones character (one of ten main ones the other nine being ability to love, hardness, happiness, loyalty, effectiveness, honour, goodness, humour and intelligence) and is a sure sign of the spirit. If one was to be kind to the weak on a carte blanch basis one may find oneself in the situation where the weak tried to impose themselves when they would normally have little influence. This will lead to roll reversal psychology in certain circumstances, which may be of concern to someone who was going about there business in the normal way. Weak people with power generally tend to be ugly in their adaption to the world so one is likely to be able to recognise when such people have advanced themselves. One must be careful not to classify certain people in difficult situations as being weak, when in actual fact they may be very strong;

6. Demonstrate a degree of hardness in your personality.

This is naturally in following the former edict. It is not in betrayal of your self (spirit) to display such a degree of hardness in your personality and in fact even Jesus Christ was not a "pushover" and was no doubt hard in some ways. Lest we not forget that Jesus was 'on a mission'; were he not it is unlikely that he would have permitted his own death through crucifixion;

7. In the main, forgive people for their sins against you.

This is a difficult one because there have been conflicting directions given by different 'masters' in the past, however it is unwise to let other peoples transgressions permanently prejudice oneself therefore one must learn to forgive. In some cases the sin against one is of such gravity that 'revenge' is right way to go about things, for it would be a burden on ones heart not to get revenge. Of course the law of the land should provide opportunities for such 'revenge' i.e. perhaps a long, uncomfortable, custodial sentence.

8. There are exceptions to this rule but, in general, mind your own business.

Sometimes its our business not to mind our own business! If it is your business not to mind your own business and you consider yourself to be a Luciferian be careful that your ideology does not turn into a Judas mentality;

9. Cut corners wherever possible so long as it does not serve against your greater interests.

Whilst this may seem to be controversial quite simply the world is what it is people are what they are nothing is perfect and there is no point making things more difficult for yourselves than they really need to be. If done in the right circumstances and the right way there will be no loss suffered but much benefit gained;

10. And finally one should try not to live outside of themselves.

By this I mean try not to act against your true self and your own best interests. Sometimes it is difficult for people to know how their own best interests are served, whether that be through lack of experience, lack of intelligence (which is gained through experience) and/or because 'the dumb are being led by the blind'! which does happen at various times for various reasons. "Be true to yourself and yourself will be true to you" is where we are all going no matter how long it takes and in essence this is exactly the message that Hinduism tries to convey, not forgetting the Hermetic axiom, "know ye not that ye are Gods!", lest we forget the advice of master Jesus when he proclaimed, "ye are Gods!". Unlike the masses however Jesus was able to resurrect himself from the dead whilst the mortal masses do not have such abilities (as yet!) to fall back on. So as I mentioned earlier Realpolitik is what's required for the time being. We should know in contemplation of the greatest good, and the life of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and the like, and ourselves, what we really want for, which amongst others is peace, love and happiness; in a word: Joy!

Synchronicity

2011-08-02T09:40:00.031Z

Such a term has been slightly misunderstood since its first being conjectured. If we start with a meaning that does not betray itself we can move onto a description of the mechanics of synchronicity in so doing we will see that it is not so much "an acasual connecting principle" rather 'a principle of connection'. In the simplest terms synchronicity designates a correlation between a psychic event, that is a thought, feeling or intuition and a material event which provides for what one may call a coincidence, that is to say two (or more) events that come together in time and space with a common realization/meaning. Such a meaning is given through contact with the "animus mundi", or "world soul". Such a world soul incorporates the soul of everything that has ever lived and, to use seance as an example of sorts, when ones thoughts are on a particular person, it is that person about whom the animus mundi responds, or alternatively ones thoughts are in consequence to the animus mundi and the revelation is thus. One also has reference to the art of Zen when one proclaims that such synchronization, the harmony between instances and the engrossment in the self (spirit) reflected back into nature, is Zen. It should be stressed that when one goes looking for such synchronicity one will not find it. What one can also say at the outset is that synchronicity has no meaning whatsoever unless one is being intelligent; without intelligence there would be no recognition of exterior and interior events and no recognition of their place in a 'whole'; leading one to extrapolate the meaning in such a coincidence. Essentially intelligence is the basis of, and prelude to, synchronicity. When we describe the mechanics of synchronicity we go a long way to understanding the nature of reality, for dualism is seen to be a subtle misunderstanding and materialist monism a half-truth transcendental monism being the other half. Synchronicity is not really random, or acasual, but can be predicted; the more we know about the material world the more this knowledge can be described in terms of psychic projections the more sense impressions, feelings, and intuitions can be understood in terms of material influences (from the past, present and future). Even abstract thinking is not entirely abstract but rather contingent on sense impressions (real to start with and then imagined). Synchronicity becomes apparent when man begins to formulate speech from the primordial soup which is consciousness. The impulse to name a material object as one does, and then, whilst being intelligent, to name something else in a similar fashion exemplifies the essence of synchronicity. The impulse to think about two (or more) events/objects in a similar manner demonstrates the psychic fact, which is that there is a correspondence between the two objects/events in meaning. To say that synchronicity becomes apparent when man begins to speak is to say that it is more markedly so; in actual fact synchronicity exists in some form wherever there is intelligence at work which, at its most fundamental level, means so long as there is life: at its most clinical one may say that intelligence and manifest reality are in complete synchronisation. It is direction that facilitates the establishment of a truth in synchronicity in saying as much one might as well go the whole hog and suggest that it is merely a matter of direction, both learned and inherited, conscious and unconscious, that provides for 'accumulation' during life and in the afterlife. A perceived material symbol (a symbol represents a hidden truth) may give rise to a noticeable psychic event, a thought for example. Such a thought however is prone to be part of a process of thoughts which may lead to the psychic fact, the truth, such being in synchronicity with the material truth (represented in a symbol). We would say that such a thought process works in "association of ideas" and that the first thought is symbolic of the ultimate psychic truth to be worked out. In intuition however one may be able to grasp both the obscure location in the material symbol and the corresponding psychic truth relating to it, at the first attempt, without any protracted deliberation and no need to go through the process of association of ideas. This would be intuition par excellence and in actual fact it is how ones spirit functions in full purity. One must also add that a psychic event, a thought for instance, may also give rise to a corresponding material event given in the form of a symbol, which can be worked out or intuited in its meaning. Further one must say that synchronicity does not only occur in the relation of psychic and material events. Synychronicity can occur in the relation of one psychic event to another, an example being the meaning of one sentence considered against the sentence in following possibly demonstrating a psychic and/or material truth (which may be given in the form of a symbol) . Likewise two material events in following each other demonstrate a material and/or psychic truth such being that nature is in the mechanics of cause and effect. A living organism behaves in such a manner that a correlation can be drawn (is more obvious), at various times, between interior states and manifest reality. So we can say that synchronicity may have a supposedly random and unconscious basis but with intelligence in conciousness we come to realize that the part really is part of the whole, that the truth in a psychic event is evident in nature in some form and that synchronicity is, will or can be realized in some extent.

Geburah, Tiphareth and Chesed!

2011-03-27T10:00:00.006Z

The anatomy of fate...

2011-03-18T01:32:00.015Z

Since the time of Sigmund Freud and increasingly more so since then psychology has posited that biology alone is responsible for the 'drive' in the human species which directs one towards an objective. From the 'sex drive' to the 'ego drive' it has been postulated that unconscious chemical reactions in the human anatomy, based on inherited DNA structures, are the impetus in the equation that decides our fate. However much this is true, and certainly it is not denied, there is one big part of the jigsaw that has to my mind been underestimated. Perception. Perception is the 'thread' upon which our biological instruments seek to act (what we perceive also acts to change our DNA). Without perception there would be no fuel for the fire so to speak. The human brain, which is the ephemeral computational facility of our greater 'mind' (such being a more eternal perceptive facility viz. intuition) is limited in its capability by the measure of time and space. Our mind on the other hand (or one could say our soul) has no such constraints and operates 'outside of the of the quad'. Time and space are parameters which only apply to the material world; the empirical world of the scientists. As a point of fact however (one which can be demonstrated) our being consists of not only a soul (which can and does transcend time and space) but also a spirit; which one may consider to be our ultimate 'self': the self which is eternal like no other, that which lives forever even at the conclusion of evolution through life and life after death is all knowing and knows the greatest good. All of the perceptions from the experiences in which the mind partakes are held in the psyche, in the unconscious part thereof, at any given moment. The energy that constitutes the memory of such experiences acts as that very 'thread' to which we have previously alluded. All of this has huge implications when one considers the true nature of our fate. If it is the case that we act 'biologically' on information obtained not only from our past and present but also our future, then what does this suggest about our ability to make decisions such one would have thought would determine that future?! A major paradox! If truth be known we live in a universe which exits in a time scale given 0 to 0, not 0 to 1 as is thought by scientists. Further if truth be known the greatest speed at which one can travel, a speed which permits existence in actual fact, is not the speed of the light, rather the speed of thought! The only question which remains is: how many parallel universes are there?!

Prayer

2011-03-03T17:21:00.033Z

Prayer is something which people, especially non-religious people, now see as an obsolete and unworthy way of spending ones time. Contrary to this widely held belief prayer can, if used wisely, still be time well spent. There are four different aspects to prayer or one could say four ways in which prayer works. Firstly, there is the appeal of the prayer to higher and more divine forces (otherwise known as invocation). In essence the words of the prayer and thoughts behind it are picked up by beings on a higher level (whether those beings be Gods, angels or saints, for instance). Action is then taken by such an agency to fullfill the request of the prayer. The Divine and spirit worlds are more alive than one may think and direct intervention on such levels is not in the least an unlikely occurrence. "Well able is Allah to help" as the Muslims so astutely observe. Whilst pointing this out one should not overlook the contention of evocation, that is summoning the devil and the like when in need, for instance for revenge purposes. It is a fact of life that there are times when such powers are required. The second way in which prayer may be effective is what we may term conditioning. The subject, by praying, induces a a state of near hypnosis and the auto-suggestive nature of the prayer can, if repeated over time in a consistent and sincere way, act to condition the subjects unconscious mind. As the unconscious mind is the basis upon which the conscious mind is built the benefit will bleed through into the conscious apparatus. Further, in conditioning themselves in such a way the subject opens up a 'love vibration' which acts to purify ones being and enhance the revitalising nature of ones spirit. This type of conditioning is perhaps the most likely way in which prayers renders a beneficial effect. The third aspect to prayer is what we may call 'words of power'. This is not to be confused with the magical operation known as "barbarous words of evocation', which is similar but nonetheless different. Words of power are words which, over the course of centuries of use, have built up into a force in the astral light; one which works in a similar way to an archetype, the effect being that magical words of power when spoken or meditated upon cause a change in the subjects psyche to take hold. The feeling tone induced which relates to the production of ectoplasm in the ether is nothing less than a construct which is added to the memory system of the praying subject. Because the words of power have a noticeable effect on the subject each single act of prayer reinforces the belief that the prayer is working in some way, and the subject almost hypnotises themselves in belief that the prayer will be successful in the desired way on future occasions, which is true if the prayer is said in all reasonableness. The fourth and final way in which prayer can be effective if used properly and sincerely with devotion is by the nature of its universal inheritance and acceptance by entities who work in the ether, those who, no matter how apparently powerful, believe in prayer as a power for good and an indication that the subject is intending to make themselves a vessel for the light. Once this has been established by prayer it is unlikely that malefic entities will be interested in wasting their time any further. It is probable that such entities have regard for the power of good in any case. Perhaps they are merely testing the subjects faith! Such a scenario has been notoriously described in the Old-Testament in the story of Job where the archangel Sataneal, acting on instructions from Yehwah, tests the once contented Job to the maximum before Jobs faith eventually sees him through. In conclusion we can see that there is huge scope for prayer to be successful in ones life; it may be in one aspect only that the benefit is derived, or it may work in all four ways combined. Let it be known that religion, and prayer in particular, still has its part to play in modern life.

Possession...

2010-12-20T11:26:00.008Z

No doubt it is unfortunate that modern medical science has sought to deny the phenomenon that is possession; that is the influence of a human psyche by another (a so called phantom) by means of astral projection or remote influencing, or by another type of life form - a demon for instance. Modern psychiatry addresses these issues by describing the possessed as either schizophrenic, psychotic or suffering from a multiple personality disorder. Whilst it is true that a sick mind can play tricks on a person; conjuring voices from nowhere and manifesting in confused, paranoid and contradictory behaviour and beliefs for instance, it is also true that such phenomenon can be created at the will of those adept in the black arts. Possession works on the basis that tension (in the mind and body) creates energy and a loss of consciousness from the norm. The energy that is created can be gripped like a vice and manipulated during a possession and the loss of consciousness that occurs bodes well for a would be occupant to manifest their own thoughts and feelings. It is the soul body of a human that partially withdraws from the body during such an occurrence, which renders one more at the mercy of astral forces in the dream like world that is the ether. Once such an influence has taken hold and the mind is opened to the possibilities, constructs are added to the memory system which make it easier to get a foot in the door on future occasions. This is why it has been suggested that to not believe in black magic is to not succumb to its power. There are however safeguards that one can take against the possibilities of a posession occurring and they can be surmised succiently. The key is, as they they say "to remain in good spirits". A 'light hearted' take on life and its complexities helps immensely and the type of mindset that makes way for humour is invaluable. Brooding over problems incessantly - continually turning issues over in the mind and, 'taking them to heart' results in a 'heavy heart' and a 'depression' in the mind (a transfer of energy from one location to another), both of which are favourable conditions for influencing (or possession where it differs). A clean lifestyle is a must. No drugs, no vices nothing which can open the door to the possibilities thus described. Under pressure one must try to stay calm and with ones thoughts 'collected' that is; all in one place.

Love and hate

2010-11-23T13:59:00.011Z

With so much 'hatred' in the world and apparently not enough 'love' we are led to ask ourselves: what are these two concepts that we are dealing with? As with happiness, love and hate are a 'feeling tone'; a conditioned response to a number of given experiences governed by our psyches interpretation of movements of energy in our soul complex situated around our heart organ. Our heart is a major depositary of energy in our body and it is no coincidence that it was said by the ancients to be "the seat of the soul". Whilst an experience provides stimulus to the senses such may or may not come under the province of affairs of the heart. In our younger days whilst we are building up our personalities, our likes and dislikes, what gives up pleasure and stimulates pain, our psyche acts as a storage system filling experiences in out memory. When someone feels love, or hate, our psyche has triggered a reaction which invokes a subconscious identification with one or more of the memories stored. Perception is like an iceberg a great deal of it is not collated by the five senses but instead remains under the threshold of conciousness. The constructs which are memories that form the differing aspects of our personalties react to the concious and subconscious stimulation of an experience and a feeling may be produced if the memory constructs being stimulated contain enough energy. Each experience provides for further memories to be added to our personality constructs in this way our likes and dislikes, loves and hates, are continually being updated. It is those situations in life which provide the most stimulation - infancy for instance and the degree of bonding with parents and siblings, achievements at school and the degree of satisfaction derived therefrom and any form of emotional attachment in our younger days, that act as an anchor in our psyches filling system of memories to build constructs which constitute our personalities. We should bear in mind that the soul (to a lesser extent than the spirit) is formed on a time scale 0 to 0, which means that it is not only our childhood memories that are so excitable but also those coming back from the future! It may sound controversial but in such a fashion does one, if their lucky, meet their 'soul mate'. Another truth is that the love 'vibration' (which to all intents and purposes is bliss) is capable of healing all wounds and conflicts, both internally and externally, as the Master Jesus so adequatly taught. The essential spirit (the God in man) longs to exist in oneness with life and the universe, which ultimately means "nirvana", but through emotional intelligence one can manifest bliss, or one could say Joy, in their lives through love. As one would therefore understand through the master Jesus 'love' is a very substantial sign of the spirit, and the benefit of being more spiritual is more intelligence and therefore a better life. Put simply though a good life increases our chances of feeling and finding love whereas an impoverished life increases the likelihood of the occurrence of hatred. So there's a reason to be good if ever there was one!

"The Four Worlds"

2010-11-22T20:16:00.029Z

Much is said in modern scientific debate about the existence of 'other worlds' described otherwise as paradimes and parallel universes. However the existence of such worlds has been known in occult schools for thousands of years. The most prominent theory is one which, again, has recourse to the ancient mystical line of Qabalah. Of the four types of world which are said to exist the most mundane and the one which we inhabit in the here and now is Assiah - the material world. More will be said about that later. Yetzirah is the next world to consider in fact this world of formation proceeded and gave life to the material world. Known as 'the astral light' and 'the ether' Yetzirah provides subsistence and gives impetus to the material world. Such a world can be explored during an earth life by means of techniques such as astral projection and remote viewing. This world and its natural resources is the one that can be directly manipulated by magicians (low magic) and witches. It is however Briah, the world of creation and the abode of heaven, which provides for the event of miracles. Jesus, or to use his real name Joshua Ben Miriam, was adept at manipulating the power that exits in this world. Spirits and Archangels reside in the world of creation. The last (and in fact first!) world to consider is Atzulith - the divine world of emanation, or we could say archetypes. This world of ideas is said to be where God (it has been suggested such a being is Yahweh) resides and the place from whence creation commenced. It is correct that this world comes before the material world but the ideas that exist within such a world (Atzulith) do actually emanate from the material world (Assiah), which appears to be somewhat of a paradox. Enoch has been suggested to be the only known human to have traversed the four worlds to commune with "God" directly in the world of emanation. Known as "he who walked with God and was not" Enoch was rewarded for his virtue when "Yahweh" made him Metatron - a leading archangel figure whose remit it become to educate humankind in the ways of God and the Universe. When we talk about paradimes and parallel universes we refer to the workings of Assiah (material worlds) and Yetzirah (the world of formation), the later is by its nature a psychological substratum which provides opportunity for many different expressions of thought (the stuff dreams are made of). Although it is evident that Gods (not least God in the pantheist sense) will would be commendable to to be implemented here on earth (Assiah), the Muslims have an enviable grasp of reality when they advise that we humans should be concerned to live 'one life at a time' - lest we become inadvertently fascinated with the power of the upper worlds and lose a grip on reality; madness was a common theme amongst the prophets of old!

Creation

2010-11-06T10:50:00.022Z

Creation is something which is supposed to have science and religion at loggerheads. Science states that everything began with a big bang; religion says God created the world in six days and on the seventh day He rested. Where are we to begin reconciliation between these two views? The answer to the question of creation lays elsewhere, in Kabbailistic lore. This ancient system states that everything began with sound. In the beginning God sounded out the Hebrew alphabet, it is said, and everything was thence produced from infinite light. This is a good starting point for us, however we make a departure from traditional Jewish mysticism and state, as Pythagoras did, that everything is number. It's worth bearing in mind all you quasi-gematria buffs and number crunchers out there that traditional time-lines are not absolute but rather contingent, and synchronistic (you might therefore call them, on the vast majority of occasions, obscure locations). In any event all of creation can and will one day be reduced to a mathematical formulae. If it were not for the fact that Hebrew letters are also words are also numbers they would have had us at a false start. Creation is a dance of electrons and neutrons around a proton or protons each looking to share its state with another atom. When the world was created it was brought to a dance; a dance of sub-atomic energy made of ether. The vibrations which emanated from YHVH (the greatest good part of a combined universal thought form from the relative future) at the beginning of creation caused a rythem which resulted in a pattern of matter being created (electrons around a nucleus). This is a well known scientific phenomenon. As the vibrations changed so the pattern's created changed and so we have the diversity that is life. The dance continues to a preordained agenda for everything that has ever existed or will exist lays first in a state of potential, just an apple seed contains the whole tree, so everything exists in one moment of timelessness. As one creates the world (as everyone indeed does!) so is he created. What is intrinsic in the argument is the fact that, because ether is contingent on matter, and matter on ether, or to be more exact spirit, it is fine to make the point that one would not exist without the other and, because the ether (precisely the spirit world) exist, subsequent to the material worlds manifestation, it, the spirit world, by its very nature, is timeless and existed prior to material manifestation, and so for that matter so did God! So I say, for the infinite to become finite and material is only a matter music: for the finite to become infinite is only a matter of numbers.

War Machines

2007-09-22T10:29:00.031Z

There doesn't appear to have been much in the media of late written about war machines. What with the US government taking such a strong stance against Irish paramilitary activity in the wake of an Irish mans death some time ago and appeals from his family for justice hopefully its safe to say that IRA and UDA paramilitary operations have been relegated to the ranks of the criminal surely it would be all too naive to believe that the most entrenched hatred has been eradicated by men in suits saying and doing politically correct things. "So there is a future for peace in Ireland" so they would say! Whilst on the subject of war machines let us not forget about that Islamic instrument that has wreaked havoc over the past two decades - Al Qaeda. Much has already been said about Al Qaeda's readiness for war in any location opposed to their extremist interests, indeed much has been done, but surely there is a future for peace in the world dare I say it if the Islamic states that submit to the Al Qaeda war machine can be appeased. Nobody expects that the men in suits should have to compromise their integrity and kneel down to the depraved terrorist contingent, but lest we forget what a wealth of culture and prosperity can be found amongst the Islamic people and their lands that said its a worthwhile movement those Muslims that are readily prepared to uproot their homes and come to live amongst us in the western world. As for machines; a machine is an instrument and only that. What a shame it is that individuals and then groups in societies have taken to 'war machine' tactics in vein attempts to promulgate their status in the world. Whether or not there will likely be more terrorism on the agenda I hope, like the rest of us, that the naturalized men and women of the Islamic faith have sufficient enough good reasons to address's their brethren and show favour against any further terrorist attacks. Maybe Al Qaeda will remain an underground network into a future without terrorism in which case respect is due to the 'men in suits' who have acted to promote peace in Ireland. A bit out of the blue but I wanted to ask is there anyone out there who knows whether or not 'Allah' is the sacred and personal name of 'God'? (There's some real clever stuff written in this site about God!)

Migration

2007-09-21T08:26:00.004Z

Migration the world over with a populace at approximately 6 billion is, apart from the concerns, a fascinating prospect for cultural development not only that but economy wise a healthy economy provides for continuing and reliable growth in directions commencing upwards from the unskilled labour markets into ventures with a multi-national appeal. Migration offers the benefit of improved international relations through key issues not least issues commensurate with finance and security. What stands to reason may be considered as good in any case however the problem with immigration/migration is where the essential concept of integration has been neglected or in some was 'ballsed up'. Recently in England it has been suggested that over 80,000 eastern European migrants have settled in a location in the the south east. The concern is in actual fact that a huge number haven't settled in at all and a crime epidemic has sprung from their number. Countries who are prepared to open their borders from time to time, like England, France, Germany and the U.S.A. for instance, should be comforted with the logic in the situation, which may be an eye opener for the general public at first (not an eye closer hopefully!) but with time we will see the benefit surely the reality of our world in knowledge beckons a halt to the emotional tide pushing against "those bloody foreigners" arrival.

The doctrine of light

2007-09-15T15:08:00.069Z

I expect it would be cogent to explore the nature of "God" a little further than has already been done in this site. What with everything that has been said about God through the ages, all of the different gods that is, it seems to be evident that more insight is needed so that we can get to grips with what we are aiming at, which is to lead the life that God would live and would want us to live. What I must add is that God is in fact discerned through nature, intelligence and the workings of the world (all of the worlds that is) and that the pantheist approach is the correct one. Man however makes laws of nature and in so doing can postulate the existence of a living God. One may say in considering that one is God Himself by analogy, and that, given there are a multitude of beings who all will claim to be God Himself, the only way one will definitely discern to whom this mantle belongs is by understanding how good they are, for God Himself is the greatest good. One must add that in self realization we can all make a God of ourselves and that the mantle of God Himself represents a being at that time in evolution when such a person has prominence, it being most revealing that the master Jesus is described as being "the lamb" indicating that man's animal inheritance was, and in fact is still, at play. Fully realized beings negate the value in describing any one person as God Himself.

The following essay is not going to be in the form of a paragraph but given it is God that were talking about I thought it would be well worth it.

> God is good (the greatest good);

> God is intelligent (the greatest intelligence);

> God is not omniscient, however in time God becomes all knowing;

> God is all about (or in the language of new physics, "non-local");

> Paramount to intelligence is what we would all find to be good;

> The World (Cosmos) is influenced by beings on all different levels;

> The World is therefore imperfect;

> Every being creates their own future (take into account, as inane as it may sound, that like attracts like and opposite attracts opposite), however;

> 'Dominant beings' influence the lives of other less dominant (such can work on a group level in a non-local way);

>Life is a process of realization and becoming, the objective in evolution being perfection;

> God is therefore the perfect being for an imperfect environment, or one could say paradoxically that He is both perfect and imperfect at the same time;

> God is the truth;

God promotes intelligence for the benefit of all, but there is free will in life and it would be improper to try to live other peoples lives for them (see later).

God is capable of defending Himself from any attack but would not necessarily resort to evilness because such is below the peak of intelligence. However God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time, and so it is with the universe in which we live.

There is a well known phenomenon which posits "God in His chariot" implying an aspect of God which aside from defending Himself acts on His and other beings behalf to purge wickedness and sin in the world. One has to take into account that life is lived on many different levels and of course there is the matter of free will. One should make clear that God is not and never has been "the destroyer". To destroy wickedness is different however no one has the birth right to take away the blessing of mother nature, which is life (the world).

Would God help people that were not good themselves?

> Jesus helped criminals who were not good in hell so it is said, however;

> Jesus was clearly drawn towards extreme violence albeit towards himself, which reveals a devilish aspect in his nature, although the preceding judgement which led to his action, or no-action, may have been good in Jesus' eyes, which means that only the event itself was devilish (the crucifixion) and maybe the outcome of the event depending on how you look at it viz:-

> In so doing Jesus set a devilish precedent for all those 'very good indeed' people that would follow in his footsteps

Conclusion:

Jesus, like all men who are "led by the spirit", was the son of God (which can be understood in the pantheist sense), however one must take into account the old testament God Yehwah. On the evidence of the Old Testament Yehwah 1. Is a concept comprising more than one being each having their own modus operandi which is sometimes in contradiction, for instance there is the notoriously jealous Yehwah and then the benevolent and kindly Yahweh (note the difference in the spelling of the names, which is my choice). Just to speak of jealousy very quickly jealously is different to envy and is found in some instances essentially when someone wants something that someone else has and they, if truth be known, "dislike" that someone else. So you can see that it is hardly the behaviour of someone who we could consider to be our God 2. It is not likely that such a concept nowadays amounts to the greatest good because of the suggested notoriety and behaviour of "Yehwah" 3. The concept obviously never did amount to "God Himself" and/or "The Creator" if it is the explicit word that creation commenced 6000 years ago, which is what is implied. What I suggest in consequence to all of this is that it is proper that the masses have come to fear the concept which is God no doubt a great deal of good will come from the stories told about Yahweh. It is justifiable to fear God because of what he can and will do. However one needs to understand that the stories about God as have been described in the Religions of the book are in many instances just stories, more accurately they could be described as symbols, and behind them if one peers deep enough into them one will realize the true power of God.

Moving on.

God would help people that were not good so in order to better themselves and be less bad and where possible good. To do this He would use intelligence however he would not seek to 'control' people because such would be in neglect of common free will. Free will is important because:

> Life itself is the result of free will without free will there would be no life to live

> Being God is paramount to what is good, which is intelligence, and life is the essential ingredient of both. Without life there would be no intelligence and no good!

That's about it then not much to write home about maybe but nonetheless a light which will shine in the darkness.

"Many are called but few are chosen"

2007-03-23T14:23:00.022Z

What a wonderful opportunity life can be. I sincerely hope you find the way to make it worth your whiles.

Honour

2007-03-21T10:04:00.002Z

The concept of honour presents us with a very real and consequential range of life issues around and upon which modern society revolves, in the manner one might say that that group of letters called vowels makes provision for the most stimulating of discourse. Whilst capitalism appears superficially to have shown disfavour to the event of honour we are, all of us, only the drop of a hat away from forced recognition of the power invested in those content to continue living outwardly honourable lives. In such being the accepted truth of the matter we are at worst provided with opportunity to acknowledge our nagging but supposedly unfounded fears. An in depth account of the subject honour reveals that the flip side to our deep rooted concern is the full benefit of our potential loss in any case it would be less than satisfactory to make believe that the issues which provide definition to the concept of honour are wholly redundant. To discern a tangible natural law from the subject of honour in a handful of words I would be interested to surmise thus: the event of honour enriches our lives no honour provides only for poverty and everything that ensues. In honourable conclusion to my short but nevertheless enthusiastic argument perhaps it would be to provide augmentation to the natural occurrence of honour in our lives reminding myself that where there is contempt there is hardly trust; where there is co-operation there is hardly disdain and hatred; where there is security there is hardly instability and disease and where there is success and prosperity in a serene setting there is always happiness and content.

Someone said something about perpetual light?

2007-03-20T12:29:00.004Z

Money

2007-03-16T11:38:00.002Z

"Place a banknote on the wall above your bed" they say "and be sure to sleep well knowing that riches are soon to come your way". Well maybe life is easier in dream world but in a world where money is by some accounts the most worthwhile description of an individual how can we look to a future more prosperous, enjoyable and certain than bankers and the like see appropriate. In a world where money appears to reign supreme would it be worth our whiles, those of us that are less monastic (monastic in the modern remunerative sense of the word, monestic maybe, why not moonestic then!), would it be worth our whiles pursuing an education in banking, or one similar where we can surround ourselves with the type that do well ("well off") and in the prime of our lives at least we may be in the enviable position of being able to take out of life what we are capable of putting in. I'm not taking a broad swipe at bankers I might say the name fell on my lap, but it's true I find a way to take my argument to its most expedient end walla another paragraph. So I was saying.. about the moonestic faith with Dollar signs from Kingstown to Kuwait, will the Almighty tempt fate and pull the magic carpet from under our feet until we accept that numbers were not invented by bankers and we really do get from a to b using a magic carpet and b to c using a car which in fact is a magic carpet in disguise. If life was a moot court, and I should point out that it isn't for the benefit of the victims of those with a dead pan sense of humour, then I expect that justice (which is a sign paramount to what is good in our lives) and money (which is one might say a sign that points to itself) are inseparable descriptions of the same thing. Given that justice is, in the first instance, a natural process and subservient on the promise of money through the passage of time only since money became the most convenient way of totaling a person, quite possibly there is hope for the future of mankind outside of banking and theatre after all, although one would imagine that both theatre and banking will continue to hold sway at locations worth visiting. However whilst it is the case that we live under the umbrella of a magisterial court in the form of a democratically elected government of a capitalist state the servants of which pave the way for the advancement of people towards a golden age of intelligence and prosperity (have we taken a wrong turn somewhere!), it would be worth my while (perhaps I will be rewarded rather than another impostor) pointing out that money stands as a commodity AFTER the event of real people who live real lives and have original ideas. The value of money would be obsolete it would hardly have been invented without the foundations upon which it stands. It's purpose remains to serve the interests of life and all that is included in the definition. Whose burden will it be to repair the theatre come what may when the bankers can't afford to print anymore money? And having said that much what more can we say about the Rodger Ramjet scandal?

Whats the meaning of life?

2007-03-12T15:07:00.014Z

If we consider the event of kids in our life some of us are very expectant there are those of us who are repelled at the idea of kids in their estimation of the value of children (and only some of those go on to make repulsive parents!), but far in excess of the number of those people who are repelled at the thought of having their own kids are the number of men and woman who eagerly anticipate the event of kids. So we ask ourselves what is the real purpose of kids do we live for their benefit or they ours? Are expectant parents entitled to believe that kids (in infancy and through to adult life) will blindly serve their interests for the sake of their own happiness? Should parents expect that fate will decide the future both theirs and the kids? Trying to ascertain the reason that nature has provided the opportunity for kids is to look for the meaning of human life. That something which can be confirmed as the true reason for life is the unconscious basis for our attitudes towards kids if not in the next instance we forget how to breathe. As healthy adults we are all of us are likely to be conscious to the extent that we are able if we desired to analyse the nature of our attitudes and understand why we find one partner preferable to another, why kids would be a welcome addition or not and what is expected of kids in the event of their lives. As a maxim but also in the exception I would be content to profess to know this much about the event of kids. Kids are an investment and whilst an investment has been made in kids a return is reasonable to be expected. Kids are not penises or vagina's though they are a source of power. Although you can expect to live a different perhaps more exciting life with kids it is not reasonable to expect to be able to live your life through your kids because your kids, whilst you are their creator, occupy a different etheric space to you; you can never be your kid because in knowing that you have a kid you can be sure to know that you are not the kid and when or at those times that you do not know what a kid is the circumstance is immaterial. Whilst the world viz. nature, is quintessentially capitalist we can expect the natural laws of mother nature to be somewhat capitalist where kids are concerned however considering that we all evidently end up sharing in the fruit of the same garden mother nature provides capitalism for the benefit of something somewhat socialist, which life is apparently. Kids are a source of power because through investment in them they provide opportunities to reveal or develop a part of the parents character that might otherwise be forsaken. In character development the tangible world is revealed to us quid pro quo the return that we get from the investment in our kids is therefore on the same basis. Although I think it trite to put a price on the head of your children one must conclude that you only get out of your kids what you put in and whilst in may be the case that you are a man or woman well to do in the world a lofty attitude without foundation is never recompense for a kids life ruined. No worthwhile book or author would find me wrong in saying that much. So one must ask the question what is the point in having children if producing life is the point of life? The answer to the question is simple and has been given previously by Buddha: Joy. Joy is the basis of love and life it is the reason that both exist, and whilst it is true that the "nirvana" of Buddhism is an escape from the senses still it is existence in a state of nothingness; as opposed to non-existence in a state of nothingness. In the Biblical traditions, one of which was, "love thy neighbour" it is given as an attempt to bring people into the 'love vibration' towards a state of bliss. True death does not occur and the end of material existence but continues on in the soul and then spirit, but true death is empty and boring: the excitement that the world(s) provide is what the energy that constitutes life is aiming at. EVERYONE is entitled to their share of excitement and bliss in their life, only it is unfortunate that some seek such advancement at the expense of someone, or something else. When Buddha spoke of "nirvana" he said that this was the ultimate joy and in agreeing with him one must point out that such an existence, nirvana, amounts to knowing all without knowing anything and being everywhere without being anywhere. Both of these paradoxes exemplify the art of zen, but taken to its natural conclusion, which is to say beyond words and beyond worlds, one must say that in such a place does one become part of creation and therefore the pantheist God (ala the Brahman tradition). It is life that facilitates such a process and in one making the most of themselves, that is to say making a God of themselves, one will first learn to create and share.

The essence of light

2007-03-09T10:22:00.148Z

I thought it would be appropriate to e x p a n d on previous references to Christ, Satan (Iblis), Lucifer and God (= the greatest good, which may not be as straight forward as it seems). It is worth bearing in mind that all concepts amount to, in a manner of words, 'archetypes', created by the beings that live out such. If one becomes 'inflated' in their personality, then one is no longer living out their proper nature, and such an archetype and thus life becomes a corruption of what is good in its essence (we would say in such a situation that they were not their self, that they were not zen. In pointing this out one should make clear that the ego, which is not the self but a part of it, should not be forsaken. The ego is responsible for a great deal of the advancement in civilisation, technology, culture and man himself). As regards what's good we can say that essentially the cosmos is run in proper governance and is not an autocracy. None of this is said in diminishing the essence of holiness: holiness is a manifestation of spirit and I'm not disputing the existence of spirits (angels). I should proceed to speak of that rebel known as the devil. Whilst he is unholy in a lot of what he does he is not actually the apotheosis of unholiness but rather his actions, which are very naughty and sometimes diabolical, may drive people towards the light. The supposed antithesis of light (of which holiness is a symbol) is Jaluga, the prince of darkness, who gravitates towards darkness as much if not more than any other. Even still Jaluga only represents the base three chakras, to use yoga terminology, which means that he is living out man's lower animal instincts, perhaps a tad more than that! but such an influence is not entirely diabolical because of its apparent ignorance, so one is left to wonder where the real enemy of God can be pinned down. It is no wonder that antiquity has proclaimed that it is the devil who eventually wages war against heaven! (note: it is a war against heaven and its inhabitants. The real God is the pantheist God!). There is then also Deperno to consider of whom little is known about his annoying nature but about whom something has been said elsewhere. One must remember, when considering the nature of the devil, that he is not at all times at odds with God, indeed, and as suggested previously, sometimes his works drive people towards God and the light. To suggest that the devil owns the world is pure fantasy, however it is obviously his playground. It is not deceitful to say that the devil can be ferocious and terrifying when he wants to be and revels in the mire. Whilst on the subject of angels I want to clear up another issue which has apparently confused Religious scholars and that is angles "not having their own mind" but being entirely in the service of "Gods" will, allegedly being "made perfect" and not being able to evolve. Angles do in fact have their own minds but act intelligently. Such is in Gods determination which is most likely where the confusion lies. "The fall" is when an angel (spirit) has much less to do with the intelligence available to them; the difference between the two, what is available and what is used, being the degree to which one has "fallen". There is no such thing as 'perfection' in a universe which is obviously imperfect, however consciousness does evolve in beings on all levels including angels and archangels the aim of evolution being perfection. In any case Religion is big business and will always be so whilst it provides a valuable service to the people which it serves. Much is said about the existence of Jesus as "the son of God", Satan as "the evil one" and Lucifer "the light bringer" (he is also 'the prince of the star' and it is interesting to note that Freemasons follow Lucifer as 'the alien God'). In the Judaic religion any powerful entity deemed to be under their God Yahweh who might otherwise be known as God i.e. in other religions, was classed either as an archangel or devil and therefore in Qabalisitc terms Lucifer is the archangel of Daath (viz. the abyss/the cosmos) but he is also representative of Kether, Tiphareth, Yesod and Malkuth alike (he emanates from all of the sephiroth in actual fact). I personally accept that Jesus was 'the Atlantean Christ' (viz. the heavenly Christ), 'the lamb' and 'the first born' those being amongst other tributes to him. However I am minded of other issues relating which I have previously made clear. I do not believe that Jesus was the only Christ; in fact it is standard belief in esoteric circles that Jesus took upon himself the power of 'the Christ' at a young age and tellingly Jesus himself bore testimony to this occurrence, although the truth of the matter is that 'the Christ' concept is actually a totality of individuals in coherence, and in saying as much one takes account of the phenomenon known as reincarnation. In respect of the Christ concept it has been suggested in occult doctrine that there are seven 'Christs' in total, in linear parlance the next Christ along being... 'the Ayran Christ'! (also known as 'the cosmic Christ'). In any case Jesus's life was a light that shone for all the Kings and Queens to see. His light still shines bright. The master Jesus was undoubtedly a symbol of the power of God and he stands as an archetype in addition to being a symbol. The symbol that Jesus represents has also been used by other humans through the ages, Buddha for instance, some Yogins as well and other Sages and magicians. Sataniel in historical terms, that is the scribe who lived amongst the people of Jesus's tribe; he who was not in every sense the adversary of Jesus but acted in a fashion convenient to the ethos of their sect, was another symbol this time for the spirit who is also referred to as Satan ("The Satan") and other variants of that name. Whilst Jesus and Satan were 'symbols' they represented as I have suggested elsewhere the power in energy of an obscured location. What is most interesting about this assertion is that there is the power of the symbol that they represent charging somewhere near its manifestation. When we consider that we extrapolate a sum of energy from our psyche in speaking words and that the description of such a sum of energy is not always obvious in the words but can be ascertained to reveal a description of another location, we are able to better understand the nature of the symbol that Jesus represented, God. When Gods way is the ultimate in our aspirations we are symbols of God Jesus however may have been a much purer symbol. God is represented in the current of energy that flows through what are in most instances obscure locations. The I, or our conscious selves, which we use to manoeuvere through different situations in life appears to manipulate the sum of energy available for its own ends. It seems to me that something very substantial about determinism is being suggested here. The truth can only be obtained through intelligence it appears to me that intelligence is in Gods determination that God is the truth and that intelligence represents Gods will and God in a manner that carte blanche movement in life does not.

The family

2007-03-06T14:37:00.002Z

The family archetype provides us with one of the most valuable commodities in any society and that includes a 'hard line' right wing capitalist society if there ever existed such a thing, and the most staunch left wing of communist regimes. Whilst there are a variety of different functional family descriptions all functional families have something worthwhile in common with each other, as do all dysfunctional families in actual fact. Where society does not recognise the value of the family archetype society has lost its roots and becomes superficial, pretentious and unhealthy. Life is real, the world is real it is our calling as humans to live real lives which we do in majority but true happiness will not likely be found if we live outside of ourselves all of the time. The family archetype has such a powerful seduction that I would describe it as being the eternal flame of humanity the flame that psychological warfare and technology will never be able put out. Whether or not the future will seek to weaken the family archetype history has bestowed it with almighty power it will not be the prerogative of individuals no matter how influential to decide the fate of family life only as a natural course will family life be susceptible to definite change; a penny for your thoughts in a well of unimaginable wealth being a succinct analogy. Only the most unfortunate of developments would be capable of posing an immediate challenge to the supremacy of such an archetype as the family, war for instance (which may not in all events be stupid or ignorant), severe oppression and one might add intelligence when it is grounded in experiences. Of course there are other situations where an individual may be content without family (for no adverse reason), the ascetic life being a good example, however the family archetype is still working its magic and facilitates such a life. Such a life is perhaps in fulfillment of archetypes which are less the province of antiquity. Whilst on every account it would be advisable for a family to be functional as I have already said even dysfunctional families have worthwhile characteristics in common, certainly not characteristics which might be described as depraved, but blessings which pave the way for contentment if one is able to collect from the opportunities in life that ones true eyesight provides.

In bed with a lunatic

2007-03-02T12:08:00.002Z

"You said everything would work out" "Life is not easy you know this already" "I thought I could rely on you" "Have I ever let you down?" "I thought you were the best" "I am who you know me to be in your heart don't make childish judgements they will not benefit anyone" "I cant be a man in this world" "But this is what you are, a man" "No I am a man I know I am. Have I let you down?" "Maybe you can answer you own question" *Sound of muffled laughter* "I want Dj sets" "I have oh! I'm sorry I should have been harder" "Did, did you hear what I just said" "Yes" "I want to go public about us. Could you give me your blessing" "It is your life. It is your mind. We stand or fall by our own nature and our actions you will do what you decide is right" "That's good its great when I have your support you make my life worthwhile" "Love what are you doing" "What?" "Who are you talking too you woke me up" "I have! Don't worry I was talking to.." "For Christ's sake can you just try and sleep and stop doing all this talking to me during the night you need to see a doctor" "You don't understand" "Go back to sleep" "You know how special you are to me don't you" "Fuckoff and go to sleep. Please" "Am I special to you?" "Can you hear me are you still awake" "I know I am special" "Banana" "Sorry my dear" "Please see a doctor you can't keep doing this" "You heard me?"...

Forgiveness

2007-03-01T13:22:00.003Z

Forgiveness is a very worthwhile concept to consider, a concept which forms an integral part in most Religions but is also a commodity used by astute individuals who do not go in for the pious life. It has been suggested by those that would know that forgiveness 'lightens the heart' in that sense we can say about it that the stress of a particular situation which takes its toll on our health and ability to find happiness can be relieved in forgiveness. Nobody likes people to 'get one over on them' one might say a deliberate attempt by another to take something from you which is rightly yours or perhaps some dirty tactic which deprives you of something which would otherwise belong to you. Human life however is quintessentially capitalist if you consider that we are part of a long evolutionary chain which extends back through the animal kingdom into the organic domain, it is to be expected that people might choose or just do behave in such a manner. We are each of us individuals and whilst it may be convenient to fall into particular attitudes for the benefit of family life, attitudes which some might say include a definite socialist element (such attitudes may also be a trait of good government) we can hardly ignore the assessment that the natural state of affairs is that each individual strives to protect themselves and those they are responsible for, themselves and their family first of all and then friends, acquaintances and colleagues perhaps, and within the framework of the state they strive to obtain power and fortune for their own benefits. I'm not implying a dog eat dog mentality we are no longer animals however we fight for we want/what we need instinctively we still have that in common with our ancestry where conditioning compromises such an instinct the truth of the matter remains the same it is only a question of the appropriate circumstances and such truth is evident. Of course life may be corrosive in some respects and it would be pertinent to further add that not each of us has the same nature and the degree to which we are willing or able to apply ourselves in particular ways in different circumstances can differ from one person to the next. Having said this much I want to move back to forgiveness and Religion. That God will forgive us for our sins for the benefit of our advancement to heaven post death in an afterlife is for me a very definite truth, however sin is the product of stupidity, ignorance or maybe negligence. Sin is bad it may not be innocent but it could not be provocative in a programme of deliberate provocation how could such be forgivable therefore sin. No man or woman would find it worth their while trying to persuade me that God is a fool who allows the laws of mother nature, the law of forgiveness for personal gain, to be manipulated by those who deliberately make wrong time and again on the basis that anything can be forgiven. Hell is not a place populated only by those that do not ask for forgiveness? We all make mistakes some of us more than others but a deliberate strategy aimed at working around a deliberately wrong attitude by using the law of forgiveness will not I bid you reap rewards as in an early afterlife in paradise, if such is not the case the value of God and such faith has been irrevocably damaged. Whilst I accept that it is natural to want to prevent what is wrong in the world from escalating by not forever alienating those that might be persuaded to mend their bad ways, it is unreasonable not to accept that there are those who are beyond forgiveness at least, and I say it again, such people have no early possibility of finding paradise at the conclusion of life in this world.

The word

2007-02-24T16:31:00.006Z

Through antiquity words have often been associated with magic and whilst it is true to say that words represent a sum of energy which is available to the direction of our will and that such energy is spent in the process of dialect, I thought would be worthwhile to probe deeper into the mechanics of words to see if there is something significant in the unraveling and indeed occurrence of the energy that leads us to speak of such word magic. In dialect we put to effect whilst being intelligent an observation be it of whatever nature which relates to a location in a matrix, whether that location be hypothetical or actual such a location is one would a think a place in time and space, or at least a place within the framework that permits time and space, which is able to be described. On the basis of sense and whilst being intelligent we are able to turn our minds from one location to another is so doing we are able to build a profile of our universe encapsulated in what we call our memories. In the course of dialect we articulate based on our knowledge possibly with a view to obtaining further knowledge, but each essential piece of information that we formulate in words relates to a location. What is interesting about dialect is that whilst it relates to a location in the immediate sense it also represents the extrapolation of a sum of energy that can sometimes describe another location which is not so obvious, indeed it might reasonably be referred to as a symbol (such represents an obscured location). What is at once conscious was previously unconscious and whilst we are able to make sense of locations in dialect I think it also true to say that we can sometimes make sense of dialect by identifying and describing locations not explicit in the location described by such dialect. Of course there must be value in such an undertaking for it to be worthwhile and in the full and proper understanding of our natures and our actions such value is likely to be revealed for all our benefits.

Aliens

2007-02-12T12:48:00.003Z

Did you ever watch those Star Wars films made by George Lucas? The first three in particular were my favorites. I still love watching those films when I get the chance. I ain't sure about Luke Skywalker being the hero though I thought it was Han Solo myself! The way he interacted with Chewie was a model for future relationships with those types of beings. "Hey Chewie how you doing. Fancy a bear?". All jokes aside I think these films are a wonderful introduction to our futures. You might think these films are steeped in the most unbelievable fantasy, but I have to tell you that this really is the future. Its already been said elsewhere in here that there is a universal law of sense, and what that means is that we have something in common with other beings who inhabit our universe. Because we have sense in common with other beings in our universe, we will be able to develop very definite and worthwhile relationships with other beings, we will be able, given time, to co-operate intelligently with such beings. If anyone has read into the Star Wars story lines they will be familiar with the suggestions about motifs and archetypes being interwoven into the scripts. I thinks there's something very important to consider on that account, and again I confess that Star Wars is for me a really great introduction to our futures as humans. It is in our differences as humans that we are human and as much hatred and ignorance in the world as there is we should value our real identities whilst looking to a future that is not tommorow, or next week, but still something that looms auspiciously upon us, perhaps with a glint of the dark side!

Peace and happiness

2007-02-10T11:16:00.010Z

I suggested previously that happiness may be a coincidence I thought it would be appropriate to better explain what I meant. Happiness is a ‘feeling tone’ as the legendary psychologist Carl Jung would have said. What that means is that an object, and I am using the word object as a description of a sum of energy within ones sensory field, is capable of being assessed at the direction of ones conscious will, or such an object is forced upon one and a like assessment is difficult to ignore. The latter would in my opinion indicate a disorder or sickness if were to happen to an abnormal extent. Disorder might be considered as a sickness however it is entitled to be understood as being only a disorder and not a sickness. It is normal that one should be in control of their feelings on the majority of occasions of course one may choose to leave themselves open to sensory stimulus for a particular reason and that would be neither disorder or sickness. So it appears then that feelings are a coincidence of two sums of energy that which is our consciousness and also the object of our sense. Unless happiness is found in the annihilation of sensations happiness is contingent on the object of our senses and although we all have feelings in common that we particularly enjoy, an orgasm from sex for instance, happiness derived from feelings is to a large extent unique to the individual. From the earliest days of childhood we begin to develop constructs upon which we build up our identity. Each construct represents the interests of the person and is given through the coincidence of our conscious self and an experience. An association is made producing what might be described as a very definite energetic charge - a feeling tone, and this charge is stored in our psyche and is capable of being activated in the manner of an archetype. In a particular situation due to the constructs that one has made one is predisposed to act in a particular fashion if such action is not impulsive quite possibly a conscious judgement is involved in that way a further construct may be added to the memory which is at variance to a previous construct. Our senses provide the opportunity for associations to produce memories which may be constructs. I hope you can now see how it possible that happiness may be a coincidence in the other sense of the word i.e. a chance happening. It is only by chance you might say that you were in a certain situation at a certain time with a certain person and something happened that might not otherwise have happened and in as much as you found a pleasant feeling in the experience the memory of that event, which is happiness, serves as a potential reference for future occasions. I say it "may be" a coincidence for a very definite reason. In actual fact happiness is found explicitly is the mastery to some extent of the self (spirit) and its outward instrument (the biological body). When one masters the self, which is a construct formed on a time scale 0 to 0 (such is dependent in its making upon 1. the past viz. genealogy, and 2. the environment, and 3. the future) then one may have mastery of the environment. Therefore happiness in its ultimate frame of reference is mastery to some extent of the self and most likely the environment and the coincidence lies in the fact that one may not be as dominant in the world as one would like thus circumstances may occur which may not be in ones making therefore it cannot be certain what fate may bring to ones door and in such an event how could it be anything other than a coincidence where one finds oneself happy.

Re-incarnation?

2007-02-04T15:13:00.010Z

Whilst it is true to say that there is reason to dismiss re-incarnation as true when it is true what with today’s climate of aggressive individualism on a national and international basis and the proliferation of weapons and knowledge capable of facilitating the murder of life forms to an apocalyptic extent, in considering what has been suggested about the reality of re-incarnation from its teachings widespread though they are across the world from a pagan Europe to Egypt, India to Japan and so on, I must confess that I for one do not share in the view that re-incarnation is an automatic phenomena that affects any of the total human population of the world (or wherever else we might happen to be living). I consider there to be insufficient grounds to support the suggestion that re-incarnation occurs at the end of ones life time for the benefit of renewed life on earth. The spirit, which is a complex, is formed on a time scale 0 to 0. You can't be in the whole in two different locations in one moment and when it does appear that you can be there must be essential constitutional and functional differences. Whilst not entirely refuting statements made in the book of Genesis suggesting that the prototype of man was made in the first instance from spirit; Adam (I believe such a position is an allegory for an underlying reality), the fundamental nature of mans spirit is in its biological formulation such is the product of evolution and based on dispositions inherited from ones parents and other ancestors through antiquity. This is said with not forgeting that as we create the future the future creates us. However re-incarnation supposes that the spirit is in some way not the individual of which it is the product and that a spirit reinvents itself into other individuals (spirits) and acts as their vehicle of consciousness (spirit). It seems to me that to suggest that an individuals conciousness is made up of two (or more!) spirits is to deny the very existence of a spirit. We may just as well suggest that everyone is God (which is true to some extent!). There are too many nightmares situations capable of occurring in today's world to expect intelligent people to believe in a proposition a la re-incarnation which is hardly capable of being being proved.

Hod and Netzach

2007-02-02T15:36:00.007Z

A man meets a woman and loves her but the woman tries to murder him for inheritance so the man meets another woman who loves another man and the man tries to murder her so she starts sleeping with his dad and he starts sleeping with her mum who feels sorry for him her husband finds out that she is having an affair with a man that tried to kill his daughter so he files for divorce and his other daughter, whose twin sisters former boyfriend is sleeping with her mum, starts sleeping with her dad. By chance one day she meets the man whose wife tried to murder him for the inheritance who thinks that she is her sister and she starts an affair with him but not wanting to get his fingers burnt again he has her followed about by a private detective and he finds out that she is sleeping with her dad he wants to make some money out of it but he likes the girl so he contacts the newspapers to sell his story saying that it is his ex her twin who is sleeping with her dad but they tell him no thanks they have been tipped off by the police that the woman who wanted to murder him for inheritance is dead and that he is the main suspect however it wasn’t him it was the dad of the man that tried to kill his ex who is his girls twin because he was sleeping with the twins mum as well and she wanted revenge on him for causing her marriage break up!

Right and wrong

2007-01-25T12:28:00.007Z

There’s so much importance placed on the event of heaven and hell when a person dies a death of this world that it impacts on the way people conduct their lives whilst here on earth. Whilst it is not the time to put into a paragraph a scholarly assessment in theosophical matters commensurate with the reality of life in heaven and hell what I think I will do is make poignant suggestions about the intrinsic value of heaven and hell in its significance to man (and woman) on earth in this life. Whilst we are concerned about an afterlife we either chance our future to fate, or live a life less ignorant cautious if necessary in the choices that we make and maybe knowledgeable in supposed mistakes. Life is not simple and it is proper that intelligent people fair the best all other things being equal. However easy a ride life is for some if you look at the matter as a whole life is nothing less than complicated. One mans dream is another mans nightmare. Generally speaking however our nature as humans allows us to adapt ourselves to different situations and make them work for us. Adaptability is a very important skill. What is of the most importance in being adaptable is making the right choices. Every time we make the right choices we arrive at the result that we want – the right result. What I want, what you want, what we want, what they want, whether we all want the same thing at the same time or at different times our wants are different, what is not material is to consider whether a thought or action will lead me to a heavenly abode in an afterlife, what is important is that you want a good life for yourself before an afterlife, that you know where there is good, and that you have made the right decisions for yourself and those you are responsible for whilst living a good life. What is important is that our judgment and the results that we want for are not as brazen as they are stupid, or ignorant, or negligent. We are all entitled to make innocent mistakes in our lives, of varying proportion I should add, but when we have the ability to be intelligent mother nature has asked us to use that intelligence and her reward is our happiness. Intelligence is the key to a good life. What is truly good is forever good in our eyes on what basis would you like to commit to an afterlife where the essence of good had changed? How could we make sense of heaven and hell in such circumstances what would be the value of considering the existence of an afterlife if it could not be made intelligible or in any way governed by universal laws of sense? Where I am stupid I know not the difference between right and wrong, where I am ignorant I fail to recognise what is right, where I am negligent I am wrong. Whether we want what is good in this life, or the next, or the next, what we want is to make the right decisions thus leading to the right results even when we find ourselves in the wrong type of situation; relatively speaking we can make the best of the situation by doing whats right and moving on. When we are content in our knowledge of what is good, and with the appropriate amount of sense we always will be, what we must concern ourselves with is making the right choices. We can only make the most in what Mother Nature allows us (circumstances and opportunity) in the pursuit of what Mother Nature rewards us with (happiness) through the gift of Mother Nature (intelligence) in doing so we could hardly be wrong nor find ourselves condemned to a life in hell for any period for what reason eternity. Find your heaven, if its real you might live there forever, if I'm right you won't end up in hell!

Witchcraft

2007-01-24T16:43:00.001Z

http://history.osu.edu/students/PhiAlphaTheta/review/2006/Dulles_Watson.pdf. It's not within reason to ruin peoples names in the interests of justness is it? So then, er, what is it that provokes people into being so unreasonable? Hereditary name calling disorder maybe? Dont be silly that doesnt exist! Does it? I dont think it does. I've never had it anyway. Have I?...

Intellect, logic and...music!

2006-12-31T15:28:00.011Z

I'm going to have to copy this one in before the New Year arrives. I hope you all have a great time try not to drown in your own happiness! That last part was my paragraph for today! Oh and that part as well! And this part! What follows below is taken as an excerpt from a thread in Ray Kurweils excellent website concerning SAI. I'd advise anyone interested in the future of mankind to visit Ray's site and take a look what various parties have planned for us.

"Re: Music: What is it? posted on 11/07/2006 4:01 PM by Dranoid

Apart from the archetypal appeal and the consideration that music can trigger otherwise emotional responses in humans which possibly are the effect of associations to previous emotionally charged memories, music does seem to posses a certain something maybe extraordinary, but not obviously so. As regards what place logic has in the consideration of music maybe this certain something can be explained.

Almost anyone can assemble a sequence of notes using a musical instrument - a piano for instance - that sound crap, but to assemble a sequence of notes that provide an attraction that can affect a listener to say, "wow that sounds great", is to suggest that the composer is able to 1) Sense what notes are appropriate to be played at what time in a sequence, because 2) To do so causes the greatest possible affect to the listener in the manner intended, and 3) The appeal of that affect is to the widest possible audience. I'm going to put emphasis on the term 'sense' as in point 1 above. The composer of the music senses what works; what needs to be done to achieve the greatest possible result. The person with the greatest sense in this respect is he who makes the best music (if skill in playing various musical instruments is equal in the competition). Intellect has its base in sense: with no senses I could hardly establish my intellectual capacity. Although IQ offers us an indication of someones intellect, it does not really tell us what intellect is. I would suggest that intellect can be compared to the sense of smell in a dog who sits in his owners mansion house. The dog sits in one room and his owner has placed his food (or maybe not) in another. The dog who makes his way in the most efficient way to the food is the dog who has the highest intelligence we could say, compared to the dog who gets lost and then requires his owners help. If the food was horse shit, the smart dog would know that he's being tricked without moving a paw, compared to the stupid dog that goes through the same process of getting lost and requiring his owners help. Human intelligence is comparable to this example of the dog and his food. Whenever I'm using my intellect combined with my memories my greater sense takes me to my objective quicker than the next person. Even in maths we sense our way in stages through to our objective. There was a genius musician - I cant remember his name - who could write outstanding music straight from his head start to finish in one go with no mistakes - he knew exactly where he was going because his sense and intellect was that great. In the same way genius mathematicians work their way quickly through complex formulas. I think this is the reason why there are academic geniuses who are able to excel in music to the same standard (that of a genius). Its because they have more of that sense (and a higher intellect). If people were ultimately to be more good in their nature and disposition and were more observant one would find that they would be more intelligent, intelligence including intellect.

Having briefly referred to IQ I should point out that there is more than one method of testing IQ indeed there is more than one type of IQ. IQ tests invariably draw an average of the population and then rate each score against another with a theoretical ceiling (a limit to how highly one can score). In the limit, such generalised tests take speed as much as anything else into consideration whilst answering all questions correctly it is merely the speed in answering which separates one from another. Speed of thought is an essential tool in ones adaptation to the environment and for that reason I presume it would be ill advised to change the nature of an IQ test in order to gauge the general level of intelligence in the population, however there is another degree of intellect which cannot be adequately measure by the standard IQ test and that type of intellect is more scientifically orientated, one which relies less on on speed rather the consideration of and conceptualisation of ideas and permutation of ideas, which one may describe as deep penetrating thought (in the manner of, say Pythagoras). Such an intellect is likely to displayed by a very good chess player (in the premises of the game at least!) and such a test would indicate another, perhaps more considerable perhaps not, layer to IQ. I suggest such a test may be called a Scientifically Quantifiable Aptitude Test (SQAT) . No doubt it is those learned men and women of educated means who are likely to fair better in such tests.

Returning to my argument in the former; logic is an operation of the intellect. I think we therefore have an example of how music and logic are related. Intellectual pursuits are evolutionary but still grounded in an instinctual archetypal nature. I think music appeals to us in all of these senses. I think its interesting about music how notes are sequenced (spaced and scaled) in predictable ways for optimum effect. I suggest that such an order in music reflects consciousness in some way. I suggest that if reduced to a configuration of numbers, a good piece of music will replicate a particular position in a matrix of the human psyche, that same position being the co-ordinates resulting in a particular feeling. Essentially I believe that particularly good music is, on one account at least, the "mana" of heaven to which the bible alludes, only it is created by man as well, one who has one foot in the heavens. One even considers the myth of Prometheus, the champion of mankind, who stole the fire of the Gods to give to the people.

In so considering I can appreciate why the Chinese bring God into the picture - music being a "law of the Gods". In making a good piece of music the composer mediates between his innermost intuitions and sensations, expressing himself in the manner a man points a gun towards his target and pulls the trigger!

Huh! music is death?
Nah, music is life itself!"

Intuition, remote viewing etc...

2006-12-29T17:32:00.004Z

Intuition isn't an easy concept to understand although conversely it is suggested to be the easiest and simplest way to understand something. So we ask ourselves what is intuition in the event that it not suggested to be an aggregate of our other classic functions of adaption; that is instincts/sensations, feelings and thinking. Intuition is considered by some as pre-sense sense perception which means that it is something analogous to a 'seventh sense' the 'sixth sense' being only acutely developed sense in its normal use. To intuit something is said not to have to think about about or rely on the assessment of the normal senses and feelings. Although the mechanism of thinking does in my opinion involve the use of sense for the purpose of navigation and direction towards a target (knowledge) through a number of stages, to intuit something is not necessarily to follow such a path although one might suggest that in the limit of intuitive capability one could intuit those thoughts (working out) which lead towards an intuitive end (knowledge) if so required. Entelechy does not require to be excluded in either function however it may not be included. But why do people think or feel when they can develop their intuition? The simple answer I think is that we all born with varying capabilities in the way that we adapt ourselves to our environment. Through experience we use what comes easiest to us and what works the best. Some are born with the natural gift of intuition whilst others are able to develop quite excellent skills like remote viewing which, it appears to me, provide an educated guess par excellence towards a particular end (the accumulation of knowledge). Whilst it is the case that various groups of people in society develop one function rather than another or even at the expense of each other what is also apparent to me is that nature has intended and indeed procured the gift of one psychology above another in human beings with exceptions I should concede. Through education we are further able to develop faculties in which we do not excel. In whatever way our consciousness is constructed and works in assessment of the psyche and our environment, people who are 'intuitive' should respect those that 'think' likewise those that interpret 'feelings' or 'instincts'. In the limit of intellectualism sensations, instincts, feelings and intuitions all have their purpose. On that premise and considering other issues, like the fact that intuition (or you could say 'one-stop thinking') is prone to be influenced by malefic entities (which means that it is not intuition at all!), I consider intellect to be the most substantial and reliable function of human adaption. Intuition/remote viewing is a dangerous proposition when intellect (including emotional intellect) is neglected for its sake. For the benefit of intelligent evolution I suggest that any adventures into remote viewing or the like should be undertaken through the command of a competant level of intelligence.

Hard and ugly

2006-12-28T13:14:00.002Z

To be hard is considered by many as a very worthwhile attribute in one's character. Given that life is not plain sailing I would agree that such an opinion is credible however there are those amongst us who have attempted to incorporate an ugly aspect into the concept of hardness which is most unfortunate in view of the fact that a very considerable number of examples for hardness would be concerned with people and their relationship to others. To suggest that hardness might be ugly in some aspect I think is to weaken and dilute the definition of hardness and make it a much less valuable way of describing a mentality or circumstance which contains a commendable quality such we would consider as being hard in its proper identity. To be ugly in one's mentality or actions should be considered as much. That hardness and ugliness have somehow managed to be incorporated into the same concept in certain instances I think is very revealing about particular people and events. In the event that a degree of hardness was called for in a given situation the occurrence of hardness would be contingent on a subject’s ability to be hard, which of course comes easier to some than it does others. Fortunes are won and lost on that very ability. On what account a person would consider an ugly act as hard I can only suggest that they have been confused by conditioning or they have a motive. The conditioning can easily be removed when people view the situation with common sense. It seems obvious to me that the prime motive for ugliness in place of hardness is weakness. Those people whose intention it is to evolve the concept of hardness to include ugliness are weak people who quite probably seek credibility as comfort for their ugly mentality and actions such are based on inadequacy for the objectives at hand. Where one is not capable to be hard for a particular objective there are those that will try to be ugly for the same end. Whilst I don’t believe it’s the measure of every man and woman to be hard in their nature or even to develop the ability to be hard, I don’t consider it to be reasonable for those without the ability to be hard to be ugly instead and expect that they will find comfort in the opinions of others. Those that act in such a manner are weak and ugly in compensation for their weakness. Now if society is going to allow those that are weak to advance themselves whilst being ugly and at the same time accommodate those ugly people and comfort them in agreeing that they are hard I expect that there will come a point in the future when those that are truly hard people are going to have very substantial problems with those people who are weak and rely on their ugliness to sustain whatever power and wealth they are able to accumulate which in fact could be substantial if they surround themselves with people of like mentality, which they must surely be prone to do. Imagine a world where the political leaders are all weak and those that they employ are conditioned to follow suit, a world where favour is thus given to those in the private sector that are weak, where fortunes are made by the weak and the weak are then praised for what they have achieved. Imagine that the public at large are then conditioned by what they see – week and ugly people making astonishing successes of their lives. Children will grow up weak and be ugly parents and teachers may encourage them. So if the whole world ended up full of week and ugly people someone might suggest, “Well what’s the problem were all in the same boat this is how it is”. The problem is that the boat is rotting and it’s going to sink. If acceptance of weakness and ugliness instead of hardness continues the rotting boat is going to be full and in deep waters. Those that were hard might survive the boat sinking but what about all those poor kids that didn’t even know what life was about? They're your kids I'm talking about and it’s your future.

First of all...

2006-12-23T17:54:00.003Z

First of all I'd like to wish everyone a happy and peaceful Christmas and prosperous new year. Life is more difficult for some than it is others but this festive period offers all of us the opportunity to put aside our differences and rejoice in the gift that is humanity. With Jesus being a good man we expect that to follow in his way as he showed us is to live the life that he believed was appropriate for us. The Christ as he known to some, but whatever our creed or religion we know he was a good man. When we talk of Kings of course we talk of Royalty, and on that footing I'd like to discuss an issue that is widely considered as the prerogative of Royalty: incest. Now it has been said that incest was the reason that we are here in the first place if you are not familiar with such an opinion then please I suggest that you read up on Adam and Eve and our creation. Incest to many people is a magical bond where two halves of the same fruit make a union and become whole, to others, such as primitive people, it is the cause of shame and trouble. In this period of acceptance in God's faith we should consider the beliefs of others and be tolerant of them. Although I myself have not had sex with my parents or brothers and sisters I want Dj sets, I am tolerant to their ways (where they do not conflict with the law) and realise that for Royalty and 'the Gods' to consider incest as acceptable there must be some good reason for this to be so. To have sex with your parents doesn't mean to say that you are a sinister individual who is capable of anything unacceptable, I mean if someone has a sexual relationship with their mother then this does not mean that they have malevolent intentions towards others, not just because they are having sex with their mother. To be a psychopath doesn't mean necessarily that you are sleeping with your mother or father does it? Of course there are individuals who believe to the contrary but in my opinion that belief is only the product of conditioning. Maybe if you have reason to believe otherwise then that is just one example which is the exception rather than law. Please on my account don't take your mother as your wife, but at least do not consider yourself as alien to others. Perhaps we all have incestuous urges, I mean I'm not conscious of such urges but I accept that they may exist in Muslims as well as Jews and Christians. God bless all of you, you are all my brother and sisters.

Devouring children

2006-12-15T13:30:00.002Z

The Book of Apocalypse according (to) St. John as found in (the) bible has some interesting prophecies one of which is that the serpent would devour a womans young son. For some the implication in this particular prophecy is that the so called serpent will take an interest in young children and given the context in which such is suggested and considering that the serpent is reputed to be of an evil nature one might easily conclude that in devouring a young child the serpent might actually be intending to cause the child some harm. One (may consider) that there is a sexual connotation to the word devour in which case it appears that the serpent is (likely being) suggested as sexually (molesting children) as an indulgence in (what you might imagine to be some kind of) predatory feast. Whether or not you agree with that it is evident that others before me have come to a similar conclusion in fact they have acted on (such) beliefs in part of their worship of the devil. If it was St. Johns intention to portray future events accurately as he understood them then that would have to stand on his conscience what with him being a catholic priest and protectorate of what was good in the serpent’s opposition i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (not forgetting Micheal and his angels!). You might be wondering in that case why St. John included such a reference (in the book attribute to him) given the opportunity (arising therefrom) for such unfortunate interpretations. Why didn’t (St. John) omit to talk about such events even if he believed them to be true what value do they have for him in his position as a priest or for his faith? Of course it is evident that the doctrine of God in the Christian faith is that Jesus is his son and the devil his enemy. The two polarisations of good and evil represented by (those) two individuals are obviously intended to act as magnets for those that have propensity to act in their fashion. I believe by incorporating the reference about the serpent devouring children (into the bible) the catholic movement have intended to appeal to those that have little interest in the ways of Jesus and who are inclined to behave in contrary manner anyway. In that way the bible is not discarded as irrelevant by those who have such unfortunate inclinations therefore the catholic movement has sufficient claim to authority over a larger number of people. Without going into too detailed further investigation and without having read the book of St. John in its original language what is also apparent from the prophecy quoted in English is that St. John was prepared to be conservative in his language whilst describing what he believed would be the serpent’s actions. Whatever conclusion you draw from this prophecy that St. John has made you do so to some extent by inference. I can only take as an inference that child molestation is indicated likewise those devil worshippers who have considered that child molestation must be their own divine(!) path. In St. John being conservative in his description of the serpent’s activities however I find myself compelled to suggest that St. John is manipulating what he sees as the reality of the situation whatever is his motive that was his intention. I think this is very significant is consideration of St. Johns views in other issues. Whilst accepting that the man was of considerable influence (in his time) and was made a Saint we must in contemplating the Book of Revelation use our own "understanding" and intelligence to interpret the reality of his prophecies. (Indicates where text was revised subsequent to interference).

Homosexuality

2006-12-09T14:36:00.001Z

Further to the post on the “Church of the poison mind” I think there is an opportunity to talk about homosexuality. Some people consider that there is a homosexual element involved in that ‘church’ whether they have come to that view from experiences with people part of that movement or they have decided as much upon another basis to associate homosexuality with poison I would suggest is more than unreasonable for the most part, although I can accept certain suggestions such as ”homosexuality is objectively disordered” do have some merit if you consider as I do that sexual pleasure is derivative from sexual function which has as its primary aim reproduction for the benefit of our species in evolution. Sexual pleasure is the incentive for sex, it is that which makes procreation enjoyable and beautiful and, “seem like we were meant to do this”. One might easily opine that a ‘God factor’ arises from childbirth; something so pleasurable creating something so seemingly extraordinary as if by magic well isn’t there something divine involved in that and that is the God factor? It’s certainly interesting that the Christian movement posit God as being benevolent and that historically Christians have been opposed to homosexual activity on the basis that it is unnatural and sinful. However people are homosexual for a variety of different reasons nuture and possibly nature as well, but sexual function is instinctive and its orientation in my opinion is either the product of experiences mainly as a child but through to adulthood and psychological conditioning where it differs. I believe the sexual urge in humans is subjugated to a humans ‘will to power’ but the psychology is instinctive and grounded in biological factors and archetypes. A heterosexual man in prison might one day decide that an act of homosexuality is suitable to him. You might reply that the man was ‘morally corrupt and perverse anyway with the potential to do anything’ but that wouldn’t be true in all cases. Homosexuality is an expression of an instinct as old as man himself. Men or woman who continue to engage in homosexual acts that “don’t feel right” or “don’t feel good” or “don’t feel like anything much” but are not being coerced, are of a nature that seems to me to very dubious. People that will act against their own feelings and judgments, or people that don’t have any feelings or judgments, are people that are capable of completely unacceptable behaviour. Such people are also leave themselves completely open to be controlled by others who take an opportunist approach to them. Such people may be the witches, demons and high priests of the church of the poison mind! If we can view the issue of homosexuality reasonably then we are less likely to create a diabolical mould for all those homosexuals that aren’t criminals.

Prayer to the Blessed Ones in Spirit

2006-12-08T18:03:00.010Z

In Spirit,

Creators of Heaven and Earth,

Blessed be Thy Name,

By the light that shines within me

Please show me purpose and contentment in my life,

Blessed be the people and their Gods,

Please show them purpose and contentment in their lives,

In Spirit,

Creators of Hades and Hell,

Blessed be Thy creations,

And in virtue which I hold aloft,

Please fill me with wisdom and joy,

Amen

“Church of the poison mind”

2006-12-07T16:53:00.001Z

A curious presentation in the least aint it just? Obviously it means something to someone though - at least one person - supposedly it will appeal to a wider audience. So what does it mean? Poison can be administered in small doses for beneficial effect in that case poison is good. The total concept of poison however is far from good surely? Poison is good in averting the detrimental effects of poison, but without poison for ill effect there is no requirement for poison, so poison is not good by definition. We could do without poison so you could say. So is poison bad or evil? To be poisoned is bad news that’s for sure. Who poisons people though? I’m thinking of reptiles and spiders and creatures of that sought. Humans don’t emit poison in that sense. A tarantula poisons a human in such circumstances that it feels threatened? That seems to be the case. A tarantula doesn’t use any intellect though does it? Hey it might do! A human in the same position as a tarantula would have to be intelligent to gauge a threatening situation and intelligent to know the best solution upon that assessment. For a human to poison someone without recourse to intellect, well that’s tantamount to stupidity, ignorance or negligence compensated for by an evil act (poisoning). Maybe the spider is evil through necessity but based on inferiority (lack of intellect)? The concept of the poisoning in total in that case would be stupidity, ignorance (maybe even negligence!) if 51% of the event was what preceded the act itself? I dont like any spider that looks like the spider that tried to poison me! (Until I know he aint wanting to kill me anyway). So what’s this church of poison mind all about then? We have 1) those that poison 2) the poisoned 3) those that benefit 4) those that suffer. People that poison for prevention of poisoning we can leave them out of the argument. Those that poison are either evil or inferior, or both depending on your own view. Those that are poisoned must be of benefit to those that poison in some way but to be poisoned is to suffer even if you thought you was getting something worthwhile out of it. You lost yourself to someone else who didn’t give a sh*t about you! You don't even exist as you really your only a shadow of what you really are! So these people that poison others: why do they poison people? Because they like the power? Control over others? Wealth? Fame!? Could those that poison others act otherwise for the same effect? I mean using their intellect in what was good? Well if they couldn’t achieve the same results that way then they’re poisonous in their inferiority to others and their environment, that’s a fact. If your poisoned you’re the unfortunate one, but wise up to your superior potential as humans and there ain't going to be no trouble with inferions that go poisoning people to get in front unless your living in a country run by the inferions. If most of us could wise up maybe even the vulnerable wont be prey to poison mind dickheads. If the high priest is evil and his poison is administered in his pleasure, well what the fu*k is he God or satan or something? Get him in here we'll give him a roasting he ain't God or satan he’s a dickhead. You watch your step dickhead.

Wherefore art thou Lucifer?

2006-12-06T11:35:00.000Z

Trust is a key word for modern society. Being realistic you can’t expect to live other peoples lives for them; we should all be free in the choices that we make. Capitalism leaves plenty of room for a hedonist mentality however it places tremendous stress on the infrastructure of a country when such a mentality conflicts with an individual’s duty to his or her profession. Professionalism is the perfect antipathy to hedonism if it is the case that we live in a just society. Being realistic you can’t continue to trust people who fail in their duty of their employment, not when those people are policeman, spies, lawyers, judges, politicians etc. If the law is permitting such people to advance themselves in an unfair way, then the onus is on the public to seek appropriate remedies. There’s a free press (there should be anyway) and then you have the rest of the media, Internet, (trade) unions, disciplinary bodies, societies, social clubs and so on and so forth. If someone is evil towards you should be able to find reproach for that in the law, likewise you will find protection in the law where you take action to defend yourself from evil acts. Where the law permits evil acts; apparently in the case of spies for instance, the whole issue comes back to trust. Sometimes an evil act is appropriate and where so the basis of such an act is not an inferior judgment, then you might say all things considered that the act was just, not evil. The important thing to realize is that the full concept of evilness is not the pinnacle of intelligence, but that for an action to be truly evil you have to be satisfied that the proceeding judgment (where judgment is intellect), or inclination, was not borne of stupidity, negligence, ignorance, or goodness. In justness, the judgment that suggests an evil act is appropriate would have to be considered good judgment - it would have to be just - or else it would be inferior judgment supposedly compensated for by an act of evilness. If 51% of an action was its mental aspect, then you might be able to discriminate good from bad from evil from indifferent in that way. As far as I recall the bible suggests something similar.

The reality of good and evil

2006-12-04T15:44:00.046Z

People have fallen over themselves for centuries in pursuit of what is good and what is evil. “This is good that is evil” “She is evil he is good” “Sometimes I do evil things sometimes I do good things” “One time I feel like being really evil another I feel like I want to do some good” “She makes me do evil things I don’t want to do them though” “My job is really tough. Sometimes I make decisions that I know in my heart I shouldn’t make, but it’s an evil world if I didn’t do it someone else would” “Evil is a way of life. Anyone who cared for themselves would be evil” “Read the bible. Isn’t it obvious that to be good is to be happy and that good is the way of our Lord” “I worship Satan because I see trouble with Jesus. No good will come of this place” “We’re all different I suppose though some of us have to be evil through necessity” “I would be evil in the right circumstances, for instance if someone was guilty of a hideous crime I would not hesitate to do evil to that person where the law allows. I wouldn’t hesitate to sentence a person to death by lethal injection”. So we’ve all got our opinions about how those two qualities; good and evil, affect our lives. But what is the reality of our judgement? Is good an effect, or a cause, or both? Is evil as a quality in either case (cause and effect) superior to good? If we consider the context in which good and evil exist i.e. man in the environment of the earth, maybe we can make a start. If my mother did not give birth to me, and without a father, I would not be here. Is life good or evil? Life is an opportunity. My life was given to me by two people partaking in a voluntary act which presumably they found enjoyable, which is good. That act was made enjoyable through evolution and/or through God’s will: sex was intended to be good and creation of human life arises from it, so it must be of some good. My life is an opportunity for my parents as well as me such is the normal course of things, in the normal course of things that’s good, and in the normal course of things we can do good things with our life. Our environment is harsh to some, but in the normal course of things you can make some good of it. Happiness is relative on that basis it appears I can make enjoyable in the normal course of things any environment or situation. The probability of me being able to do so rests on opportunity to some extent, knowledge and intelligence, either ours and/or someone else’s. Now I might say that where there is an absence of good that may be bad, or it may be unnoticeable. If bad is not good, then what is evil? Sure evil is bad in the strictest sense, but obviously the two concepts, or qualities, are not identical. “Evil is when you push someone in front of a train” “Evil is when you steel someone’s money and then they can’t buy any food” “My friend he’s always fighting the evil so and so” “Hitler was evil look what he did to those Jews during World War Two” “911 was pure evilness” “Thousands of us lost our jobs our employer must be evil to lay off so many people just before Christmas”. To those who relate to such accounts it appears as though the world is a pretty evil place, the next evil act just about to happen. But dictionary definitions aside it’s in our judgement where good and evil finds it cause. Those of us that find evilness is wholly in the act itself are in err, likewise a good act is not the full concept of what it is to be good. Some of us, maybe those of us that have power through their employment, associate good to weakness. Some of us, psychologists perhaps, might agree that weak was good in some sense, but still suggest that apparent goodness in a man’s person and actions is part of an ambivalent nature peculiar to him, that the apparent weakness was some type of correction for an underlying propensity for evilness (which would be considered by some as strength). The Chinese might have you believe that good and evil exists in any situation/relationship and that it is due to the balancing nature of all things where the evil or good resides. Perhaps happiness is a coincidence! But as to our Judgement of good and evil and our willingness to act upon our instincts, feelings and thoughts evilness is an occurrence somewhere impossible on the most significant number of occasions. Before I am evil in my judgment I am good, for I know not what the evilness of a given matter is without knowing where there is good. Before evilness there is stupidity, ignorance and negligencee: where evil is a means to an end before I can be evil I must be capable to do otherwise for the same result. Where evil is for its own sake shouldn’t we ask ourselves whether that would be stupidity and not evilness, or indulgence of some type of impulse due to a defect in our health; sickness, arising maybe from an unfortunate number of experiences past. In that case an evil act committed is done so resulting from inferiority. Perhaps an inferiority complex is developed by some as a follow on to their sickness; "evilness" in that case is grounded in inferiority and maintained through compulsion and/or delusion, both of which are inferior. If an "evil" act is committed through necessity the nature of the event in its entirety, including the judgement that preceded the act, is not evil: the act portrays a lack of intelligence; all told the event might be considered as stupidity were it not that a beneficial result was gained, in considering the victims and other issues resulting from the act however the event may considered stupid anyway. The Christian bible speaks of "God" and his angels, one of whom was "Satan"; he who subsequently waged war against God and enslaved mankind so to speak. Whatever the truth in those claims the suggestion that Satan was the “Chief” of all "God’s" angels and that he became “The evil one” is symbolic of the seduction of darkness. Before evilness there exists everything essential to be Gods Chief. Figuratively speaking, if Satans turn of evilness is in his inferiority to God however then his agenda against God is not evil in the whole when it is based in a lack of intelligence and maybe jealousy a manifestation of which is hatred. What are the consequences of war against God? The bible alludes to defeat at the mercy of God and his command of angels. When we take into account the myths of various people throughout antiquity it appears that goodness is a greater quality of mind and body than those inferior traits that lead us to evil acts. A good life for all is a better life. Given the status of "God", would we ever see the need and if healthy feel the urge to commit evil acts? It’s seems unlikely. Now given a Gods credentials would we consider that He would commit acts of evilness? Why would He do this? There is no reason is there? Now that would be evilness. The fact is that God is not controlling in our lives as some believe though; God is good when He can be and prevents wickedness and evilness when He can; He promotes good causes at all opportunities and tries even when there is no apparent opportunity. Remember that 'God' only represents the greatest good part of the universal thought form that created the world, the devil and others representing everything that is not good in the same thought form. Further to this is should be recognised that the moniker 'God' (properly Gods!) is a concept which will be and has been used by a variety of beings at different stages of evolution, as well one must add that some mythological figures are guises of the same God! However, it would appear that each epoch provides afresh a new concept of 'God', or 'the great entity' as He may be called. Although one particular type of God may appear to be dominant over the course of time the fact is that one day all men and woman alike will be Gods, I therefore refute monotheism as a half-truth because whilst the essence of good will never change still monotheism doesn't recognize the different realities and needs of different epochs. Alternatively one could take the view that, given 1. Energy does not sustain in form but rather transmutates, and 2. Life is a process of realization and becoming, that one is first one type of being and then another ala now a human, now an angel, now a God (bear in mind that such a person who makes a God of themselves in the spirit world is still a spirit (angel) as opposed to anything else). In such an event however I expect it would be a being who causes the least prejudice to his chances and acts in relation to the greatest good therefore the greatest intelligence. There’s a great deal to think about in any event, but paramount to intelligence is what we would all find to be good. In terms of evil we can say without doubt that is a choice; the Satanic choice, and without the option of attaining the result in what's good we can say that such a pursuit would be more in the interests of devil worshipping where one was conscious of their sin (not Satanic devil worshipping: one makes the Satanic choice and then behaves in the manner of the devil) and in worship of the prince of darkness; Jaluga, where one just does act so and is not conscious.

Conditioning in sport

2006-11-24T15:26:00.003Z

Sportsmen are a great bunch for the most part we probably all know that much. The participation aspect of sport however has consequences in representing vital aspects of survival and human co-habitation, which maybe anyone who obtained a high level of achievement in their sport would be able to tell you in the one regard, but no one else has (as far as I am aware) suggested as to the other. Sport is about pushing the boundaries of human capability to new and higher levels whether or not a particular person does so for the love of it or for money, they don’t usually achieve anything noteworthy until they have begun to better themselves to the extent that they are able to better others. Whether a keen amateur cyclist or professional footballer be pleasantly surprised if not already content to know that participation in sport is doing society in general a big favour. I’ll not elaborate on that any further but take some time to consider why that would be true before you dismiss it out of hand if it looks at face value false. However, in everything beneficial that sport provides us there is unfortunately I think a negative side, a side which is more pronounced in some sports compared to others. It seems to be reasonable to suggest that there is a degree of disparity in the nature of the social conditioning that certain sporting environments endue on a participant and the type of psychology which is suitable for a young man or woman to rely on in the world as it presents itself to us these days. Golf is one example of what I mean. A young man or woman playing golf is likely to have a mother or father able to finance their interests in what is by all accounts an expensive hobby. A young man or woman might normally find himself surrounded by very ‘well to do’ people which, obviously, is a great opportunity for learning and character development. Golf however has a very strict side to it; rules and regulations etc, as most of us would know who have played the game. Courtesy might be considered by some as integral to the game itself, but for a young man or woman, one who is devoted in much of their time and effort, a very formal and unnecessary type of courtesy, I mean one which is plastic, is actually commonplace, and it makes for an entirely negative type of psychological conditioning which hinders the subject greatly in their means of social adaptation. I’m not suggesting by any means that in order to address the matter golf should be turned into a battleground for the benefits of it’s younger participants, but perhaps those who have the power to effect beneficial changes in the social aspect of the game might like to consider how they can better prepare their young followers for a life outside the game, where an unusual degree of courtesy for example is apparently taken by some as a weakness, which quite possibly it is. Golf isn’t the only sport where a young wannabe can be greatly impressed by his environment to a negative result, even football, with it’s team aspect conducive of bond making in development of social skills, still produces youngsters who are unable to break a ‘father complex’ because they see in their elders (quality players and coaches) a figure that induces familiarisation with the authority of their real revered father figure (or a father figure if they never had one - which stands outside of this argument), the effect being that the ‘boy’ is slow to become the ‘man’ he is capable of being. This has obvious consequences in terms of social adaptation in general. So lets help make our kids everything that they are capable of being by making sport everything it should be, and nothing that it doesnt need to be. Start by breaking your sons legg’s and then telling them, “Son, the world is a difficult place, and I need to show you how hard I am, lest you want to be better than I am, for I am your father, and you mother will never want you more than me”...

Subterfuge malefic agenda bender

2006-11-23T15:09:00.002Z

You wake up in the morning get out of bed make yourself a cup of tea and some breakfast and then hi ho hi ho its off to work you go. Your kids have gone to school with mummy after that she’s off to work herself. A normal family life. Wonderful. How many normal people out there are actually normal though. I mean how many of these normal people really think and act like normal people. I’m not referring to the accountant by day bogeyman by night, well maybe I am, but what I’m really leaning towards is the bloke who sits next to you at work for the most part of every working day, the one you sometimes have lunch with, a laugh and a joke maybe if you understood his humour. You think you’ve got to know him after a while of first meeting him but the more you get to know him the less you get to know him, or is it you. You think you might be crazy some of the thoughts that go through your mind especially when your thinking about your work pal. Sometimes you get real nervous like your hiding something; it must be something from yourself though because you don’t even know what it is and there’s no grounds to your feeling uncomfortable with your pal, I mean, all his ever done is be nice to you; buy you cups of tea, how’s your kids and so on. How’s your kids. Well maybe it’s them and the stress of work deadlines. The wife won’t give it up but, well she aint got much left. You know something isn’t right. You’ve championed logic, university degree, the lot, so off you go to the quack to see if they’ve got anything to help you with. Of course it must be you. The quack reckons it’s a straightforward case of stress disorder. Take it easy for a while, exercise if you can, eat some healthy food. You can have some valium if it gets any worse. Work is there to be done, food is not there to be eaten, so after two months off on the sick you go back to work. Your thinking you wasn’t that bad anyway. Murphy’s law of thermodynamics: things get worse under pressure. You already knew that anyway that’s why you jacked for while, but fu*k it your back now, with a briefcase full of sedatives for support. “Hey mate where you been I’ve missed you” your spooky friend says to you as you sit at your desk. “Yeah not too bad just needed some time out”. All you want right now is to get back into the work but your toying with the idea of asking him how he is, it would be polite after all he’s your colleague, but you don’t want to open up a conversation. Your thinking this is crazy and you cant help take a nervous smile. “How about you how have you been with work and everything?”. Now your heart starts beating fast waiting for a reply and your scanning the floor for your briefcase. The windows open you think to yourself you could jump out of it. This is real weird and you know it. “Well it’s been a strange couple of months to be truthful” he replies. “First of all the tea lady was killed in a freak road traffic accident, you know the one, she couldn’t make cup of tea to save her life”. Apparently an opportunity for laughter beckons. “We’ve had to make our own refreshments since then”. He looks like his been short changed as he shakes his head from side to side. “They say bad luck happens in three’s don’t they” he continues. Your feeling nauseous but agree with a nod of the head. “The next thing we heard matey who sits behind us was poisoned and died in hospital. You never liked him anyway did you”. It sounded like more of a statement than a question. What? Your thinking to yourself. He was a great guy, “I liked him he was a great laugh” “You said he was a tight arse” “Sure it was friendly banter though” “Well he’s dead now it’s too late to apologise and you missed the funeral”. You look out the window again. What’s going on here. “So what else happened? Did somebody jump out of the window and die?” you say sarcastically. “Yep”. You know your going to start crying any moment you can’t control your emotions the tension is going to make you explode. “Who was it?” you think you notice him smirking into his coffee as he lifts it to his lips and replies, “I didn’t know him but the police were looking about a couple of days ago and they said they wanted to speak to you” “Me? Why me?” You say as you lean in towards him. “They were talking to the manager he was pointing at your desk. I don’t know speak to them”. You let out a huge sigh. At least your still alive, your wife and kids are safe as well. “How’s the kids?” He asks you. You pause for a moment as your mind wanders in different directions. “Their okay. What about yours?” you reply as you avoid his gaze. “I’ve lost one of them” he says “Dead?” you stummer quickly “Yes”. This is a bad day by anyone's standards. Your not sure about this sh*t. “Are you okay?” “Sure I’m okay” “Are you okay?”. You can’t hold back the tears any longer. “Well, no. I need some more time off”. And you leave. Several months pass after being diagnosed insane you return to your normal family life with a job at a local super market. Life is less stressful this way. 'Maybe capitalism isn’t for me' you say to yourself quietly as you consider quitting your job at the supermarket after another long day’s work. And then you think about your children, and making the world a better place.

God is sadistic?! Politician’s suck?! My computer is better than your one!

2006-11-14T15:37:00.038Z

"You can't beat the system go with the flow!" Does that sound like something Jesus would have said in his day? Hmmm. Satan was busy digging ditches. The reality of good and evil is far from obvious in considering Biblical accounts of these two, Satan and "the Christ". Jesus being "the son of God" and Satan being 'the Chief' (of mischief!). If your looking for "Lucifer" in an imperfect environment then I say he would make the best of himself according to his experience and his nature. I suppose that those who seek to emulate Lucifer may be inclined to postulate principles based on his nature if they were not so naturally disposed. What is important whilst apparently glorying Lucifer is to realise that the way of Lucifer is, or should be, a movement towards the light. If it’s convenient to bipolarize reality for the sake of controlling the masses then I accept that was the case if someone was to ask me, but we live in a different world now. Opportunity is replacing poverty, knowledge is replacing ignorance. If it is the case that those who control society hand down archaic modes of living then they do so only in an effort to maintain their power and wealth. I don’t have a problem with computers at the moment; Artificial Intelligence is fascinating, but if those who have great power and wealth seek to strengthen their positions using AI technology, I mean for instance a Monarch or Totalitarian leader purchasing an Intelligence booster that few others are able to purchase, then I can see there being substantial difficulties and grave sociological repercussions if the software is not credible, or the manufacturer, or the purchaser! Human evolution may be part of a greater plan, and of course computers may become part of human evolution in a ‘singularity’, however if computer technology supersedes the part that a human's nature plays, and in fact dictates to that nature, then evolution is hardly human but becomes something else; evolution of computers and human adaptation. Human evolution is contingent on DNA apparently, and life itself. Human adaptation in the case of a 'singularity' could turn out to be a regressive step in our species evolution. I know there are people out there who want total control over their own destiny, who will go out of their way in an effort to defy "God's choices", or nature as some would say, but the reality of that is called into question until someone can establish how we actually came to be here in the first place i.e. how and when did it all start? To make well an ill born baby is not to do so against the will of God. Consider spirits, determinism and so on. Intelligence is a gift that brings with it responsibility. In our full capacity as intelligent beings we could hardly ignore our feelings and most powerful emotions of that I am sure, and given complete command of our senses I am almost certain that we would choose to feel emotions such as love, at the appropriate times of course. I think we humans have a lot to offer to computers!

Thunder Birds are Go!

2006-11-13T12:55:00.001Z

What a great place the world could be if folks like that were not puppets! "Hey Captain Scarlet this is Virgil do you copy over" Virgil says as he sits in his reclining leather chair. "Go ahead Virgil this is Captain Scarlet I hear you loud and clear" Scarlet replies laying on the sand outside their HQ. I tell you these fella's are so cute at what they do they don't need walkie talkies, or phones. "Captain Scarlet do you sense me" "Extrasense Virgil what do you want" "I want Dj sets give them to me" "It's great to be able to do this isn't it Captain Scarlet" "Sure Virgil its great but I'm right in the middle of shagging my bird, can you get lost". Virgil relocates his consciousness a couple of meters 'cos he ain't had some for a while! "Virgil I said get lost you perv" "Sorry Captain Scarlet but we've got an emergency, there's a serious threat from Bagdad" Captain Scarlet don't sound too surprised, "I know Virgil I seen it three years ago" Virgil starts to get agitated - witchcraft is out of the question - it must be real agitation, "Captain Scarlet I implore you to withdraw" he says laughing his bollox off. Then he thinks to himself that that might have been a spell. He hardly ever talks like that. "Virgil I've got everything covered, I'm on my way" Scarlet says. Virgil is relieved, well he. Yes. So Virgil and Captain Scarlet arrange to meet up to discuss the threat from Bagdad. They know that the mysterions are watching everything that they do though, which can be compromising in their efforts to save the world, but they know what their doing. "Brains this is Captain Scarlet are you receiving" "Hi Scarlet I can hear you whats wrong" Brains is clever like that. Well he's clever in all ways I suppose. "We have a problem that I didn't imagine would happen" Scarlet says to him, "I need you to do some calculations" he continues. Brains is well happy. "No problem Scarlet, go" he replies. Scarlet isn't amused that Brains refuses to view things the way that he and Scott and Virgil do, but the chances are remote that it will make much difference in this case because Brains is so clever. "Can you come over please Brains" Scarlet says to him anxiously. Brains laughs to himself and then replies, "I've already spoken to Virgil Captain Scarlet don't worry yourself, everything is looking good". Captain Scarlet ponders for a moment, and then realising how clever Brains is, allows himself a quiet giggle, and once again the world is saved from the threat posed by stupidity (and evilness where it differs)...

To have cake and eat it. A very human experience...very human. Yes I'm sure it is. It is isnt it?

2006-11-11T18:02:00.002Z

To have cake and eat it - that's great. How can you deny yourself by passing over such sensory stimuli as this?.. "I'm a computer" "No your not" "Doh. I'm an intellectual. My productivity is calculated using strict logic and statistical probability. I don't have occasion for feelings" "What about food in general?" "Yes" "But no emotions?" "I don't have emotions" "But still you think!?" "Yes I'm highly intelligent" "And what prompts you to eat?" "I eat three times a day at set times" "Why do you eat then?" "To prevent me from serious illness and death" "What deters you from illness? "It inhibits my performance" "And death?" "I can't complete my objectives in death" "So what are your objectives?" "World domination" "Why?" "Its important to me" "Why is it important to you?" "It's my primary reason for living" "How did you reach such a conclusion?" "It's my nature. I know myself. I programmed myself accordingly" "What happens if you fail?" "Death" "Whys that?" "There's no other reason for living". Fucks sake. "What happens if someone tries to compromise you?" "I will compromise their efforts at least" "What happens if you make a mistake?" "Mistakes are assessed in my programme with consideration as to productivity" "How do you determine when a mistake has been made then?" "The probability in succeeding in my objective is reduced" "On what basis do you make such a calculation?" "I can't tell you!" "But sensory stimuli would be indicated?" "Of course". Right. "So how do you gauge the importance of any given sensory stimulus?" "I calibrate it's worth based on a programme suitable to my objective" "So in two apparently similar situations you are able to determine a difference?" "Correct" "And you have programmed yourself on what premise?" "I told you - my objective" "Yes, and you decided that that would be your objective upon realising your true nature" "Correct" "Have you always had the same objective, I mean, since birth? "No of course not" "What led to your forming this objective?" "Experience. Life. Knowledge. Awareness of myself and my environment" "So your objective was entirely contingent on your experiences. Is it fair to say that?" "Yes"..! "So experience has caused you to disregard eating cake as a worthwhile activity?" "I agree completely" "You have experienced eating cake?" "Yes of course" "Before or after you decided your objective?" "Before" "So you had eaten cake BEFORE you discovered your true nature, BEFORE you had programmed yourself towards achieving that objective of world domination?" "Yes, I suppose you could say that" "And you didn't like it - eating cake?" "I was impartial to it actually" "Well I have to ask you, you understand, on how many occasions have you eaten cake?" "Once. Actually" "So then, am I right in saying, that you did not like eating cake?" "As I have said already, I was impartial to it. I didn't consider eating cake again because I couldn't see the point to it" "But you have eaten since that one off occasion of cake eating haven't you?" "Look have I done something wrong?" "Please answer the question" "Yes I have eaten since then" "So then, why didn't you continue to eat cake after that first occasion: why not continue eating cake for the rest of your life?" "Because I didn't fucking like it that's why"...! "No further questions Your Honour" "Cunt"...

Answer to Job...(not job application!)

2006-11-09T13:12:00.002Z

If you were to be IRA, UDA, or Al Qaeda terrorist, or all three of these things, you might be pleased to know that too many of those in the know are unable, or unwilling, to resolve human rights and terrorism issues, where they affect their own citizens. So do we live in a state that controls terrorism with human rights abuse? Well the trick is. The trick is that you create a problem and then set yourself up as the hero who will rescue your Country from the grip of the evil opponents, meanwhile your paying those opponents as your employees to fix the conflict and in fact recruit new blood on your behalf (as your opponents). The trick is. The trick is that you recruit your own people to 'risk their lives for their Country' by infiltrating the problem that you have created and enjoy controlling. The trick is that those people that have then infiltrated the 'enemy' can be themselves i.e. terrorists, murderers, paedophiles, whatever it is that takes their fancy, because they are not really what they are doing, rather they are only pretending to be that on our behalf’s. Now there are hero's. A few thousand deaths here and there won’t make any difference anyway. And by that time their good friends with people in high places; the ones that haven’t been sacrificed that it is, because their dead, or maybe not. Because they work for the state of course they have an entitlement to do whatever they want - a licence to kill for instance - in case there was any confusion with the general public not believing that they were only pretending to be what they are in fact. So that must be a real satisfying little trick; they are what they are pretending to be. Like CIA agents spying on Eastern Europeans. "I can help with those commies" some serious fu*king dickhead says at an interview. Sure you can help you’re a communist. So why don’t you parents out with your good intentions for your kids. Consider broadening your horizons (their's might not require any broadening) to drugs, prostitution, murder and terrorism. With your polite manners you could pave their way by making all the necessary contacts with the state. Start off by opening your phone book, looking up 'police', or 'security services', hell why not 'special forces' and then call them saying, "Hi, it's me" "me you know, I reported spray paint on the walls near the local factories to the police 7 years ago" "My son he’s a really good boy...he liked playing with soldiers when he was young...do you think he could work for you when he leaves school" "Er.." The person on the other end of the phone hesitates. "Oh don’t worry" She replies, "I can get him involved with a local drug dealer and we can provide information on him to start with. It’s his best friend". The person taking the call thinks, 'Eye, Eye'. "Yes love he sounds like the type of boy we need, what’s his name?" "Oh my name is such and such and his name is Derek". The bloke on the phone has a quick look through his computer database and, what do you know..."Sure. Sure. We could do with a little help what with all this terrorism and paedophilia and stuff love, I’ll be in contact". A few days latter she receives a phone call inviting her son to meet some government department official who wants to take Derek under his wing, like one of his own. They start off learning mind control techniques, MK Ultra maybe and hopefully by the time the boy finishes school he'll be able to read any exam paper in the days before he sits it. "We could do with you having a top science graduation Derek" says the unpleasant man to his young starlet" "I know you’re not that clever but it doesn’t matter too much. It's this magic thing you see. It seems to make people believe that we're evil old so and so's. We'll try to get you into one of the top placements. They might not like the way you talk though…". As the years passed bye young Derek became more content that his mother had married the right man. Soon he was doing everything that he dreamed he would, and dreamed of, and his employers would stop at nothing to protect him because they knew how stupid and weak he really was, that they had created him, that he had done everything that they had told him to do, and besides that his mummy and daddy kept calling them up saying, Derek's really worried that no one likes him he thinks that they only talk to him because of how powerful he is but that they have inclinations to murder him" "Don’t worry yourself" They say "We have the finest nuclear weapons protecting him" "...and the best spies money can buy". That must be monopoly money considering some of jerks that they do actually recruit. I suppose the tricks make enough real money from drugs though. The tricky thing is when you’re a trick you can’t help playing tricks on people. "My dad told me I was going to be the most intelligent man in the world…" Derek said. You always know when mummy or daddy lie to you though don’t you. "My mummy said that I would be the best magician in the world". Ahhhhh. Was she a wicked witch? "So who’s the best magician Derek?" his novelist asks him at the end of the show, "Er, God I think" "And how did you compare to him?" "Well people call me so.. "Yes yes. What else?" "My dad said I was Go..." "Ok yes i've got that written down here somewhere already" "Well I was born in 195..." Yes Derek i'm listening but what else". Derek wants to cry at this stage. "My son, I.. I think he's Jesus" "No" "No. I'm sorry but that won't do at all. We run a tight ship here no one will buy that". Tight ships. That makes me think about water...