Josh Young

In reading Crowley I found very few people that he had nice things to say about, and a lot of slander about others. But then the guy was a pedophile and a liar, so I don't think highly of him. Have you read his Autohagiography? I think that was his best work, though I have read most of what he wrote.

Delusion, greed and ill-will? Fascinating stuff. I've seen it a lot in nature. Plants sometimes release chemicals that harm competing plants, this is indicative of both greed and ill-will. Should we condemn plants? Many insects, including ants are for all intents and purposes greedy and harbor ill will towards competitors. Since delusion is just a complex form of mistaken belief it could be noted that if you play fetch with a dog and pretend to throw the dog will often be deluded into thinking that you have thrown. The dogs experience and expectations delude it into thinking that the patterns hold true, when in fact they do not. So how can plants, and animals overcome delusion, greed and ill will? By following the teachings of Buddha? What about a crystal? When it grows it absorbs all of the elements that fit into it that it can find, this is akin to greed. Even the rocks around us cannot escape their natures. I find them to be identical notions actually. Descarte says that I exists because of thinking, thus it does not exist independently of thought. What is this other than the realization that identity is an illusion as a function of mind/thought? It is self evident and both Buddha and Descartes, and many others, are aware of this. Yes if it is a true philosophy and not something passed down. One must understand, not receive, the information. Often the reception of information entails it not being understood. The key to this is the self evident nature of what constitutes the Enlightened Philosophy.

Crowley rarely had nice things to say about people. Someone I met online said that their parents used to take LSD with LRon and that his drug experiences played a major role in the creation of the organization .

I have many beliefs, but I neither rent nor own them, for what "I" is does not exist independently from my beliefs. Can a belief own itself or rent itself? Can a belief have knowledge? I is just something I believe. Knowledge is an illusion to me. I have no knowledge and am incapable of knowing because I am a human being. I am incapable of owning anything, for how can a belief own? My body cannot own, for bodies exist in death and ownership does not. Nor can my identity own, for my identity is a belief construct and does not actually exist and so cannot own anything. I am bewildered by the meanings of the words most people use. Concepts such as knowledge, I or identity and ownership all strike me as absurd and delusional. Perhaps I am absurd and delusion, alas I do not, and cannot: know.

Where is the line between body and self? And what is self?

Inclusion creates exclusion ergo loyalty to an ideal entails rejecting other ideals.

Nature is all that exists. Not even nothing can be unnatural.

Don't cell phones just use radio waves? If they are bad then so much technology is implicated it isn't funny.

Of the forms of Yoga, there are many, of the goals of Yoga, there is but one. This is found in the name Yoga itself. Ponder this well and you shall have your foundation. I suggest doing Japa yoga first.

Almost all of the information I mentioned is plain to see right out in the open stuff, except I have a few years of college in the field of biology including genetic among other courses. A lot of it is what i consider self apparent, however people tend to take things for granted, particularly what they hear as a claim from others. Basically I have spent some time considering the nature of physics and interaction, and time and have my own beliefs and observations. Linear time is fundamentally a memory of experience, while experience and events themselves occur in a singularity we call now, despite our memory of this experience being linear, the nature of it is instantaneous, or very nearly so. There is a subjective obstacle to the nature of time, due to the linear perception, however upon reflection the singularity of the moment of now is constant and ever present. But about the DNA, it is a living crystal molecule, it is going to crystallize it water and correlated sequences have the strongest attraction for eachother. Salt will often conform to a specific shape, often a cube, because of this type of attraction, clearly salt molecules must travel immense distances relative to their size to aggregate together is a symmetrical mass. However shall we say that salt is telepathic?

The odd part is the leap of the idea to the theme of telepathy. It is clear that the sequences of nucleotides are not changing order. What is happening is that single strands are pairing up with complimentary strands. What is noteworthy is the relative distance at which this occurs. Viruses self assemble as well. So do crystals when they grow. This type of attraction is not well explained or defined, however I have my own theory for it. Sadly it involves no telepathy. Instead it involves resonant and dissonant properties and the realization that time is non-linear and particles are only a combination of resonant and dissonant energy in a pattern/structure. This explains uncertainty and say that despite the theory of relativity being sound enough for splitting atoms, the graviton will not be demonstrated to exist. This also says that atomic particles are resonant charges, not actual particles, thus the electrons are actually just wave energies that can be altered (reinforced, absorbed or dissipated) to various degrees depending on the harmonic resonant stability of the atom. The basic premise is that a type of harmonic attraction is essentially gravity as well as the type of attraction that facilitates the growth of crystals and the aggregation of nucleotide particles. This also means that too much dissonance in the structure and the resonant mass will disperse charge, this is radioactive decay. Likewise if the mass is unstable it can have resonant energy put into it to cause a total dispersion, this is breaking the atom. Because there is dimensionally a lack of space time as an independent phenomena(from energy, mass is a harmonic property of energy)the relative positions and time related to movement of individual molecules leads to misunderstandings about the nature of time space itself. In a manner of dimension there is a constant singularity in which time/space is not differentiated, we call this the big bang and insert it into a linear time theory based on the measurement of light. However there is the time space connection of this big bang event with now, this implies that the bosonic singularity still exists now, but down the time line so to speak, which is relative to observation. This theory also implies that instant events are possible, this would result in data suggesting faster than light motion and travel. The present theory of relativity should have some difficulty with this if I am not mistaken. More interesting to me is that this also implies that quantum mechanics is slightly off, because it is looking for particles when they are artifacts and do not exist. In other words reconciling quantum and physical mechanics is not difficult at all. The theory also states that no mathematical model based on linear relationships can fully represent the reality of the situation because the reality is not linear. A model employing the value of instant velocity is required, however in a linear model this becomes the value of 0, so we must instead insert the fastest practical value we can find and then state that we cannot be exact, we can only approximate. This value is light-speed and the author of the theory of relativity did indeed qualify it as approximate and mathematically incapable of being exact. Anyway fields do not end, they only fade. The resonant fields of the DNA interact and due to their harmonically complimentary relationship the converse while dissonant strands either diverge, fail to converge or converge at a slower rate than complimentary strands. This is also why snowflakes are symmetrical, the bonding of water molecules involves field interaction, which allows arrangement. What is really neat is that your mind and thoughts which co-occur in now can have a profound influence on the organization of matter. There is in effect no boundary between you and anything, we literally are all one with the universe. This means that everybody is playing a role in shaping things as they are.

I agree there.

The most important thing is to keep in mind how trivial it all is.

In general I agree with the first post, however perhaps if we adapted the argument for ants, and colonies for cities, specific aptitudes would rear their heads to show that we are acting according to nature itself and deserve no overt condemnation for doing so.

I always wanted to know why confidence is associated with aggression. I feel that some types of behavior associated with being confident are actually not related to being confident but instead fulfilling the expectations associated with confidence. I suppose that is to say that I view there to be two types of confidence, true confidence and behavioral confidence. So then those who act according to the expectation of confidence frequently through such action betray their fear which compels them to behave in the manner of what they believe to be a confident person would behave. This is sort of like how people who act confident and strong are often inner cowards and people who act passive and weak are often quite confident. A person with true confidence does not have to fulfill the expectation of confidence, while a person who is not confident does not comprehend this and is compelled to act confident as a means of convincing themselves and others of their own confidence and self assurance. This is one of those areas where up is down and black is white. If you know what i mean.

I'd have to stop doing Japa when I walk to ponder what others think about me so I don't know. I doubt people stare at me that much, but I avoid eye contact and do not look at other people in general so I do not know. I only walk to get from one place to another, as a matter of fact I do not drive nor have I ever. I dress for the weather and for the activities I plan, not for giving impressions. I bet I give some people the impression that I have no fashion sense. To a degree yes, and I care what others think of me. However I do not make my life choices based on the expectations of others. So in comparison to most people; I do not care what I look like. I care more to wear clothing that feels correct than to wear clothing that looks correct. To some people I am sure, however I can use my image to weed out people like that so that they will neither talk to me nor think of me as their equal. I much prefer being left alone and underestimated. When all the world knows beauty as beauty, this in itself is ugliness. The more things change the more they stay the same. Do not oppose the way of society, but neither should you seek to please society. I am my own society, my own approval means far more to me than that of others, but I am not anti social in every sense for here I am.

The title of the thread says it all. Alex Jones is about using fear to control and influence people. I think of him as a fear pusher who is working against the people. His agenda and solutions are questionable. I think his role is to undermine the credibility of questioning the government while drawing out into the public those most worthy of government supervision in terms of the threat to power that they potentially represent should they gain any real credibility. He is a propagandist of sensationalism without any meaningful solutions and is far from what I would call an enlightened being.

I do not understand the idea that some emotions are negative or others are positive. No emotion lacks place and purpose. I do not seek to control emotions, nor to dwell in them. I let them flow in a natural manner and I am comfortable with the full range of emotion. If I would offer that there is something worth controlling, so to speak. I would dare say it is no more or less than preconceptions. These need to be surrendered to now in exchange for clarity. Then the burden of preconceptions is lifted and emotional states become simplified. However as concerns emotion, to all things there is a season. There are no negative emotions and all emotions have their place. However no emotion entails a type of action, so being displeased is not the same as acting displeased. Being angry is not the same as acting angry.

I've faked it before and been accused of it too. I don't believe in it per say, nor doubt it per say. I have just seen no evidence of it. People still get burned as witches in some nations, a recent case i read of was in Africa where a boy who was epileptic was thought to be bewitched so 5 innocent people were burned alive. This is the way that the early colonists of the US thought and many innocent people were hanged, drowned or burned alive here too.

I know recalling a governor is a joke, but it happened last time California couldn't balance the budget. My comment was meant only as humor. I have studied Lovelock for about a decade now. Largely in relation to the Gaia Hypothesis. I disagree with him about a few things, including carrying capacity for the earth. The tenants of his own gaia theory involve auto-regulation factors in the function of the biosphere, if this is true then there is no fixed carrying capacity for earth due to the ability of the earth to adjust in a responsive manner. Ontology is everything too, at least to my point of view. Living the way many developed nations do is fundamentally immoral (my 2cents), so the carrying capacity of the earth in terms of such a lifestyle is irrelevant. If we take into consideration that currently the majority of the population is domesticated into servitude for the minority of the population, than social structure is as important a feature of sustainability as population. Different societies are not equal in their energy requirements per capita, for this reason there cannot be a generalization about carrying capacity of earth without specifying lifestyle and social structure. The topic is not separate in promulgation of ideals, from the topic of class and caste division. Moreover I believe that planetary factors involving biosphere regulation are such as that our population remains subject to them, ergo we are not outside of ecology or evolution.

I believe that depends upon the agricultural paradigm your ontology entails. How much energy gets wasted on resources that have no role in ensuring our existence? We fail to invest in ourselves. Just recall your governor...

The use of the Dorje as a physical weapon is mentioned in vedic scriptures where it is called a vajra. There is also a move in some martial arts called the vajra Pestle, also called Buddhas warrior attendant pounds mortar. It can be used for throwing, striking with impact, trapping and putting pressure on sensitive or strategic points. It is used essentially as an extension of the body and most movements of the body can be adapted for use with one. The types made as religious symbols are neither designed for nor should they be in general used as weapons, however there are in general two types of this weapon categorically: 1 types that have sharp edges that will spill blood, 2 types that have blunt edges and will not spill blood. There are several designs of the weapons some of which can be seen in old statues but no longer appear to exist in extant forms. Of the sharp types there are four basic forms, axe like, dagger like, claw like and spike like. Of the blunted forms there are often fused claw like designs with multiple protrusions. There are specific symbolic qualities incorporated into the dorjes/vajras that vary according to the manufacturing tradition, however the basic design is rather well conserved. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but celestial weapons is a subject of study of mine.

would you not first require a machine to separate them?

My opinion is that right and wrong cannot exist independently of a situation or a context and that it is useless to try to conceptualize them in an overt way so as to apply them coherently to all situations. Apparently not even God can follow the commandments. I believe that people are, in general and with some exceptions; able to perceive what is correct in terms of the situation they find themselves in, and so I find that right and wrong exist in most people in terms of a personal awareness entailing an undeniably psychological and potentially psychosomatic accountability. More than this I believe that forms of psychological compulsion towards standards of behavior exist in many animal species, in social animals there are organizations of power and social function that inform the expected or ideal behavior of the individuals and the group, moreover individuals that fail to meet social expectations in animal species are often subject to attack or exile. That is to say that in context right and wrong even exist for animals, according to their own perception, situation and insight, all of which can vary profoundly. However the rules of social animals do not apply uniformly to the individuals in a group, what is correct for a leader of a group to do is prohibited in many cases for the general public to do, so to speak and in the enforcement of authority of all animals: might makes right. The same cannot be said of cooperation which cannot always be coerced. Bad rulers are often overthrown in social animals and so there are special rules which leaders must follow when they are socially accountable for their actions. Still in the case of the leader or the mob that removes a bad leader from power, might makes right and history is always the version of events according to the victors whom invariably claim (and believe) to be the good guys regardless of any other factor. I am sure that this seems long to some of you so I'll cease for now. The subject has interested me for a long time now.

There are good ones out there, for sure. But I recall the playground, a place where I saw the evil side of our species in its pure form and I know that those monsters grow up. Some of those people you surely met while in service of your country are such creatures. To me war brings out a persons true soul, there are those who would say that their capacity to harm others was a product of terrible conditions, but I know men who went into those conditions the same as they came out, excepting a case of Gulf War syndrome. I also know men who have joined because of their thirst for blood and battle. Those with good hearts go in and come out of the service with good hearts, while those who lack them cannot find them in war. If you have served recently can you mention the use of music as a combat motivator for our soldiers and what type of music it is?